![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I see that recently editors have been coming here with threads regarding doctrines of "Abraham in Islam", "Christian Science", "Jesus in India", and others, looking in several debates to find here some definitive official "rulings" on the validity of various theological positions and arguments. This is what I always feared and warned would happen. "Hmmm, that was fun, now whose beliefs system will we judge and marginalize next?" Otherwise it would be more honest just to move the board to Wikipedia:Heresy tribunal or the like. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 18:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
"I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said 'Stop! don't do it!' 'Why shouldn't I?' he said. I said, 'Well, there's so much to live for!' He said, 'Like what?' I said, 'Well...are you religious or atheist?' He said, 'Religious.' I said, 'Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?' He said, 'Christian.' I said, 'Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?' He said, 'Protestant.' I said, 'Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?' He said, 'Baptist!' I said,'Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?' He said, 'Baptist church of god!' I said, 'Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?' He said,'Reformed Baptist church of god!' I said, 'Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?' He said, 'Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!' I said, 'Die, heretic scum', and pushed him off." -Emo Phillips -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The Nutshell summary of the project page does not specifically mention science or history (or the pseudo-versions thereof), but “scholarship”. So ISTM that where reliable sources of theological (or, e.g., palaeographic) scholarship exist, even within the context of a particular denomination or sect’s world-view, a neutral assessment of a given position’s ‘fringeyness’ ought to be possible. Of course, as with scientific and historical matters, some knowledge of the state of the field is required—and to the extent that a board like this tends to attract editors of a skeptical bent, it’s unsurprising if theology is not a strong suit of many. This should not, however, be grounds for excluding such topics altogether. OTOH religious doctrines per se are not amenable to academic discourse, and will therefore lack neutral secondary sources.— Odysseus1479 ( talk) 02:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone isn't aware of this already, Wikipedia:Flow is software that is planned to replace our current way of editing talk pages. I would encourage you all to take a look and possibly comment on the project. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Board regulars may be interested in my merge proposal here which concerns wikiprojects in the fringe area: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Merging_projects_-_Fringe, IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
There's a long discussion at Osteopathic manipulative medicine about whether/how some content from this journal can be used. I've stepped back from it now, but raise this here as questions of policy/guidance interpretation have been raised which may have a bearing on how WP:FRINGE applies, and so may be of interest to this noticeboard. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 18:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Just an FYI: [1], thanks for spreading the FTN Gospel, Tom! ;-) -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 18:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about what direction we want this noticeboard to go. In the "Can this peer-reviewed article..." case, it appears to me that we have strayed considerably from our stated purpose of
Instead I see a lot of discussion that, in my opinion, belongs on the article talk page or possibly at WP:RSN. In essence, we have become an extension of the article talk page.
You might think "who cares? no harm done", but from a standpoint of attracting new participants a Fringe Theories Noticeboard that has a number of concise and to-the-point sections is a different animal than one that contains a (...opens word count program...) 10,040-word monster.
Comments? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to say - I posted this comment far earlier in the debate last night, amongst many other comments by other editors.
When I woke up this morning, it had been moved to start a new section by another editor as if I had posted it as a proposal to resolve the debate.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Towards_a_possible_resolution
That was not my intention. And I wake up to find out this huge long discussion of my comment, with no opportunity for me to reply to any of it - as the whole thing has already been closed. And the admin closing the debate says that the proposed theory is established scientific fact. But if you look at the debate, though many editors said this vocally, it was nearly all OR. And a literature search didn't turn up anything that suggested that it was an established scientific fact. The arguments presented against using the source I mentioned as a citation in wikipedia were weak in my opinion - seem mainly based on his religion, that the author, the indologist Edwin Bryant (author) is a Hindu - but I got no chance to reply.
I don't have any particular axe to grind here. I'm a Buddhist and I'm interested in the origin of the culture that the Buddha was born in, but no religious interest in the Vedas as we don't have them. I'm also interested to know why it is that India didn't have writing even as late as the Buddha while they had it much earlier on in the middle East and this debate seems relevant to that question.
Also am preparing a DRN Notice about the author who rewrote this article. In the case of the articles on Buddhism one of his main characteristics is that he chooses a single POV which he presents as "the facts" and does not mention any articles critical of it and does not mention any competing POVs in the article. And also includes unsourced material in his articles. He presents an impressive case for his views which convinces other editors - that is - until you do a literature search and read the citations. Robert Walker ( talk) 11:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
"It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe.
