This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
It has been recently claimed at Talk:Acupuncture. Does WP:BLP apply to talk page posts like that one? - MrOllie ( talk) 21:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Seems legit. No hint that these are all fantasy. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
is related. "Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine" is a reliable source? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
New article which probably needs expanding and fixing. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Could use more improvement. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 21:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks like the source of the runes may have been discovered.[ https://k-blogg.se/2022/12/11/kensingtonrunorna-kom-fran-timra/] Doug Weller talk 15:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
See Talk:Garrett G. Fagan. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Single purpose account [2] edit warring on Steven Gundry and his talk-page and related articles (Lectin-free diet). Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
There are some current disputes at Dietary Guidelines for Americans that have spilled out onto red meat. User Sbelknap on Dietary Guidelines for Americans has been adding low-carb advocates Nina Teicholz, James DiNicolantonio, Gary Taubes, Zoe Harcombe, Mark Hyman as references on the article. The same user has said on talk-page that they are reliable sources and I am doing original research by saying they are not reliable. Gary Taubes, reliable? Really? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the contributions of a new fringe editor I noticed this section which could use some work. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polonnaruwa (meteorite) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The subject is an alleged meteorite, described in fringe journals, whose status is disputed. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 10:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
At the very least the lead needs revising. See [5]. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Compound Media ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Some more eyes may be needed on various pages associated with Compound Media, which has ties to Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes; there have been large additions of poorly sourced content to a number of the articles in the last month, generally cherrypicked, self sourced or unsourced. An indeffed paid account made some of the large edits about Compound topics, though not the Compound Media page itself. I have been involved in some disputes over the additions and NPOV questions, so new editors could be helpful. Llll5032 ( talk) 00:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Acupuncture discussion has escalated. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
A case request was opened about 48 hours ago at DRN concerning acupuncture, and I closed it for various reasons, one of which is that there is a consensus in Wikipedia that acupuncture is not medically effective. The filing editor is continuing to ask questions, and so I will ask questions here. Just to be clear, I am a skeptic about forms of so-called alternative medicine, including acupuncture, and I know that Wikipedia is skeptical about so-called alternative medicine, but I would like to be directed to where that consensus has been established.
So, first, will someone please point me to where the consensus has been established that Wikipedia considers acupuncture to be pseudoscience?
Second, if an editor wants to challenge the existing Wikipedia consensus that acupuncture is pseudoscience, what is the correct forum for that purpose?
Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Can I cite NCCAM (now NCCIH)? Yes, but again only with WP:DUE weight. Unlike other branches of the National Institutes of Health, which are generally accepted as authoritative in their fields, NCCAM has been the focus of significant criticism from within the scientific community. Whenever possible, you should cite the established literature directly.FAQ pages and other public-facing "popular" materials from such places are also described in WP:MEDRS as not as valuable as other sources:
The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.The highest quality best-available sources (systematic reviews in Cochrane, for example) do not support what you have said above. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not want to have an epistemological debate.
But the point is that the pseudoscience label is at the level of epistemology. Sure, there are plenty of groups which have commented with rather bland pronouncements about acupuncture for this or that intractable ailment, but this is also true of nearly any anodyne intervention. That does not make such ideas any less pseudoscientific when relevant experts identify them as such. So far, I have seen no source which contradicts this demarcation. No, a remark about studies that show acupuncture has helped people with nausea or whatever doesn't count. To escape the label, one needs to have something more than just an empirical claim of efficacy. One needs a coherent and mechanistic rejoinder which acupuncturists are downright embarrassed to defend in the context of medical science (except for about a decade ago when there was a lot of excitement about certain bizarre papers which claimed to discover physiological basis for meridians -- papers which went exactly nowhere).
jps (
talk) 06:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
the majority of research suggests that acupuncture's effects are mainly due to placebo. Please do not ping me. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
acupuncture is recommended by current guidelines from the CDCWhat are those?
covered by medicarehas nothing to do with whether it works.
endorsed by the NIHYou probably mean the NCCIH, which started out as the quackery branch of the NIH, manufactured by quackery-fan politicians.
Acupuncture is not science. It is a quasi-religious set of practices, so I personally don't think it's pseudoscience either (though the study of it very often is). It is definitely pseudomedicine. The thing is, though, that what we think doesn't matter a hill of beans, it's what the reliable sources say, and no reliable source on the subject of the demarcation issue between science and pseudoscience, has come down in favour of acupuncture being science.
What science tells us about acupuncture is that it doesn't matter where you pit the needles or whether you even insert them, so acupoints are fictional, the claimed "meridians" have no associated anatomy and have never been shown to exist, and a large part of acupuncture's popularity in the West stems from a propaganda stunt by Mao in the 1970s. We know it does not work for most things, we know that the effect size in all studies is small, we know that the more scope there is for bias, the greater the chance of a positive outcome from a trial, we know that no study from China has ever found a negative result, and we know that the evidence trend is firmly against it. Guy ( Help!) 00:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You people seem not to understand that Wikipedia is not supposed to declare anything is pseudoscience. Wikipedia does not do this, reliable independent sources do. After homeopathy, acupuncture is probably the second most widely analysed example of pseudoscience in medicine in specialist literature on pseudoscience and the demarcation issue. It's not out problem to fix. Guy ( Help!) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Fringe connoisseurs, here is your gift:
Bon courage ( talk) 06:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a paragraph about Paleolithic cave art in the Għar Dalam Cave article, whose sole reference is a popular tourist guide article, "Ghar Dalam Cave." The tourist guide lacks any reference to a reliable, or any other, source and I cannot find any reliable sources for the existence of this Paleolithic cave art. However, I did find reference to this Paleolithic art in fringe article, “Cover Up: Very Early Human Presence in Malta Has Been Intentionally Hidden" on the blacklisted “Ancient Origin” web site. If nobody either can suggest a reliable source or objects, I will remove this paragraph because it lacks a reliable source documenting the Paleolithic art and its removal. Also, it looks like the tourist guide repeats fringe material as fact. Paul H. ( talk) 17:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Not sufficient to support the details in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)The biostratigraphy of Malta can be reconstructed, thanks to the relatively well-preserved stratigraphy of Għar Dalam. ... Apart from the buried archaelogical remains, there are also— for the greater part recently destroyed— rock paintings and bruising on the cave walls
Slightly left field, but I wondered if this is worthy of the attention of editors here. - Roxy the dog 16:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Just a reliability check: Is this an appropriate source to use to discuss panspermia, or is it another crank source? Since I remember that the panspermia hypothesis has some undue promotion here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
User:Travsap has been pushing fringe theory such as "DNA sequences have been mined, databased and networked to enable the wireless computer-assisted design of plant and animal evolution" and "Biosynethic software developed by virally-introduced gene edits and the wireless devices pulsing light to interface with them are manipulating natural thought and behavior for the sake of warfare, intelligence and national security." in Cyberbiosecurity. Neither are in the supposed source. Also there is a paragraph shilling for a NFT for some reason. - Mys_721tx ( talk) 20:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
A pair of physicists,
Colin Humphreys and Graeme Waddington, have put forward an argument that the event described in the
Book of Joshua,
10:12–13, in which the sun and moon miraculously stand still in the sky, should be interpreted as an annular solar eclipse in 1207 BC and that the Israelite attack on
Gibeon that is described in that passage can be fixed in time on that basis. Furthermore, they argue that
Merneptah's campaign in Canaan, which produced the first contemporary reference to "Israel" in the
Merneptah Stele, must postdate this event and that it can be used to work out the exact dates of Merneptah's reign. Their argument was published in
Astronomy & Geophysics a few years back: "Solar eclipse of 1207 BC helps to date pharaohs". Astronomy & Geophysics. 58 (5): 5.39–5.42. 1 October 2017.
doi:
10.1093/astrogeo/atx178. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
This claim has been inserted at Merneptah, where I have removed it twice (the second time after a discussion at WT:WikiProject Ancient Egypt#Dating the reign of Merenptah based on a miracle in the Book of Joshua). It's also present at solar eclipse and at Gibeon (ancient city).
At least one other paper has made the same argument, a 2020 paper in Vetus Testamentum. But it's my understanding that most biblical scholars are skeptical that there's much historical basis to the events in Joshua, and the historicity of many related biblical events, including the Exodus, is very much open to question. Are these claims significant enough to be worth mentioning in our articles? A. Parrot ( talk) 03:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
As is typical in ancient eclipse observations, the authors created their own novel code for determining eclipse visibility. There is no other record of this particular eclipse according to their paper. jps ( talk) 19:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
pre-1950's: ΔT calculated from empirical fits to historical records derived by Morrison and Stephenson (2004)[9] which states:
In out experience, extreme caution needs to be exercised when investigating allusion to eclipses and other celestial phenomena at more remote epochs.That is, prior to 700 B.C. They admit as much in the paper
it may be considered unwise to extrapolate these back prior to 1000 BCand then cite Stephenson (2008) a little deceptively in my opinion. fiveby( zero) 23:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
It's still pretty fringe as, for example, most of the relevant scholars of this particular text have not paid attention to this claim. jps ( talk) 02:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
... here for anybody who is interested. - Roxy the dog 20:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Past FTN reports: 2011, 2017 (no discussion), 2021, 2021 (no discussion)
Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy was moved to Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease which was redirected to Saturated fat#Cardiovascular disease. Since then, Saturated fat has been a main target of FRINGE theory advocates. -- Hipal ( talk) 22:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks like Red meat is a target as well. -- Hipal ( talk) 23:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
This is from July but I just saw it.[ https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/archaeologist-joel-klenck-noahs-ark-will-bring-38-billion-dollars-per-year-to-turkiye-or-stone-age-pandemics] Klenck seems to be a respected archaeologist at first[ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joel-Klenck] and we use him several times as a source. Also see [ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9491099-the-genesis-model-for-the-origin-variation-and-continuation-of-human-p]. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Scientific tests! Real blood! -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
The user Mr. bobby ( talk · contribs) recently removed a large chunk of the article, which, as explained in detail by an anonymous user at the talk page, is based on Christian fundamentalist publications and non-peer-reviewed studies. Similar concerns date as far back as 2010. This is related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Behavior_of_an_editor_in_a_catholic-fundamentalist_article_Miracle_of_Lanciano, where a user has repeatedly restored the deleted content.