"The most remarkable aspect of the ANI-ASI mixture is how pervasive it was, in the sense that it has left its mark on nearly every group in India. It has affected not just traditionally upper-caste groups, but also traditionally lower-caste and isolated tribal groups, all of whom are united in their history of mixture in the past few thousand years. It may be possible to gain further insight into the history that brought the ANI and ASI together by studying DNA from ancient human remains (such studies need to overcome the challenge of a tropical environment not conducive to DNA preservation). Ancient DNA studies could be particularly revealing about Indian history because they have the potential to directly reveal the geographic distribution of the ANI and ASI prior to their admixture."
Robert, I've proposed a topic-ban because you started to canvass other editors in your crusade against me, and used this thread to attack me again:
Stop attacking me, and post your DRN - or just stop this nonsense.
Regarding the study you're referring to: I did read about it, as I did read about the other studies, and I do notice some other things than you do. Basically they support the IAMt. See
Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory#Reviewing the Genetics literature. If you want to know more about the topic, start with David Anthony's "The Horse, The Wheel, and Language".
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
05:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Maps |
---|
![]() |
I previously gave a weblink to a yahoo groups post [2] for Mallory's editorial note on the Kazanas paper. I now have the source [1] and can confirm that the yahoo groups post is accurate. Curiously, he also quotes a paragraph from Bryant, which seems topical in the light of our recent discussions:
- "This does not mean that the Indigenous Aryan position is historically probable. The available evidence by no means denies the normative view—that of external Aryan origins and, if anything, favors it. But this view has had more than its fair share of airing over the last two centuries, and the Indigenous Aryan position has been generally ignored or marginalized. What it does mean, in my view, is that Indigenous Aryanism must be allowed a legitimate and even valuable place in discussions of Indo-Aryan origins." [2]
So the Indo-Aryan migration view is the "normative view." The indigenist view had been "marginalized." So, it should be "allowed" in the debate. It does not mean any acceptance that the indigenist view is "probable." How different this is from what we have been led to believe here, viz., that Bryant has supported the indigenist view and that the migration view has now become a fringe view?
Also found on the same page of Bryant is this sentence:
- "Vedantic discourse, for one, would consider nationalism (whether Hindu, American, English, or anything else) to be simply another upadhi, or false designation, imposed on the atman out of ignorance ("Hindu nationalism" from this perspective, is something of an oxymoron)."
It is an upadhi, born out of "ignorance." How enlightening! Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Mallory, J. P. (2002). "Editor's Note: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate". Journal of Indo-European Studies. 30 (3 & 4): 273–274.
- ^ Bryant, Edwin (2001), The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Oxford University Press, p. 7, ISBN 0-19-513777-9
Many apologies, another one. Latest edit POV, OR, etc. Dougweller ( talk) 13:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
several years ago someone developed a userbox for fringe theory devotees.
![]() | This user saw Bigfoot and a Mokele-mbembe cured by Magnet therapy at a Reportedly haunted location while debating Climate change denial with a UFO piloted by an Aquatic ape at the Fringe theories Noticeboard. |
Please use at your leisure. --
Rocksanddirt (
talk)
22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
edit for tidiness. I know this is kludgy, but I can't read the next topic without getting my doggy mind all confuseled.
Roxy the dog™ (
Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home)
07:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't get the idea that the best way to handle an article where over 2/3rds of talk page threads are objectively unhelpful is to mmake sure that the talk page threads linger for years, but McGeddon likes it that way. Expect a huge mess there. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 18:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Question: Should we create a master list as a subpage of this noticeboard on which to list articles that are frequently the object of problematic editing involving the promotion of Fringe Theories? It could be a reference for editors who want to help out in the fight against POV pushing. We could track edits on the articles and if so inclined editors could add some of the articles to their own watchlist. I think we could all rattle off a short (or long) list of articles that are frequent targets of this kind of editing and that could use some extra eyes. Just a thought. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I often include such articles in WP:WikiProject Skepticism. That provides a means of identifying them for the community. There' some good stuff at that WikiProject, but it seems a bit quiet. Alexbrn ( talk) 04:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
May be of interest. Jytdog ( talk) 03:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
a highly discussed topic in Denmark and Swedenwas supposed to say, "a highly discussed topic on /r/european." Ugh. Idk if there are other redditors here who know what I'm talking about, but as much as I probably think that article should be deleted based on the title, I had to close it. Can't contribute. PermStrump (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I was looking at various fringe articles on vaguely medical topics, and noticed that we have a wide variety of ways of saying "this modality is not supported by any scientific evidence". For example, in Aromatherapy we have the rather vaguely worded:
It can be offered as a complementary therapy or, more controversially, as form of alternative medicine. Complementary therapy can be offered alongside standard treatment,[2] with alternative medicine offered 'instead of conventional treatments', conventional treatments being often scientifically proven..