I have filed my own ANI immediately above, which concerns a user ranting at WP:ORN and Talk:Western world about the history of the Western world, and which involves historical revisionism. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
This may be a correct use of the term, I simply don't know. I see we have Non-standard cosmology#Plasma cosmology. I'm not clear how this differs from fringe. Doug Weller talk 10:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
is getting more recognition in the sense of religion ? Jonote22 ( talk) 21:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC) ... how is this to be understood
Starting with the section headings which I think are confusing and inappropriate. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
generalized description and discussion per RS, i tried to find soemthing in Sabloff, Williams, and Feder, but from them this is just examples of pseudoarchaeology. If you don't accept Corliss as a source probably redirect? fiveby( zero) 12:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think anybody is saying OOPArts as a topic isn’t notable. What most (me included) are saying is that the categories are obvious WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, with a little WP:GEVAL thrown in -- a result of years of article neglect and accumulated cruft. For example, “alternative explanations”? How is this defined? How does an artifact qualify for definition as an "alternative" explanation, and who says it does? By WP:BLOWITUP I mean to suggest a rewrite to remove all the categorization and extensively detailed examples. The article can be pared down to some number of paragraphs that describe the concept, who believes in it, what experts say, etc. Such a rewrite could be easily assembled and cited to a mixture of WP:FRIND media [10], [11], [12], [13] and WP:PARITY skeptical sources [14], [15]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
How's that for a weird assemblage of letters.
Well, here you go: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 22. jps ( talk) 06:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Both of these discuss Yupanqui's alleged travels, neither has any sources that suggest this didn't happen. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Argumentaban la posibilidad real de que Túpac Yupanqui Inca hubiera llegado a la Polinesia[3] (a symposium paper.) But what is the intention of the section? There is a great deal to say about this voyage legend: Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa, Álvaro de Mendaña de Neira, Clements Markham, Thor Heyerdahl, etc. which predates this latest theory. Would this be important for the reader [4] or outside the scope? Lothrop [5] looks to be the first to "suggest this didn't happen" and i imagine other references would be available in Tupac Yupanqui. Descubridor de Oceanía. Maybe providing more background and history would be a good approach when there is not much available on the latest theory? fiveby( zero) 16:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
References
I know this isn't a fringe issue but it seems the most likely place to ask (unless someone can help with a better one). I had this until I changed computers. That makes it most likely to be Chrome. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
New editor adding promotional material (SPA,3rd edit, first was to talk page). Doug Weller talk 16:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
See this version and the second section in the lead which suggests it's real(reverted of course). If you want to read the article it's at [17] or a Google scholar search shows the pdf on some sort of religious website, but that's copyvio. I don't know enough to see if the inclusion is warranted, but it seems unlikely. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Basically all fringe, but a reader might not be clear about that. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
This is about [18]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The section "Prior to the 14th century" should be severely cut down, since the Shroud was created in the 14the century. Every "history" before that is fringe. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Returned to this article recently after unwatching it for a while, and the fringe had regrown (whitewashing of cult allegations, poorly-sourced medical claims, etc.). There also appears to have been a recent uptick in interest from new(ish) accounts. Could use more eyes. Bon courage ( talk) 09:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Trindade Island UFO hoax ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Are there better sources for this article? jps ( talk) 21:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence in the lead has called this a writing system since 2013 [23] but the rest of the lead seems to contradict this assertion. Unless I'm missing something I intend to remove that. If I'm wrong, sorry for bringing this here as a a real unknown writing system isn't fringe. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
otherwise unknown writing systemseems eminently apt to me and the rest of the lead makes clear that it being a writing system does not in itself confer any particular form of authenticity. Even if whoever created it was just making stuff up it's still a pretty impressive system with apparently observable rules and internal logic.There's other stuff in that article (and its revision history) that is far more relevant to WP:FTN than that bit. On the whole, the Voynich is a legitimate area of study (with plenty of reliable mainstream scientists) that just also happens to attract a lot of amateurs, kooks, and conspiracy theorists. The set of amateurs, incidentally, are not by any stretch identical with the "kooks and conspiracy theorists" (though there is probably some overlap) in my experience.The Voynich isn't my field but I did spend some time reading up on it a few years back (due to its obvious mystical allure, heh) and found the field much more well-behaved than I had expected. Skimming the article now it also seems much improved since last I looked, and the biggest problem is probably that it's a bit long and should be split into sub-articles. Xover ( talk) 11:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
A writing system is a method of visually representing verbal communication, based on a script and a set of rules regulating its use, which definition a code or cypher would fall under. To call it a "script" is just to refer to one part of the system without the other (the "set of rules"), so at worst slightly imprecise. If it is a hoax it may still be a writing system, just one constructed artificially with the intent to deceive. The only thing that is actually contradictory is if it turns out that there is no actual system there, just some madman drawing random pretty pictures that look like writing. But in that case the randomness looks enough like a writing system that it has fooled lots of serious mainstream scholars into investigating it and observing possible features of a writing system (see the rest of the article).But to be clear, if you want to go hog-wild copy-editing it for clarity I have no objection (the locals at Talk:Voynich manuscript might but I don't watch that page often so I don't know how controversial or not that'd be). I am only saying I—as a dabbler and not an expert—see no obvious WP:FRINGE issue in the "writing system" issue. I could be wrong, but that's my take anyway.BTW, one of the theories that have been investigated regarding the Voynich is that it is written in a known human language, just using a made up alphabet (one reason for which might be in order to "encrypt" it). Think of it as Russian written in either the Cyrillic or Latin script, or Arabic written in either Arabic alphabet or in a Romanization of Arabic (Latin script). There are some linguistic statistical features of it that suggest this may be the case (but like everything else about the Voynich the evidence is not conclusive and no real firm consensus exist among scholars, or it didn't back in 2015 or thereabout anyway). It's what makes the Voynich so fun: there are so many tantalising clues, and yet the only real evidence for its providence point so strongly in the direction of a fraud or hoax. Xover ( talk) 12:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Some additional eyes would be welcome at List of reported UFO sightings, UFO sightings in the United States, and the associated Talk pages. At issue is whether material sourced to confirmed fringe advocates, including Jacques Vallée, Ann Druffel, and Martin Shough, passes WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:FRINGE. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I have warnd Yann ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in two ways to stop with this WP:ADVOCACY. jps ( talk) 16:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
In UFO sightings in the United States, most cases don't even have a reference... Double standard anyone? Yann ( talk) 22:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Even ignoring the poor sourcing and dubious use made of such sources, the entire structure of the List of reported UFO sightings seems problematic to me. The conflation of alleged 'fiery disks' from 1440 BC with 'close encounters and abductions' and recent unexplained sightings by civil and military aircrew as 'UFO sightings' appears to me to be synthesis, promoting fringe claims that there is some sort of single explanation for disparate accounts over millennia. It is a list of 'stuff ufologists like to present as evidence for something or other', compiled apparently by Wikipedia contributors who wish to do the same. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The conflation of alleged 'fiery disks' from 1440 BC with 'close encounters and abductions' and recent unexplained sightings by civil and military aircrew as 'UFO sightings' appears to me to be synthesis, promoting fringe claims that there is some sort of single explanation for disparate accounts over millennia. It is a list of 'stuff ufologists like to present as evidence for something or other', compiled apparently by Wikipedia contributors who wish to do the same.Agreed. The reason that it is set up like this, however, is that this sort of "synthesis" is one that is seen in some reliable sources. The last time I fought this battle, I was content to include any incident that was mentioned in sources about UFOs that were even vaguely reliable. Skepticial debunkings often mention these "historical" UFO claims in the context of arguing that these compendiums are what make up the entire fringe oeuvre. Whether and how we decide what the best standards for inclusion and sourcing that can be used to do this are is the question I would like to see resolved. When I last tried to do this, I couldn't really get enough people interested to form a consensus, so I just did removal haphazardly based mostly on whether or not I could find a source. Now it may be a good idea to be a bit more discerning in which sources we would use to allow for inclusion. Happy to see this ball rolling. jps ( talk) 13:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a big confusion here. Sure, claiming that UFOs are from outer space is a fringe theory. But puting the whole subject into FRINGE, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Even the US Air Force acknowledges that some sightings are unexplained. Yann ( talk) 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Why keep the article? Because those of us who have considered what to do think there are enough sources out there that it probably would survive AfD. Look, if you can come up with a WP:LISTCRIT that would solve some of this mess, have at it. One idea might be to only include incidents for which there is a standalone article (or, at the very least, a section in another article). Another idea might be to only include incidents that have at least one WP:FRIND source covering it. These are all ideas I have had, but up until now there hasn't been enough of a critical mass to really get the editorial consensus to decide exactly how we should proceed, so imperfection has been the name of the game. Let us know what you think, and, if enough people agree, we'll fix it up. jps ( talk) 21:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
This article came to my attention via reference gnoming. I know very little about the subject area, but the latter part of the article gives the appearance of being promotion of a body of fringe theories, supported by "in-universe" references none of which pass the "independent" leg of WP:RS. I am unenthusiastic about this sort of clean-up, but perhaps somebody who frequents this board would like to take a look at the article? Thanks, Wham2001 ( talk) 10:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Journeyers in holotropic states of consciousness can also experience meaningful family, ancestral, racial, or collective memories. These experiences from the "historical unconscious" are in basic agreement with C. G. Jung's observations. Another category that Jung did not study or document are past-life experiences. The authenticity of these can sometimes be independently verified.This article needs a serious haircut. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Transpersonal psychology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
After doing the cleanup of Stanislav Grof above, I noticed that this page is suffering from a lot of problems. Can others point to good WP:FRIND sources about this "field of study"? It looks to me to be very WP:FRINGE perhaps to the tune of most relevant experts straight-up ignoring it. jps ( talk) 13:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpersonal business studies. jps ( talk) 13:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpersonal anthropology. jps ( talk) 14:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Should our article on James A. Lindsay mention his support for the Cultural marxism conspiracy theory? It is the subject of his latest book. More eyes and opinions would be very welcome at Talk:James A. Lindsay MrOllie ( talk) 15:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I am disputing the use of three refs to source predicted changes of temps in various cities and towns. The refs, all web pages, do not contain the names of the cities concerned in a web page search, but you have to search and guess where to click to find the info, in some clever bit of webmappery.