In Myofacial Release we have the much clearer:
The use of myofascial release as a treatment is not supported by good evidence, and using it as a replacement for conventional treatment risks causing harm
Meanwhile Moreman Therapy gets directly and specifcally to the point:
there is no evidence of its worth as a cancer treatment
My concern is that we have lots of different ways of saying essentially the same things, and not every expression of the sentiment puts it well. For me the most fundamental points I'd want to get across are:
Could we make a template that expresses these ideas in a way that is compact enough to fit into an article's lead section? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 16:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
As some of you are aware, we've had a major problem with pseudoscience in our folklore-related articles for a long time now. I've been pushing back on this for some time, and I've put together an article reflecting what I've been seeing. I welcome feedback and input going forward. You can view the writeup here. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
From the noticeboard header: Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles of improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories.
Shouldn't that read, "...for creating new articles or improving existing articles..."? -
LuckyLouie (
talk)
16:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I propose that we add the following to the the instructions at the top of this page:
As something about the nuts and bolts of the noticeboard, isn't this really better discussed on the noticeboard's Talk page? (I say this out of consistency, having recently advised another editor to do the same with their discussion of the functioning of the board.) Agricolae ( talk) 17:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
|
Curious as to why users are being labeled as SPAs without cause. There are now four editors who hav e had the tag added to their signature - only one of them could possibly be defined as an SPA according to WP policy. When I attempted to remove a tag (which had been placed contrary to policy) I was reverted and the article was then locked down to ip editors for literally no discernible reason. Coincidentally, all the editors tagged as an SPA just happened to vote “no” on what should be a fairly uncontroversial RFC. However some of the “yes” voters seem to take personal offense to the topic instead of working cooperatively. Our readers deserve access to relevant data and reliable sources in an unbiased manner. Instead, mainstream, reliably science is being decried as “fringe” by a vocal minority who fears the political ramifications of some of these theories. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B01E:1E68:901A:F290:2F24:7780 ( talk) 00:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Completely bogus removal: [4]
WP:COPYVIOEL says:
"External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use."
The removed link to [ Still Alive - Frank Sinatra Big Band Swing Version (The 8-Bit Big Band)] is to a YouTube video copyright 8-Bit Big Band and the video is on the official 8-Bit Big Band YouTube channel. [5] Clearly they own the work and this is not a case of someone stealing the work of another and posting it on YouTube.
As for the legality of releasing a cover version of a composition copyrighted to a video game maker, as it says at Cover version#U.S. copyright law, "Since the Copyright Act of 1909, United States musicians have had the right to record a version of someone else's previously recorded and released tune, whether it is music alone or music with lyrics... a composer cannot deny anyone a mechanical license for a new recorded version."
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Is this relevant to this board? Maybe try WP:ANI? jps ( talk) 11:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Much of my editing and interest is related to the kind of junk science that we deal with every day on the WP:FTN. As we know, not all articles about bogus subjects are themselves bogus. There is room for sober discussion of topics such as UFOs and conspiracies. Is there a wikiproject that might act as a focus for constructive editing about these kinds of parascientific topics? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Pre-Columbian Black Indians - The term Black Indian may also refer to pre-Columbian black peoples in the United States, as well as elsewhere in North, Central, and South America. There are historical reports of black indigenous Americans, and many scholars have asserted that black populations existed in the Americas at and/or prior to European contact.