Discussion can be found here on a user Talk page. Unfortunately, the section has become confusing, but I think the issue is adequately covered in the first few entries of the discussion. Any advice would be welcome, including advice to me along the lines of "wrong as usual Roxy" if that is in fact the case. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 10:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a fringe theory or just an alternative mental health practice. But it seems like kind of advertisement for this method of psychological treatment and the primary support for its claims is an article in a journal that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on which increases my skepticism. There are reliable sources for EMDR, an apparently related treatment method, but I know that EMDR's effectiveness has been studied and it's pretty well accepted among therapists which doesn't seem to be the case with "havening".
I don't have enough knowledge about WP:MEDRS to nominate the page for deletion but I thought I'd bring it over here to see what the regulars at this board thought. The reason I came across this article is I just closed an AFD discussion for a practitioner of this method, an "excutive coach", which was closed as Delete and I hadn't heard about this methodology that she practiced. I'm interested in hearing whether or not you think this this is a valid alternative practice or just a promotional article for an invented form of mental health treatment. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO-Memorial Ängelholm but also has tone problems in any case. Mangoe ( talk) 04:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Is the criticism section undue? See Talk page there. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Editing at this article is hotting up following appearance of a new a/c who has said [27] the article should be altered to view the subject "through lens of cryonics: a person undergoing medical treatment". More wise eyes could help. Bon courage ( talk) 07:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
See Talk:Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon#Horses in pre-Columbian - we may find this impacts other articles. The BBC article is at [28].
And while on the subject of horses, Horses in the United States has this: " A genetic study published in 2021 indicates that horses, that were directly related to the modern horses, were still present in Yukon at least until 5,700 years ago or mid- Holocene, [1] and this makes some researchers to think horses are biologically native to North America and the modern animals should also be treated as native. [2]" Does anyone remember a discussion of that paper? Thanks.
References
Doug Weller talk 13:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
See [ https://cosmicsummit2023.com/} a lot of the usual suspects. And a disclaimer saying it isn't a presentation of the CRG. True, it just has a lot of its members speaking, alongside Hancock, Randall Carlson, etc. For those who don't know Kenneth Tankersley, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 85 (note he has changed his ethnic identity). Not until June - and it will cause problems then I'm sure, but it's relevant to the CRG now. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia WP:FRINGE defines a fringe theory as "a theory that falls far out of the scientific mainstream". No reasonable person could conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that cryonics qualifies as a "fringe theory" or "pseudoscience" based on a literal interpretation of the above rule. While cryonics has its (very vocal) dissidents, many scientists--a significant portion of the scientific community, advocate for cryonics. Notably, there are very few scientific papers that actually criticize cryonics--most criticism comes from news article and anecdotal statements by experts or non-experts. Conversely, there is ample support for cryonics in the scientific literature; for example, check out this link https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4733321/.
Nevertheless, most justifications for cryonics don't fall into the category of scientific literature. However, by the parity of information test, this does not make cryonics a "pseudoscience", as the vast majority--possibly the entirety, of criticism of cryonics, falls under "non-scientific literature". Just like many scientists have expressed disdain for cryonics to media sources, many scientists have expressed support; a percentage similar to the number of opponents. Many scientists have chosen to view cryonics through the "clinical trial" lens; they consider cryonics to be simply the clinical testing of an unproven treatment, which is not pseudoscientific or fringe, much like the COVID-19 vaccines weren't fringe or pseudoscientific before the first trial results were published. Ralph Merkle, the founder of public-key cryptography, has spoken out in favor of cryonics. So have Ray Kurzweil and Eliezer Yudkowsky, two notable AI experts and futurists. One may object that these scientists are not experts in the field of cryogenics or human biology; that's true, but neither are most of the critics of cryonics.
Even the media, the main source, direct or indirect, of anti-cryonics arguments, presents a much more balanced view of cryonics than is commonly presumed on Wikipedia: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/want-to-avoid-death-maybe-cryonics-isnt-crazy/2023/01/08/a59b5ada-8f33-11ed-b86a-2e3a77336b8e_story.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-decapitate-and-chill/
....and many more.
Cryonics does not qualify as a pseudoscience or fringe theory under Wikipedia's fringe theories guideline; it neither falls far out of the scientific mainstream as expressed through direct or anecdotal opinions of scientists, nor is there ample scientific literature against the practice. SurfingOrca2045 ( talk) 18:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
speculative practice at the outer edge of science, cryonics is often viewed with suspicion.[1], the application of FRINGE considerations seems apt. signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes.This strikes me as a good description of where we are with cryonics--there is a claim that death (which I think we can agree is heretofore a basic law of nature) can be transcended through...something. Again, I understand the hope, and I would not personally dream of saying the hypothesis is certainly wrong. But the future procedure by which people might be revived strikes me as lacking strong scientific evidence at the present time. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 20:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
the definition may be changed in the future, with which I agree. Would you agree with me that implicit in that statement is the idea that the definition may not change? Dumuzid ( talk) 20:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
References
SurfingOrca2045 - You have made something like 33 comments in this section (that might be an underestimate), you have made your point clearly many times, and there is no reason to think that your favored content will gain consensus. You should really drop the stick now. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 22:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
but it seems extreme to say that cryonics certainly will failI don't see that we say this anywhere in the article. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
LGBT grooming conspiracy theory ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Is there a "mainstream debate" over whether teaching children about the existence of LGBT individuals in a value-neutral way is a form of "grooming"? Or is this a conspiracy theory? Sources have been marshaled. Brand-new accounts have staked out provocative positions. Do you have what it takes to wade into this exciting talk page thread?? If so, check out all the zany shenanigans at Talk:LGBT grooming conspiracy theory#Conspiracy theory in the name!!! Generalrelative ( talk) 00:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Conservative pushbackunless, of course "Conservative pushback" actually means the promotion of violence and bigotry. Some reliable sources do refer to the groomer slur as a "conspiracy theory", and it bears marks in common with other conspiracy theories (e.g., QAnon) such as its antisemitic canards. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Hi all, wanted to make you aware of
this ongoing discussion. Basically, some editors over there think the aforementioned list should have a consensus requirement that any topic listed must also be explicitly described as "pseudoscience" in the main or parent article.
E.g. we should not list " Earthing therapy" or "grounding" (the idea that periodically "grounding" yourself electrically by walking barefoot on soil or touching electrical "grounds" has immunological benefits) because it has, in the past, been deemed not notable enough to have a parent article.
Or, we should not list " Hair analysis" or " Macrobiotic diets" because the parent article doesn't actually say the practice is "pseudoscience." Even if we have good quality RSes demonstrating that the scientific consensus is that the practice is pseudoscientific.
Your feedback is welcomed! — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
As a general rule, I'd say that we'd want at least some RS describing a topic as pseudoscience explicitly in order to merit inclusion in the list, regardless of the state of our articles
Article: Vikramaditya
There's an attempt to create present a mythical person as an actual historical figure, without citations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingsphagettimonster ( talk • contribs) 04:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Basically promoting a (defunct?) "freedom of information activist group". No third-party analysis of the group. Not sure it is even notable. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Project Veritas released a new covid-related video recently and as usual it's full of lies and misdirection, so expect an uptick in traffic on the article. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:44BA:33D4:C395:AEEB ( talk) 01:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity.
Was quoted at me recently as evidence that STURP is not fringe, so it probably needs improvement. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
There is no indication that STURP is fringeYou mean you know of no such indication. Ask User:Wdford or Joe Nickell or anyone else who understands the subject. They do know. Or read the sources given in Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. Then you will know too. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
as evidence that STURP is not fringe.Please do not WP:FORUMSHOP. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I understand your point. Certainly that would be very interesting. However such things take time and cost money. After the C14 dates were published, objective scientists lost interest in the shroud, and understandably they are using their limited time and resources on other projects. Only the "believers" continue to roll this boulder up the hill, inventing new "tests" as they go along which, with a large enough "margin for error", invariably "prove" that the C14 dates are somehow wrong. Wdford ( talk) 11:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Astrology pages suffer from regular linkspam infestations. But recent reverts by User:Bishonen put back old, broken spam links instead of the new, working versions of the same spam links. I think they should instead be removed and the stuff which is sourced to them too. What do others think? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
This is being contested: I would be very, very interested (and surprised) to see that Staudenmaier has genuinely turned up incriminating evidence about Marie Steiner.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 10:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The facts are: they are of the opinion that Marie Steiner-von Sivers is getting libeled: dead people can't be libeled. Attributing someone saying what her political beliefs were seems appropriate and avoids most problems entirely, so why not phrase it as "According to Büchenbacher..." —DIYeditor ( talk) 13:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Their reply is at [33]. Anyway, the article now uses WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV so it is not even claiming it in the voice of Wikipedia.
Seen what is written at Rudolf Steiner#Attacks, illness, and death, it is highly probable that she was a Nazi sympathizer, because her husband and mentor had similar ideas to Nazism. She probably did not know that the Nazis were going to perform the Holocaust, so she cannot be blamed about that. The essential difference between Steiner and the Nazis, is that Steiner was basically a humanitarian, while the Nazi regime was bloodthirsty. For the rest, he pontificated about racial purity, esoteric medicine and biodynamic agriculture, which were endorsed by Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler, if not Hitler.
Source: Wieringa, Tommy (8 May 2021).
"Groene vingers". NRC (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 7 February 2023. Het was een ontmoeting van oude bekenden: nazi-kopstukken als Rudolf Hess en Heinrich Himmler herkenden in Rudolf Steiner al een geestverwant, met zijn theorieën over raszuiverheid, esoterische geneeskunst en biologisch-dynamische landbouw. — It was a meeting of old acquaintances: Nazi leaders such as Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler already recognized a kindred spirit in Rudolf Steiner, with his theories about racial purity, esoteric medicine and biodynamic agriculture.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
And disgruntled
and elderly and embittered man
are arguments
pro domo sua, simply because
WP:FRINGE cults do not love rational criticism. It is a democratic right to disagree with the mainstream academic view, but it is sheer inanity to completely ignore how the academic mainstream views one's cult.
In fact, what do you expect? Anthroposophists believe Steiner's "historical" reports of the life from Atlantis and Lemuria, which count as rank pseudohistory in the academia. He even advised them that it is bad for their development to learn mainstream history. In the end, there are quite many sources which show that Steiner posited a hierarchy of human races, and was full of craps in respect to empirical science and history. Too many to be all shot down as unreliable. E.g. when talking to a Romanian Anthroposophist, he considered that reading Die Entente-Freimaurerei und der Weltkrieg is solid food in the meaning of 1 Corinthians 3:2, only to be read after one attains good knowledge of Anthroposophy. tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
[34] Not a good title but recommended. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
An editor wants to remove SARS-CoV-2 from the list of spillover infections. Your participation would be appreciated at the relevant discussion. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
About a denialist website with a misleading name, subject of edit-warring by new user at the moment. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The article Trish Leigh has been started. Hint: "specialized in neurofeedback" means WP:FRINGE, and the diagnosis of porn addiction is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Now at Draft:Trish Leigh. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
See the centralized discussion here on whether and how to include this topic in the list. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 14:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The Philosophy of Freedom relies heavily upon original research based upon Steiner's own works.
While a certain amount of MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR is allowed, this article is nothing else than MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
An editor has launched an RfC proposing Cultural Marxism as a valid construct please discuss. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Now the same editor is proposing to move the current article, Marxist cultural analysis, into Cultural studies, while removing the content that distinguishes actual Marxist analysis of culture from the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The discussion is here. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
quarter of its body textdid you write, Sennalen? This seems like an odd thing for you to raise as an objection. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Should our article quote his fringe ideas about evolution in detail, without refutation, or not?
Same old same old. We had this same question so many times, and the answer is always the same ("not"), but the people who were there forget it all the time. I don't know what to do. If we write an essay, people will say it is just an essay. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context. The context is rejection by the mainstream. So,
I do not qualify "discussed" that wayis not in accordance with WP:FRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
one or two sentencesIt was five well-known false rumors he was repeating. Now thankfully deleted.
If the fringe theory is unique to Roy SpencerIt is not. He was just regurgitating what all the ID people say. See below.
Again, it's difficult to make any recommendations without specific text or diffsIt would have been very easy to find, checking the history of the article linked above. But it is history now. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
On the Jordan Peterson article I have removed some very unreliable sources that were making health claims about Jordan Peterson's beef only diet. That section of the article appears to have been a previous battleground. I am confused to why such terrible sources were left on the article for so long, i.e. an opinion piece [41] written by a non-medical person who owns a carnivore diet website called mostly fat [42]. There was also a predatory paper by Frontiers and another off-topic odd paper. Further content might need to be trimmed so any help appreciated. Also see the talk-page discussion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 04:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Also anything published by Frontiers Media is suspect and the paper that was cited did not mention Peterson so we cannot cite the source per original research policyThis would actually only be true if we were using it to reference something about Peterson, which we aren't. We're using it to provide the mainstream view of meat diets per WP:FRINGE. The sentence we're using it for is only about the diet, so it's not OR. I understand your hesitance about Frontiers journals, and I do share it. But that source is a systematic review and meta-analysis, one of the best available tools we have to ascertain the medical/scientific consensus per WP:MEDSCI and WP:MEDASSESS. Frontiers journals do have a lower degree of reliability in general, given their substandard editorial policies, but they are not deprecated. We must examine them on a case-by-case basis. I don't see anything about the methodology in that particular paper, or the affiliations of the authors, or the conclusions, that would lead me to throw it out directly. Even better, it's PROSPERO registered, which does give us some reason to believe the authors stand behind their review protocol. I've also corrected an error in the text-- the Frontiers review only shows an increase in triglycerides and actually does not show an increase in total cholesterol. A subtle but important distinction, and was my mistake. Are there specific concerns that you have with the review, @ Psychologist Guy, apart from the fact that it's published in a Frontiers journal?I agree the content might be better as a more concise thing providing the mainstream view, from as reliable a source as we can muster (or, better, 2). How about: "There are no available randomized controlled trials which show any beneficial effects from the carnivore diet or which rule out any placebo effect.(todaysdieticianref) Some nutrition experts, including Jack Gilbert of the University of Chicago,(Atlanticref) point out that such a diet can result in "severe dysregulation" including an increase in serum triglycerides and possible cardiac issues.(Frontiersref)"This covers our bases with regards to using more trusted experts (Jack Gilbert and Carrie Dennett) and using a MEDRS (the Frontiers systematic review and meta-analysis) where we are directly making any claims of possible risk. I would also say we should not remove the Jack Gilbert piece no matter what, because it's published in The Atlantic (clearly a RS), and Gilbert is a recognized health expert who is commenting directly on Peterson's diet. He is making a medical claim, so of course I would prefer a MEDRS be added to it. I'm open to one that is in a different journal, but especially per PARITY I don't see why the Frontiers ref would be insufficient. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), high blood pressure and stroke. We also do not claim causality here, we only say "associated with". Which is precisely what our best available sources say about red meat consumption. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
It's a Jordan Peterson article, not a dietary science article. If he says he eats only mice, the article isn't the place for analysis / coverage of whether or not a "mice only"' diet is good or bad.North8000 ( talk) 17:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Some enneagram fans want some weasel words, and they edit-war to keep them. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
In related news, I redirected Fourth Way enneagram to the only book that talks about it. jps ( talk) 15:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Talk page, new section "Crime". What do people think? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Stumbled over this via the Category:Quantum mysticism advocates. The article has had a template "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories." since 2014, and it certainly does that. How about deleting the whole "Work" section? It is 100% PRIMARY, and 100% bologna. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Charon chooses to call these individual beings of intelligence, "eons." They are otherwise known as electrons... Nothing would be lost from that not being part of Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 19:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Contains COVID disinformation unchecked by mainstream comments: "Never before in medical history has there been a proposal to vaccinate children against a disease that poses them no measurable harm." See SBM, which of course does not mention every ignorant person repeating the false rumors, as Oliver does. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Some whitewashing going on at bio of fringe conspiracy theorist. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Where you say a "fringe conspiracy theorist" a lawyer would call libel
Badge Man is currently a featured article candidate. I think my only remaining concern is the presentation of one particular fringe view by Mark Lane that has no rebuttal. [48] Given that this is something that could appear on the front page, I thought I would mention it here for additional feedback. Please comment in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Badge Man/archive1. - Location ( talk) 14:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
It has been recently claimed at Talk:Acupuncture. Does WP:BLP apply to talk page posts like that one? - MrOllie ( talk) 21:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Seems legit. No hint that these are all fantasy. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
is related. "Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine" is a reliable source? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
New article which probably needs expanding and fixing. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Could use more improvement. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 21:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks like the source of the runes may have been discovered.[ https://k-blogg.se/2022/12/11/kensingtonrunorna-kom-fran-timra/] Doug Weller talk 15:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
See Talk:Garrett G. Fagan. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Single purpose account [2] edit warring on Steven Gundry and his talk-page and related articles (Lectin-free diet). Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
There are some current disputes at Dietary Guidelines for Americans that have spilled out onto red meat. User Sbelknap on Dietary Guidelines for Americans has been adding low-carb advocates Nina Teicholz, James DiNicolantonio, Gary Taubes, Zoe Harcombe, Mark Hyman as references on the article. The same user has said on talk-page that they are reliable sources and I am doing original research by saying they are not reliable. Gary Taubes, reliable? Really? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the contributions of a new fringe editor I noticed this section which could use some work. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polonnaruwa (meteorite) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The subject is an alleged meteorite, described in fringe journals, whose status is disputed. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 10:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
At the very least the lead needs revising. See [5]. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Compound Media ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Some more eyes may be needed on various pages associated with Compound Media, which has ties to Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes; there have been large additions of poorly sourced content to a number of the articles in the last month, generally cherrypicked, self sourced or unsourced. An indeffed paid account made some of the large edits about Compound topics, though not the Compound Media page itself. I have been involved in some disputes over the additions and NPOV questions, so new editors could be helpful. Llll5032 ( talk) 00:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Acupuncture discussion has escalated. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
A case request was opened about 48 hours ago at DRN concerning acupuncture, and I closed it for various reasons, one of which is that there is a consensus in Wikipedia that acupuncture is not medically effective. The filing editor is continuing to ask questions, and so I will ask questions here. Just to be clear, I am a skeptic about forms of so-called alternative medicine, including acupuncture, and I know that Wikipedia is skeptical about so-called alternative medicine, but I would like to be directed to where that consensus has been established.