Either unsourced or sourced to non-RS sources for the field. This is a fringe theory usually promoted by anti-Indigenous groups who then characterize Native Americans as Asian. I haven't gone over all the "sources" being cited yet, but no reputable scholars believe this stuff, and it has been wielded by certain groups with harmful intent. User is quacking a bit so this may need SPI, as well. Just getting on it after a complaint. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I would think needs attention. Health claims without actually telling us what the stuff is. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I see that recently editors have been coming here with threads regarding doctrines of "Abraham in Islam", "Christian Science", "Jesus in India", and others, looking in several debates to find here some definitive official "rulings" on the validity of various theological positions and arguments. This is what I always feared and warned would happen. "Hmmm, that was fun, now whose beliefs system will we judge and marginalize next?" Otherwise it would be more honest just to move the board to Wikipedia:Heresy tribunal or the like. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 18:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
"I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said 'Stop! don't do it!' 'Why shouldn't I?' he said. I said, 'Well, there's so much to live for!' He said, 'Like what?' I said, 'Well...are you religious or atheist?' He said, 'Religious.' I said, 'Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?' He said, 'Christian.' I said, 'Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?' He said, 'Protestant.' I said, 'Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?' He said, 'Baptist!' I said,'Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?' He said, 'Baptist church of god!' I said, 'Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?' He said,'Reformed Baptist church of god!' I said, 'Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?' He said, 'Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!' I said, 'Die, heretic scum', and pushed him off." -Emo Phillips -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The Nutshell summary of the project page does not specifically mention science or history (or the pseudo-versions thereof), but “scholarship”. So ISTM that where reliable sources of theological (or, e.g., palaeographic) scholarship exist, even within the context of a particular denomination or sect’s world-view, a neutral assessment of a given position’s ‘fringeyness’ ought to be possible. Of course, as with scientific and historical matters, some knowledge of the state of the field is required—and to the extent that a board like this tends to attract editors of a skeptical bent, it’s unsurprising if theology is not a strong suit of many. This should not, however, be grounds for excluding such topics altogether. OTOH religious doctrines per se are not amenable to academic discourse, and will therefore lack neutral secondary sources.— Odysseus1479 ( talk) 02:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone isn't aware of this already, Wikipedia:Flow is software that is planned to replace our current way of editing talk pages. I would encourage you all to take a look and possibly comment on the project. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Board regulars may be interested in my merge proposal here which concerns wikiprojects in the fringe area: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Merging_projects_-_Fringe, IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
There's a long discussion at Osteopathic manipulative medicine about whether/how some content from this journal can be used. I've stepped back from it now, but raise this here as questions of policy/guidance interpretation have been raised which may have a bearing on how WP:FRINGE applies, and so may be of interest to this noticeboard. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 18:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Just an FYI: [1], thanks for spreading the FTN Gospel, Tom! ;-) -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 18:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about what direction we want this noticeboard to go. In the "Can this peer-reviewed article..." case, it appears to me that we have strayed considerably from our stated purpose of
Instead I see a lot of discussion that, in my opinion, belongs on the article talk page or possibly at WP:RSN. In essence, we have become an extension of the article talk page.
You might think "who cares? no harm done", but from a standpoint of attracting new participants a Fringe Theories Noticeboard that has a number of concise and to-the-point sections is a different animal than one that contains a (...opens word count program...) 10,040-word monster.
Comments? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to say - I posted this comment far earlier in the debate last night, amongst many other comments by other editors.
When I woke up this morning, it had been moved to start a new section by another editor as if I had posted it as a proposal to resolve the debate.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Towards_a_possible_resolution
That was not my intention. And I wake up to find out this huge long discussion of my comment, with no opportunity for me to reply to any of it - as the whole thing has already been closed. And the admin closing the debate says that the proposed theory is established scientific fact. But if you look at the debate, though many editors said this vocally, it was nearly all OR. And a literature search didn't turn up anything that suggested that it was an established scientific fact. The arguments presented against using the source I mentioned as a citation in wikipedia were weak in my opinion - seem mainly based on his religion, that the author, the indologist Edwin Bryant (author) is a Hindu - but I got no chance to reply.
I don't have any particular axe to grind here. I'm a Buddhist and I'm interested in the origin of the culture that the Buddha was born in, but no religious interest in the Vedas as we don't have them. I'm also interested to know why it is that India didn't have writing even as late as the Buddha while they had it much earlier on in the middle East and this debate seems relevant to that question.
Also am preparing a DRN Notice about the author who rewrote this article. In the case of the articles on Buddhism one of his main characteristics is that he chooses a single POV which he presents as "the facts" and does not mention any articles critical of it and does not mention any competing POVs in the article. And also includes unsourced material in his articles. He presents an impressive case for his views which convinces other editors - that is - until you do a literature search and read the citations. Robert Walker ( talk) 11:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
"It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe.