So, first, will someone please point me to where the consensus has been established that Wikipedia considers acupuncture to be pseudoscience?
Second, if an editor wants to challenge the existing Wikipedia consensus that acupuncture is pseudoscience, what is the correct forum for that purpose?
Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Can I cite NCCAM (now NCCIH)? Yes, but again only with WP:DUE weight. Unlike other branches of the National Institutes of Health, which are generally accepted as authoritative in their fields, NCCAM has been the focus of significant criticism from within the scientific community. Whenever possible, you should cite the established literature directly.FAQ pages and other public-facing "popular" materials from such places are also described in WP:MEDRS as not as valuable as other sources:
The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.The highest quality best-available sources (systematic reviews in Cochrane, for example) do not support what you have said above. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not want to have an epistemological debate.
But the point is that the pseudoscience label is at the level of epistemology. Sure, there are plenty of groups which have commented with rather bland pronouncements about acupuncture for this or that intractable ailment, but this is also true of nearly any anodyne intervention. That does not make such ideas any less pseudoscientific when relevant experts identify them as such. So far, I have seen no source which contradicts this demarcation. No, a remark about studies that show acupuncture has helped people with nausea or whatever doesn't count. To escape the label, one needs to have something more than just an empirical claim of efficacy. One needs a coherent and mechanistic rejoinder which acupuncturists are downright embarrassed to defend in the context of medical science (except for about a decade ago when there was a lot of excitement about certain bizarre papers which claimed to discover physiological basis for meridians -- papers which went exactly nowhere).
jps (
talk) 06:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
the majority of research suggests that acupuncture's effects are mainly due to placebo. Please do not ping me. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
acupuncture is recommended by current guidelines from the CDCWhat are those?
covered by medicarehas nothing to do with whether it works.
endorsed by the NIHYou probably mean the NCCIH, which started out as the quackery branch of the NIH, manufactured by quackery-fan politicians.
Acupuncture is not science. It is a quasi-religious set of practices, so I personally don't think it's pseudoscience either (though the study of it very often is). It is definitely pseudomedicine. The thing is, though, that what we think doesn't matter a hill of beans, it's what the reliable sources say, and no reliable source on the subject of the demarcation issue between science and pseudoscience, has come down in favour of acupuncture being science.
What science tells us about acupuncture is that it doesn't matter where you pit the needles or whether you even insert them, so acupoints are fictional, the claimed "meridians" have no associated anatomy and have never been shown to exist, and a large part of acupuncture's popularity in the West stems from a propaganda stunt by Mao in the 1970s. We know it does not work for most things, we know that the effect size in all studies is small, we know that the more scope there is for bias, the greater the chance of a positive outcome from a trial, we know that no study from China has ever found a negative result, and we know that the evidence trend is firmly against it. Guy ( Help!) 00:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You people seem not to understand that Wikipedia is not supposed to declare anything is pseudoscience. Wikipedia does not do this, reliable independent sources do. After homeopathy, acupuncture is probably the second most widely analysed example of pseudoscience in medicine in specialist literature on pseudoscience and the demarcation issue. It's not out problem to fix. Guy ( Help!) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Fringe connoisseurs, here is your gift:
Bon courage ( talk) 06:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a paragraph about Paleolithic cave art in the Għar Dalam Cave article, whose sole reference is a popular tourist guide article, "Ghar Dalam Cave." The tourist guide lacks any reference to a reliable, or any other, source and I cannot find any reliable sources for the existence of this Paleolithic cave art. However, I did find reference to this Paleolithic art in fringe article, “Cover Up: Very Early Human Presence in Malta Has Been Intentionally Hidden" on the blacklisted “Ancient Origin” web site. If nobody either can suggest a reliable source or objects, I will remove this paragraph because it lacks a reliable source documenting the Paleolithic art and its removal. Also, it looks like the tourist guide repeats fringe material as fact. Paul H. ( talk) 17:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Not sufficient to support the details in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)The biostratigraphy of Malta can be reconstructed, thanks to the relatively well-preserved stratigraphy of Għar Dalam. ... Apart from the buried archaelogical remains, there are also— for the greater part recently destroyed— rock paintings and bruising on the cave walls
Slightly left field, but I wondered if this is worthy of the attention of editors here. - Roxy the dog 16:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Just a reliability check: Is this an appropriate source to use to discuss panspermia, or is it another crank source? Since I remember that the panspermia hypothesis has some undue promotion here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
User:Travsap has been pushing fringe theory such as "DNA sequences have been mined, databased and networked to enable the wireless computer-assisted design of plant and animal evolution" and "Biosynethic software developed by virally-introduced gene edits and the wireless devices pulsing light to interface with them are manipulating natural thought and behavior for the sake of warfare, intelligence and national security." in Cyberbiosecurity. Neither are in the supposed source. Also there is a paragraph shilling for a NFT for some reason. - Mys_721tx ( talk) 20:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
A pair of physicists,
Colin Humphreys and Graeme Waddington, have put forward an argument that the event described in the
Book of Joshua,
10:12–13, in which the sun and moon miraculously stand still in the sky, should be interpreted as an annular solar eclipse in 1207 BC and that the Israelite attack on
Gibeon that is described in that passage can be fixed in time on that basis. Furthermore, they argue that
Merneptah's campaign in Canaan, which produced the first contemporary reference to "Israel" in the
Merneptah Stele, must postdate this event and that it can be used to work out the exact dates of Merneptah's reign. Their argument was published in
Astronomy & Geophysics a few years back: "Solar eclipse of 1207 BC helps to date pharaohs". Astronomy & Geophysics. 58 (5): 5.39–5.42. 1 October 2017.
doi:
10.1093/astrogeo/atx178. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
This claim has been inserted at Merneptah, where I have removed it twice (the second time after a discussion at WT:WikiProject Ancient Egypt#Dating the reign of Merenptah based on a miracle in the Book of Joshua). It's also present at solar eclipse and at Gibeon (ancient city).
At least one other paper has made the same argument, a 2020 paper in Vetus Testamentum. But it's my understanding that most biblical scholars are skeptical that there's much historical basis to the events in Joshua, and the historicity of many related biblical events, including the Exodus, is very much open to question. Are these claims significant enough to be worth mentioning in our articles? A. Parrot ( talk) 03:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
As is typical in ancient eclipse observations, the authors created their own novel code for determining eclipse visibility. There is no other record of this particular eclipse according to their paper. jps ( talk) 19:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
pre-1950's: ΔT calculated from empirical fits to historical records derived by Morrison and Stephenson (2004)[9] which states:
In out experience, extreme caution needs to be exercised when investigating allusion to eclipses and other celestial phenomena at more remote epochs.That is, prior to 700 B.C. They admit as much in the paper
it may be considered unwise to extrapolate these back prior to 1000 BCand then cite Stephenson (2008) a little deceptively in my opinion. fiveby( zero) 23:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
It's still pretty fringe as, for example, most of the relevant scholars of this particular text have not paid attention to this claim. jps ( talk) 02:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
... here for anybody who is interested. - Roxy the dog 20:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Past FTN reports: 2011, 2017 (no discussion), 2021, 2021 (no discussion)
Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy was moved to Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease which was redirected to Saturated fat#Cardiovascular disease. Since then, Saturated fat has been a main target of FRINGE theory advocates. -- Hipal ( talk) 22:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks like Red meat is a target as well. -- Hipal ( talk) 23:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
This is from July but I just saw it.[ https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/archaeologist-joel-klenck-noahs-ark-will-bring-38-billion-dollars-per-year-to-turkiye-or-stone-age-pandemics] Klenck seems to be a respected archaeologist at first[ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joel-Klenck] and we use him several times as a source. Also see [ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9491099-the-genesis-model-for-the-origin-variation-and-continuation-of-human-p]. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Scientific tests! Real blood! -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
The user Mr. bobby ( talk · contribs) recently removed a large chunk of the article, which, as explained in detail by an anonymous user at the talk page, is based on Christian fundamentalist publications and non-peer-reviewed studies. Similar concerns date as far back as 2010. This is related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Behavior_of_an_editor_in_a_catholic-fundamentalist_article_Miracle_of_Lanciano, where a user has repeatedly restored the deleted content.
I have filed my own ANI immediately above, which concerns a user ranting at WP:ORN and Talk:Western world about the history of the Western world, and which involves historical revisionism. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
This may be a correct use of the term, I simply don't know. I see we have Non-standard cosmology#Plasma cosmology. I'm not clear how this differs from fringe. Doug Weller talk 10:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
is getting more recognition in the sense of religion ? Jonote22 ( talk) 21:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC) ... how is this to be understood
Starting with the section headings which I think are confusing and inappropriate. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
generalized description and discussion per RS, i tried to find soemthing in Sabloff, Williams, and Feder, but from them this is just examples of pseudoarchaeology. If you don't accept Corliss as a source probably redirect? fiveby( zero) 12:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think anybody is saying OOPArts as a topic isn’t notable. What most (me included) are saying is that the categories are obvious WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, with a little WP:GEVAL thrown in -- a result of years of article neglect and accumulated cruft. For example, “alternative explanations”? How is this defined? How does an artifact qualify for definition as an "alternative" explanation, and who says it does? By WP:BLOWITUP I mean to suggest a rewrite to remove all the categorization and extensively detailed examples. The article can be pared down to some number of paragraphs that describe the concept, who believes in it, what experts say, etc. Such a rewrite could be easily assembled and cited to a mixture of WP:FRIND media [10], [11], [12], [13] and WP:PARITY skeptical sources [14], [15]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
How's that for a weird assemblage of letters.
Well, here you go: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 22. jps ( talk) 06:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Both of these discuss Yupanqui's alleged travels, neither has any sources that suggest this didn't happen. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Argumentaban la posibilidad real de que Túpac Yupanqui Inca hubiera llegado a la Polinesia[3] (a symposium paper.) But what is the intention of the section? There is a great deal to say about this voyage legend: Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa, Álvaro de Mendaña de Neira, Clements Markham, Thor Heyerdahl, etc. which predates this latest theory. Would this be important for the reader [4] or outside the scope? Lothrop [5] looks to be the first to "suggest this didn't happen" and i imagine other references would be available in Tupac Yupanqui. Descubridor de Oceanía. Maybe providing more background and history would be a good approach when there is not much available on the latest theory? fiveby( zero) 16:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
References
I know this isn't a fringe issue but it seems the most likely place to ask (unless someone can help with a better one). I had this until I changed computers. That makes it most likely to be Chrome. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
New editor adding promotional material (SPA,3rd edit, first was to talk page). Doug Weller talk 16:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
See this version and the second section in the lead which suggests it's real(reverted of course). If you want to read the article it's at [17] or a Google scholar search shows the pdf on some sort of religious website, but that's copyvio. I don't know enough to see if the inclusion is warranted, but it seems unlikely. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Basically all fringe, but a reader might not be clear about that. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
This is about [18]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The section "Prior to the 14th century" should be severely cut down, since the Shroud was created in the 14the century. Every "history" before that is fringe. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Returned to this article recently after unwatching it for a while, and the fringe had regrown (whitewashing of cult allegations, poorly-sourced medical claims, etc.). There also appears to have been a recent uptick in interest from new(ish) accounts. Could use more eyes. Bon courage ( talk) 09:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Trindade Island UFO hoax ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Are there better sources for this article? jps ( talk) 21:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence in the lead has called this a writing system since 2013 [23] but the rest of the lead seems to contradict this assertion. Unless I'm missing something I intend to remove that. If I'm wrong, sorry for bringing this here as a a real unknown writing system isn't fringe. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
otherwise unknown writing systemseems eminently apt to me and the rest of the lead makes clear that it being a writing system does not in itself confer any particular form of authenticity. Even if whoever created it was just making stuff up it's still a pretty impressive system with apparently observable rules and internal logic.There's other stuff in that article (and its revision history) that is far more relevant to WP:FTN than that bit. On the whole, the Voynich is a legitimate area of study (with plenty of reliable mainstream scientists) that just also happens to attract a lot of amateurs, kooks, and conspiracy theorists. The set of amateurs, incidentally, are not by any stretch identical with the "kooks and conspiracy theorists" (though there is probably some overlap) in my experience.The Voynich isn't my field but I did spend some time reading up on it a few years back (due to its obvious mystical allure, heh) and found the field much more well-behaved than I had expected. Skimming the article now it also seems much improved since last I looked, and the biggest problem is probably that it's a bit long and should be split into sub-articles. Xover ( talk) 11:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
A writing system is a method of visually representing verbal communication, based on a script and a set of rules regulating its use, which definition a code or cypher would fall under. To call it a "script" is just to refer to one part of the system without the other (the "set of rules"), so at worst slightly imprecise. If it is a hoax it may still be a writing system, just one constructed artificially with the intent to deceive. The only thing that is actually contradictory is if it turns out that there is no actual system there, just some madman drawing random pretty pictures that look like writing. But in that case the randomness looks enough like a writing system that it has fooled lots of serious mainstream scholars into investigating it and observing possible features of a writing system (see the rest of the article).But to be clear, if you want to go hog-wild copy-editing it for clarity I have no objection (the locals at Talk:Voynich manuscript might but I don't watch that page often so I don't know how controversial or not that'd be). I am only saying I—as a dabbler and not an expert—see no obvious WP:FRINGE issue in the "writing system" issue. I could be wrong, but that's my take anyway.BTW, one of the theories that have been investigated regarding the Voynich is that it is written in a known human language, just using a made up alphabet (one reason for which might be in order to "encrypt" it). Think of it as Russian written in either the Cyrillic or Latin script, or Arabic written in either Arabic alphabet or in a Romanization of Arabic (Latin script). There are some linguistic statistical features of it that suggest this may be the case (but like everything else about the Voynich the evidence is not conclusive and no real firm consensus exist among scholars, or it didn't back in 2015 or thereabout anyway). It's what makes the Voynich so fun: there are so many tantalising clues, and yet the only real evidence for its providence point so strongly in the direction of a fraud or hoax. Xover ( talk) 12:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Some additional eyes would be welcome at List of reported UFO sightings, UFO sightings in the United States, and the associated Talk pages. At issue is whether material sourced to confirmed fringe advocates, including Jacques Vallée, Ann Druffel, and Martin Shough, passes WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:FRINGE. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I have warnd Yann ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in two ways to stop with this WP:ADVOCACY. jps ( talk) 16:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
In UFO sightings in the United States, most cases don't even have a reference... Double standard anyone? Yann ( talk) 22:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Even ignoring the poor sourcing and dubious use made of such sources, the entire structure of the List of reported UFO sightings seems problematic to me. The conflation of alleged 'fiery disks' from 1440 BC with 'close encounters and abductions' and recent unexplained sightings by civil and military aircrew as 'UFO sightings' appears to me to be synthesis, promoting fringe claims that there is some sort of single explanation for disparate accounts over millennia. It is a list of 'stuff ufologists like to present as evidence for something or other', compiled apparently by Wikipedia contributors who wish to do the same. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The conflation of alleged 'fiery disks' from 1440 BC with 'close encounters and abductions' and recent unexplained sightings by civil and military aircrew as 'UFO sightings' appears to me to be synthesis, promoting fringe claims that there is some sort of single explanation for disparate accounts over millennia. It is a list of 'stuff ufologists like to present as evidence for something or other', compiled apparently by Wikipedia contributors who wish to do the same.Agreed. The reason that it is set up like this, however, is that this sort of "synthesis" is one that is seen in some reliable sources. The last time I fought this battle, I was content to include any incident that was mentioned in sources about UFOs that were even vaguely reliable. Skepticial debunkings often mention these "historical" UFO claims in the context of arguing that these compendiums are what make up the entire fringe oeuvre. Whether and how we decide what the best standards for inclusion and sourcing that can be used to do this are is the question I would like to see resolved. When I last tried to do this, I couldn't really get enough people interested to form a consensus, so I just did removal haphazardly based mostly on whether or not I could find a source. Now it may be a good idea to be a bit more discerning in which sources we would use to allow for inclusion. Happy to see this ball rolling. jps ( talk) 13:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a big confusion here. Sure, claiming that UFOs are from outer space is a fringe theory. But puting the whole subject into FRINGE, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Even the US Air Force acknowledges that some sightings are unexplained. Yann ( talk) 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Why keep the article? Because those of us who have considered what to do think there are enough sources out there that it probably would survive AfD. Look, if you can come up with a WP:LISTCRIT that would solve some of this mess, have at it. One idea might be to only include incidents for which there is a standalone article (or, at the very least, a section in another article). Another idea might be to only include incidents that have at least one WP:FRIND source covering it. These are all ideas I have had, but up until now there hasn't been enough of a critical mass to really get the editorial consensus to decide exactly how we should proceed, so imperfection has been the name of the game. Let us know what you think, and, if enough people agree, we'll fix it up. jps ( talk) 21:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
This article came to my attention via reference gnoming. I know very little about the subject area, but the latter part of the article gives the appearance of being promotion of a body of fringe theories, supported by "in-universe" references none of which pass the "independent" leg of WP:RS. I am unenthusiastic about this sort of clean-up, but perhaps somebody who frequents this board would like to take a look at the article? Thanks, Wham2001 ( talk) 10:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Journeyers in holotropic states of consciousness can also experience meaningful family, ancestral, racial, or collective memories. These experiences from the "historical unconscious" are in basic agreement with C. G. Jung's observations. Another category that Jung did not study or document are past-life experiences. The authenticity of these can sometimes be independently verified.This article needs a serious haircut. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Transpersonal psychology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
After doing the cleanup of Stanislav Grof above, I noticed that this page is suffering from a lot of problems. Can others point to good WP:FRIND sources about this "field of study"? It looks to me to be very WP:FRINGE perhaps to the tune of most relevant experts straight-up ignoring it. jps ( talk) 13:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpersonal business studies. jps ( talk) 13:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpersonal anthropology. jps ( talk) 14:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Should our article on James A. Lindsay mention his support for the Cultural marxism conspiracy theory? It is the subject of his latest book. More eyes and opinions would be very welcome at Talk:James A. Lindsay MrOllie ( talk) 15:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I am disputing the use of three refs to source predicted changes of temps in various cities and towns. The refs, all web pages, do not contain the names of the cities concerned in a web page search, but you have to search and guess where to click to find the info, in some clever bit of webmappery.