"The most remarkable aspect of the ANI-ASI mixture is how pervasive it was, in the sense that it has left its mark on nearly every group in India. It has affected not just traditionally upper-caste groups, but also traditionally lower-caste and isolated tribal groups, all of whom are united in their history of mixture in the past few thousand years. It may be possible to gain further insight into the history that brought the ANI and ASI together by studying DNA from ancient human remains (such studies need to overcome the challenge of a tropical environment not conducive to DNA preservation). Ancient DNA studies could be particularly revealing about Indian history because they have the potential to directly reveal the geographic distribution of the ANI and ASI prior to their admixture."
Robert, I've proposed a topic-ban because you started to canvass other editors in your crusade against me, and used this thread to attack me again:
Stop attacking me, and post your DRN - or just stop this nonsense.
Regarding the study you're referring to: I did read about it, as I did read about the other studies, and I do notice some other things than you do. Basically they support the IAMt. See
Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory#Reviewing the Genetics literature. If you want to know more about the topic, start with David Anthony's "The Horse, The Wheel, and Language".
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
05:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Maps |
---|
![]() |
I previously gave a weblink to a yahoo groups post [2] for Mallory's editorial note on the Kazanas paper. I now have the source [1] and can confirm that the yahoo groups post is accurate. Curiously, he also quotes a paragraph from Bryant, which seems topical in the light of our recent discussions:
- "This does not mean that the Indigenous Aryan position is historically probable. The available evidence by no means denies the normative view—that of external Aryan origins and, if anything, favors it. But this view has had more than its fair share of airing over the last two centuries, and the Indigenous Aryan position has been generally ignored or marginalized. What it does mean, in my view, is that Indigenous Aryanism must be allowed a legitimate and even valuable place in discussions of Indo-Aryan origins." [2]
So the Indo-Aryan migration view is the "normative view." The indigenist view had been "marginalized." So, it should be "allowed" in the debate. It does not mean any acceptance that the indigenist view is "probable." How different this is from what we have been led to believe here, viz., that Bryant has supported the indigenist view and that the migration view has now become a fringe view?
Also found on the same page of Bryant is this sentence:
- "Vedantic discourse, for one, would consider nationalism (whether Hindu, American, English, or anything else) to be simply another upadhi, or false designation, imposed on the atman out of ignorance ("Hindu nationalism" from this perspective, is something of an oxymoron)."
It is an upadhi, born out of "ignorance." How enlightening! Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Mallory, J. P. (2002). "Editor's Note: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate". Journal of Indo-European Studies. 30 (3 & 4): 273–274.
- ^ Bryant, Edwin (2001), The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Oxford University Press, p. 7, ISBN 0-19-513777-9
Many apologies, another one. Latest edit POV, OR, etc. Dougweller ( talk) 13:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
several years ago someone developed a userbox for fringe theory devotees.
![]() | This user saw Bigfoot and a Mokele-mbembe cured by Magnet therapy at a Reportedly haunted location while debating Climate change denial with a UFO piloted by an Aquatic ape at the Fringe theories Noticeboard. |
Please use at your leisure. --
Rocksanddirt (
talk)
22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
edit for tidiness. I know this is kludgy, but I can't read the next topic without getting my doggy mind all confuseled.
Roxy the dog™ (
Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home)
07:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't get the idea that the best way to handle an article where over 2/3rds of talk page threads are objectively unhelpful is to mmake sure that the talk page threads linger for years, but McGeddon likes it that way. Expect a huge mess there. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 18:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Question: Should we create a master list as a subpage of this noticeboard on which to list articles that are frequently the object of problematic editing involving the promotion of Fringe Theories? It could be a reference for editors who want to help out in the fight against POV pushing. We could track edits on the articles and if so inclined editors could add some of the articles to their own watchlist. I think we could all rattle off a short (or long) list of articles that are frequent targets of this kind of editing and that could use some extra eyes. Just a thought. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I often include such articles in WP:WikiProject Skepticism. That provides a means of identifying them for the community. There' some good stuff at that WikiProject, but it seems a bit quiet. Alexbrn ( talk) 04:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
May be of interest. Jytdog ( talk) 03:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
a highly discussed topic in Denmark and Swedenwas supposed to say, "a highly discussed topic on /r/european." Ugh. Idk if there are other redditors here who know what I'm talking about, but as much as I probably think that article should be deleted based on the title, I had to close it. Can't contribute. PermStrump (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I was looking at various fringe articles on vaguely medical topics, and noticed that we have a wide variety of ways of saying "this modality is not supported by any scientific evidence". For example, in Aromatherapy we have the rather vaguely worded:
It can be offered as a complementary therapy or, more controversially, as form of alternative medicine. Complementary therapy can be offered alongside standard treatment,[2] with alternative medicine offered 'instead of conventional treatments', conventional treatments being often scientifically proven..