Discussion can be found here on a user Talk page. Unfortunately, the section has become confusing, but I think the issue is adequately covered in the first few entries of the discussion. Any advice would be welcome, including advice to me along the lines of "wrong as usual Roxy" if that is in fact the case. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 10:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a fringe theory or just an alternative mental health practice. But it seems like kind of advertisement for this method of psychological treatment and the primary support for its claims is an article in a journal that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on which increases my skepticism. There are reliable sources for EMDR, an apparently related treatment method, but I know that EMDR's effectiveness has been studied and it's pretty well accepted among therapists which doesn't seem to be the case with "havening".
I don't have enough knowledge about WP:MEDRS to nominate the page for deletion but I thought I'd bring it over here to see what the regulars at this board thought. The reason I came across this article is I just closed an AFD discussion for a practitioner of this method, an "excutive coach", which was closed as Delete and I hadn't heard about this methodology that she practiced. I'm interested in hearing whether or not you think this this is a valid alternative practice or just a promotional article for an invented form of mental health treatment. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO-Memorial Ängelholm but also has tone problems in any case. Mangoe ( talk) 04:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Is the criticism section undue? See Talk page there. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Editing at this article is hotting up following appearance of a new a/c who has said [27] the article should be altered to view the subject "through lens of cryonics: a person undergoing medical treatment". More wise eyes could help. Bon courage ( talk) 07:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
See Talk:Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon#Horses in pre-Columbian - we may find this impacts other articles. The BBC article is at [28].
And while on the subject of horses, Horses in the United States has this: " A genetic study published in 2021 indicates that horses, that were directly related to the modern horses, were still present in Yukon at least until 5,700 years ago or mid- Holocene, [1] and this makes some researchers to think horses are biologically native to North America and the modern animals should also be treated as native. [2]" Does anyone remember a discussion of that paper? Thanks.
References
Doug Weller talk 13:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
See [ https://cosmicsummit2023.com/} a lot of the usual suspects. And a disclaimer saying it isn't a presentation of the CRG. True, it just has a lot of its members speaking, alongside Hancock, Randall Carlson, etc. For those who don't know Kenneth Tankersley, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 85 (note he has changed his ethnic identity). Not until June - and it will cause problems then I'm sure, but it's relevant to the CRG now. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia WP:FRINGE defines a fringe theory as "a theory that falls far out of the scientific mainstream". No reasonable person could conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that cryonics qualifies as a "fringe theory" or "pseudoscience" based on a literal interpretation of the above rule. While cryonics has its (very vocal) dissidents, many scientists--a significant portion of the scientific community, advocate for cryonics. Notably, there are very few scientific papers that actually criticize cryonics--most criticism comes from news article and anecdotal statements by experts or non-experts. Conversely, there is ample support for cryonics in the scientific literature; for example, check out this link https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4733321/.
Nevertheless, most justifications for cryonics don't fall into the category of scientific literature. However, by the parity of information test, this does not make cryonics a "pseudoscience", as the vast majority--possibly the entirety, of criticism of cryonics, falls under "non-scientific literature". Just like many scientists have expressed disdain for cryonics to media sources, many scientists have expressed support; a percentage similar to the number of opponents. Many scientists have chosen to view cryonics through the "clinical trial" lens; they consider cryonics to be simply the clinical testing of an unproven treatment, which is not pseudoscientific or fringe, much like the COVID-19 vaccines weren't fringe or pseudoscientific before the first trial results were published. Ralph Merkle, the founder of public-key cryptography, has spoken out in favor of cryonics. So have Ray Kurzweil and Eliezer Yudkowsky, two notable AI experts and futurists. One may object that these scientists are not experts in the field of cryogenics or human biology; that's true, but neither are most of the critics of cryonics.
Even the media, the main source, direct or indirect, of anti-cryonics arguments, presents a much more balanced view of cryonics than is commonly presumed on Wikipedia: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/want-to-avoid-death-maybe-cryonics-isnt-crazy/2023/01/08/a59b5ada-8f33-11ed-b86a-2e3a77336b8e_story.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-decapitate-and-chill/
....and many more.
Cryonics does not qualify as a pseudoscience or fringe theory under Wikipedia's fringe theories guideline; it neither falls far out of the scientific mainstream as expressed through direct or anecdotal opinions of scientists, nor is there ample scientific literature against the practice. SurfingOrca2045 ( talk) 18:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
speculative practice at the outer edge of science, cryonics is often viewed with suspicion.[1], the application of FRINGE considerations seems apt. signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes.This strikes me as a good description of where we are with cryonics--there is a claim that death (which I think we can agree is heretofore a basic law of nature) can be transcended through...something. Again, I understand the hope, and I would not personally dream of saying the hypothesis is certainly wrong. But the future procedure by which people might be revived strikes me as lacking strong scientific evidence at the present time. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 20:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
the definition may be changed in the future, with which I agree. Would you agree with me that implicit in that statement is the idea that the definition may not change? Dumuzid ( talk) 20:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
References
SurfingOrca2045 - You have made something like 33 comments in this section (that might be an underestimate), you have made your point clearly many times, and there is no reason to think that your favored content will gain consensus. You should really drop the stick now. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 22:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
but it seems extreme to say that cryonics certainly will failI don't see that we say this anywhere in the article. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
LGBT grooming conspiracy theory ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Is there a "mainstream debate" over whether teaching children about the existence of LGBT individuals in a value-neutral way is a form of "grooming"? Or is this a conspiracy theory? Sources have been marshaled. Brand-new accounts have staked out provocative positions. Do you have what it takes to wade into this exciting talk page thread?? If so, check out all the zany shenanigans at Talk:LGBT grooming conspiracy theory#Conspiracy theory in the name!!! Generalrelative ( talk) 00:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Conservative pushbackunless, of course "Conservative pushback" actually means the promotion of violence and bigotry. Some reliable sources do refer to the groomer slur as a "conspiracy theory", and it bears marks in common with other conspiracy theories (e.g., QAnon) such as its antisemitic canards. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Hi all, wanted to make you aware of
this ongoing discussion. Basically, some editors over there think the aforementioned list should have a consensus requirement that any topic listed must also be explicitly described as "pseudoscience" in the main or parent article.
E.g. we should not list " Earthing therapy" or "grounding" (the idea that periodically "grounding" yourself electrically by walking barefoot on soil or touching electrical "grounds" has immunological benefits) because it has, in the past, been deemed not notable enough to have a parent article.
Or, we should not list " Hair analysis" or " Macrobiotic diets" because the parent article doesn't actually say the practice is "pseudoscience." Even if we have good quality RSes demonstrating that the scientific consensus is that the practice is pseudoscientific.
Your feedback is welcomed! — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
As a general rule, I'd say that we'd want at least some RS describing a topic as pseudoscience explicitly in order to merit inclusion in the list, regardless of the state of our articles
Article: Vikramaditya
There's an attempt to create present a mythical person as an actual historical figure, without citations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingsphagettimonster ( talk • contribs) 04:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Basically promoting a (defunct?) "freedom of information activist group". No third-party analysis of the group. Not sure it is even notable. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Project Veritas released a new covid-related video recently and as usual it's full of lies and misdirection, so expect an uptick in traffic on the article. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:44BA:33D4:C395:AEEB ( talk) 01:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity.
Was quoted at me recently as evidence that STURP is not fringe, so it probably needs improvement. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
There is no indication that STURP is fringeYou mean you know of no such indication. Ask User:Wdford or Joe Nickell or anyone else who understands the subject. They do know. Or read the sources given in Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. Then you will know too. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
as evidence that STURP is not fringe.Please do not WP:FORUMSHOP. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I understand your point. Certainly that would be very interesting. However such things take time and cost money. After the C14 dates were published, objective scientists lost interest in the shroud, and understandably they are using their limited time and resources on other projects. Only the "believers" continue to roll this boulder up the hill, inventing new "tests" as they go along which, with a large enough "margin for error", invariably "prove" that the C14 dates are somehow wrong. Wdford ( talk) 11:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Astrology pages suffer from regular linkspam infestations. But recent reverts by User:Bishonen put back old, broken spam links instead of the new, working versions of the same spam links. I think they should instead be removed and the stuff which is sourced to them too. What do others think? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
This is being contested: I would be very, very interested (and surprised) to see that Staudenmaier has genuinely turned up incriminating evidence about Marie Steiner.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 10:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The facts are: they are of the opinion that Marie Steiner-von Sivers is getting libeled: dead people can't be libeled. Attributing someone saying what her political beliefs were seems appropriate and avoids most problems entirely, so why not phrase it as "According to Büchenbacher..." —DIYeditor ( talk) 13:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Their reply is at [33]. Anyway, the article now uses WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV so it is not even claiming it in the voice of Wikipedia.
Seen what is written at Rudolf Steiner#Attacks, illness, and death, it is highly probable that she was a Nazi sympathizer, because her husband and mentor had similar ideas to Nazism. She probably did not know that the Nazis were going to perform the Holocaust, so she cannot be blamed about that. The essential difference between Steiner and the Nazis, is that Steiner was basically a humanitarian, while the Nazi regime was bloodthirsty. For the rest, he pontificated about racial purity, esoteric medicine and biodynamic agriculture, which were endorsed by Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler, if not Hitler.
Source: Wieringa, Tommy (8 May 2021).
"Groene vingers". NRC (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 7 February 2023. Het was een ontmoeting van oude bekenden: nazi-kopstukken als Rudolf Hess en Heinrich Himmler herkenden in Rudolf Steiner al een geestverwant, met zijn theorieën over raszuiverheid, esoterische geneeskunst en biologisch-dynamische landbouw. — It was a meeting of old acquaintances: Nazi leaders such as Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler already recognized a kindred spirit in Rudolf Steiner, with his theories about racial purity, esoteric medicine and biodynamic agriculture.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
And disgruntled
and elderly and embittered man
are arguments
pro domo sua, simply because
WP:FRINGE cults do not love rational criticism. It is a democratic right to disagree with the mainstream academic view, but it is sheer inanity to completely ignore how the academic mainstream views one's cult.
In fact, what do you expect? Anthroposophists believe Steiner's "historical" reports of the life from Atlantis and Lemuria, which count as rank pseudohistory in the academia. He even advised them that it is bad for their development to learn mainstream history. In the end, there are quite many sources which show that Steiner posited a hierarchy of human races, and was full of craps in respect to empirical science and history. Too many to be all shot down as unreliable. E.g. when talking to a Romanian Anthroposophist, he considered that reading Die Entente-Freimaurerei und der Weltkrieg is solid food in the meaning of 1 Corinthians 3:2, only to be read after one attains good knowledge of Anthroposophy. tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
[34] Not a good title but recommended. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
An editor wants to remove SARS-CoV-2 from the list of spillover infections. Your participation would be appreciated at the relevant discussion. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
About a denialist website with a misleading name, subject of edit-warring by new user at the moment. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The article Trish Leigh has been started. Hint: "specialized in neurofeedback" means WP:FRINGE, and the diagnosis of porn addiction is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Now at Draft:Trish Leigh. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
See the centralized discussion here on whether and how to include this topic in the list. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 14:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The Philosophy of Freedom relies heavily upon original research based upon Steiner's own works.
While a certain amount of MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR is allowed, this article is nothing else than MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
An editor has launched an RfC proposing Cultural Marxism as a valid construct please discuss. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Now the same editor is proposing to move the current article, Marxist cultural analysis, into Cultural studies, while removing the content that distinguishes actual Marxist analysis of culture from the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The discussion is here. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
quarter of its body textdid you write, Sennalen? This seems like an odd thing for you to raise as an objection. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Should our article quote his fringe ideas about evolution in detail, without refutation, or not?
Same old same old. We had this same question so many times, and the answer is always the same ("not"), but the people who were there forget it all the time. I don't know what to do. If we write an essay, people will say it is just an essay. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context. The context is rejection by the mainstream. So,
I do not qualify "discussed" that wayis not in accordance with WP:FRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
one or two sentencesIt was five well-known false rumors he was repeating. Now thankfully deleted.
If the fringe theory is unique to Roy SpencerIt is not. He was just regurgitating what all the ID people say. See below.
Again, it's difficult to make any recommendations without specific text or diffsIt would have been very easy to find, checking the history of the article linked above. But it is history now. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
On the Jordan Peterson article I have removed some very unreliable sources that were making health claims about Jordan Peterson's beef only diet. That section of the article appears to have been a previous battleground. I am confused to why such terrible sources were left on the article for so long, i.e. an opinion piece [41] written by a non-medical person who owns a carnivore diet website called mostly fat [42]. There was also a predatory paper by Frontiers and another off-topic odd paper. Further content might need to be trimmed so any help appreciated. Also see the talk-page discussion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 04:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Also anything published by Frontiers Media is suspect and the paper that was cited did not mention Peterson so we cannot cite the source per original research policyThis would actually only be true if we were using it to reference something about Peterson, which we aren't. We're using it to provide the mainstream view of meat diets per WP:FRINGE. The sentence we're using it for is only about the diet, so it's not OR. I understand your hesitance about Frontiers journals, and I do share it. But that source is a systematic review and meta-analysis, one of the best available tools we have to ascertain the medical/scientific consensus per WP:MEDSCI and WP:MEDASSESS. Frontiers journals do have a lower degree of reliability in general, given their substandard editorial policies, but they are not deprecated. We must examine them on a case-by-case basis. I don't see anything about the methodology in that particular paper, or the affiliations of the authors, or the conclusions, that would lead me to throw it out directly. Even better, it's PROSPERO registered, which does give us some reason to believe the authors stand behind their review protocol. I've also corrected an error in the text-- the Frontiers review only shows an increase in triglycerides and actually does not show an increase in total cholesterol. A subtle but important distinction, and was my mistake. Are there specific concerns that you have with the review, @ Psychologist Guy, apart from the fact that it's published in a Frontiers journal?I agree the content might be better as a more concise thing providing the mainstream view, from as reliable a source as we can muster (or, better, 2). How about: "There are no available randomized controlled trials which show any beneficial effects from the carnivore diet or which rule out any placebo effect.(todaysdieticianref) Some nutrition experts, including Jack Gilbert of the University of Chicago,(Atlanticref) point out that such a diet can result in "severe dysregulation" including an increase in serum triglycerides and possible cardiac issues.(Frontiersref)"This covers our bases with regards to using more trusted experts (Jack Gilbert and Carrie Dennett) and using a MEDRS (the Frontiers systematic review and meta-analysis) where we are directly making any claims of possible risk. I would also say we should not remove the Jack Gilbert piece no matter what, because it's published in The Atlantic (clearly a RS), and Gilbert is a recognized health expert who is commenting directly on Peterson's diet. He is making a medical claim, so of course I would prefer a MEDRS be added to it. I'm open to one that is in a different journal, but especially per PARITY I don't see why the Frontiers ref would be insufficient. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), high blood pressure and stroke. We also do not claim causality here, we only say "associated with". Which is precisely what our best available sources say about red meat consumption. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
It's a Jordan Peterson article, not a dietary science article. If he says he eats only mice, the article isn't the place for analysis / coverage of whether or not a "mice only"' diet is good or bad.North8000 ( talk) 17:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Some enneagram fans want some weasel words, and they edit-war to keep them. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
In related news, I redirected Fourth Way enneagram to the only book that talks about it. jps ( talk) 15:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Talk page, new section "Crime". What do people think? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Stumbled over this via the Category:Quantum mysticism advocates. The article has had a template "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories." since 2014, and it certainly does that. How about deleting the whole "Work" section? It is 100% PRIMARY, and 100% bologna. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Charon chooses to call these individual beings of intelligence, "eons." They are otherwise known as electrons... Nothing would be lost from that not being part of Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 19:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Contains COVID disinformation unchecked by mainstream comments: "Never before in medical history has there been a proposal to vaccinate children against a disease that poses them no measurable harm." See SBM, which of course does not mention every ignorant person repeating the false rumors, as Oliver does. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Some whitewashing going on at bio of fringe conspiracy theorist. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Where you say a "fringe conspiracy theorist" a lawyer would call libel
Badge Man is currently a featured article candidate. I think my only remaining concern is the presentation of one particular fringe view by Mark Lane that has no rebuttal. [48] Given that this is something that could appear on the front page, I thought I would mention it here for additional feedback. Please comment in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Badge Man/archive1. - Location ( talk) 14:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)