In Myofacial Release we have the much clearer:
The use of myofascial release as a treatment is not supported by good evidence, and using it as a replacement for conventional treatment risks causing harm
Meanwhile Moreman Therapy gets directly and specifcally to the point:
there is no evidence of its worth as a cancer treatment
My concern is that we have lots of different ways of saying essentially the same things, and not every expression of the sentiment puts it well. For me the most fundamental points I'd want to get across are:
Could we make a template that expresses these ideas in a way that is compact enough to fit into an article's lead section? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 16:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
As some of you are aware, we've had a major problem with pseudoscience in our folklore-related articles for a long time now. I've been pushing back on this for some time, and I've put together an article reflecting what I've been seeing. I welcome feedback and input going forward. You can view the writeup here. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
From the noticeboard header: Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles of improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories.
Shouldn't that read, "...for creating new articles or improving existing articles..."? -
LuckyLouie (
talk)
16:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I propose that we add the following to the the instructions at the top of this page:
As something about the nuts and bolts of the noticeboard, isn't this really better discussed on the noticeboard's Talk page? (I say this out of consistency, having recently advised another editor to do the same with their discussion of the functioning of the board.) Agricolae ( talk) 17:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
|
Curious as to why users are being labeled as SPAs without cause. There are now four editors who hav e had the tag added to their signature - only one of them could possibly be defined as an SPA according to WP policy. When I attempted to remove a tag (which had been placed contrary to policy) I was reverted and the article was then locked down to ip editors for literally no discernible reason. Coincidentally, all the editors tagged as an SPA just happened to vote “no” on what should be a fairly uncontroversial RFC. However some of the “yes” voters seem to take personal offense to the topic instead of working cooperatively. Our readers deserve access to relevant data and reliable sources in an unbiased manner. Instead, mainstream, reliably science is being decried as “fringe” by a vocal minority who fears the political ramifications of some of these theories. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B01E:1E68:901A:F290:2F24:7780 ( talk) 00:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Completely bogus removal: [4]
WP:COPYVIOEL says:
"External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use."
The removed link to [ Still Alive - Frank Sinatra Big Band Swing Version (The 8-Bit Big Band)] is to a YouTube video copyright 8-Bit Big Band and the video is on the official 8-Bit Big Band YouTube channel. [5] Clearly they own the work and this is not a case of someone stealing the work of another and posting it on YouTube.
As for the legality of releasing a cover version of a composition copyrighted to a video game maker, as it says at Cover version#U.S. copyright law, "Since the Copyright Act of 1909, United States musicians have had the right to record a version of someone else's previously recorded and released tune, whether it is music alone or music with lyrics... a composer cannot deny anyone a mechanical license for a new recorded version."
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Is this relevant to this board? Maybe try WP:ANI? jps ( talk) 11:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Much of my editing and interest is related to the kind of junk science that we deal with every day on the WP:FTN. As we know, not all articles about bogus subjects are themselves bogus. There is room for sober discussion of topics such as UFOs and conspiracies. Is there a wikiproject that might act as a focus for constructive editing about these kinds of parascientific topics? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Pre-Columbian Black Indians - The term Black Indian may also refer to pre-Columbian black peoples in the United States, as well as elsewhere in North, Central, and South America. There are historical reports of black indigenous Americans, and many scholars have asserted that black populations existed in the Americas at and/or prior to European contact.
Either unsourced or sourced to non-RS sources for the field. This is a fringe theory usually promoted by anti-Indigenous groups who then characterize Native Americans as Asian. I haven't gone over all the "sources" being cited yet, but no reputable scholars believe this stuff, and it has been wielded by certain groups with harmful intent. User is quacking a bit so this may need SPI, as well. Just getting on it after a complaint. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I would think needs attention. Health claims without actually telling us what the stuff is. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)