Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Cryptid whale
Currently our article cryptid whale relies heavily on pseudoscience sources. Specifically, the article is based on cryptozoologist George M. Eberhart's apologetic, pro-cryptozoology tome Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology (as @Alexbrn: points out above, the article quite brazenly also includes link to a PDF of the work, a straightforward copyright violation). In short, cryptozoologists have a long fascination with beach blobs (which they may call "globsters"). They have a tendency to identify animal carcasses that wash up on shores as sea serpents (or living dinosaurs).
To prop up the pseudoscience and general crackpottery, several sources from actual scientists who make no mention of the word cryptozoology nor the pseudoscientific concept of a "cryptid" are included alongside Eberhart's book. Considering how hostile scientists and other academics appear to have become toward the pseudoscience (cryptozoology has, for example, increasingly becomes a vessel for Young Earth creationism), I doubt these scientists appreciate this invented association. No secondary sources are provided to contextualize cryptozoologist claims (not surprising, as this tends to make cryptozooologists look, uh, less than respectable). This is classic WP:PROFRINGE stirred with a strong dose of WP:SYNTH to make it appear palatable.
While I can't guess the primary author's intent, behavior like this in is in fact common among cryptozoologists, as scholars who have studied cryptozoologists note. This would all be pretty straightforward to fix (root out anything that doesn't mention the concept of a "cryptid whale", bring in academic sources discussing cryptozoologist tendency to identify beach blubs as 'potential sea monsters'), but editing the article has attracted not only the ire of the article's primary author, but also cryptozoologists, all of who appear to be ready to edit-war to keep the article as-is. The article needs more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- wouldn’t all cryptids be fringe theories because they’re all not real? Mysterious Creatures just gives the accounts by the original ‘observers’ and then proceeds to explain it away with logical explanations (for example, it says Giglioli’s whale is likely just a genetic mutation, not that it is a proper species in its own right). However, I would see how the High-finned sperm whale section is pseudoscientific because it seems to assert that it’s 100% real, just not formally described by science yet; and the Trunko section could use a paragraph explaining globsters. Other than that, seems alright to me User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- First, a little background, the above editor has been highly active on cryptid whale and to date highly resistant to any changes to the article. Second, a response: No, we don't let pseudoscience advocates present their material on their own terms. When we discuss pseudoscience, we require secondary, expert sources to contextualize the material that the fringe writers are passing off as science. Academics from numerous fields — in both STEM and the humanities — regularly criticize cryptozoology as a straightforward pseudoscience, often comparing it to ghost hunting and ufology. Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting pseudoscience (WP:PROFRINGE). Cryptozoloogy and its promotion of what it deems to be "cryptids" is as fringe as it gets. George M. Eberhart, a cryptozoologist, promotes a pseudoscience. He is by no means a reliable source and should not be cited in the article. However, if we have reliable sources discussing him or the approaches and works of cryptozoologists like him, then we should include them. In short, the project requires context for quackery. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Some of the statements attribured to Eberhart have some logical problems as well, regardless of what one thinks of cryptozoology.
"Given the species' alleged size and attributes, it is extremely doubtful such a species would not have been taken (and reported) by modern commercial whalers, bringing into doubt its very existence."
In response to a single sighting in 1867. Eberhart does not seem to address the possibility that the proposed species has since went extinct. And there has been a moratorium on commercial whaling since 1982, with few countries (Iceland, Japan, and Norway) still maintaining fleets of whalers. Large sections of the world ocean no longer have any whaling activities to serve as Eberhart's source of potential data. See also the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and the attempts to ban all types of commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean, to the south of Chile's Tierra del Fuego. (The sighting which Eberhart describes supposedly occured in Chile's territorial waters.) Dimadick (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well I should like to point out the anti-whalers didn’t exist in all too great numbers in 1867 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I just reviewed the article and find most disturbing amounts of WP:SYNTH. Cryptozooligist Eberhart is used as the main source for the assertion that cryptozoolgists believe cryptid whales exist. Texts written by legitimate zoologists, news reports of beached whales, and Japanese bioindustry records (none of which mention "cryptids" or cryptid whales) are used in the article — ostensibly as examples of cryptid whales (!). Seriously. Find WP:RS that discuss "cryptid whales" and illuminate what exactly cryptozoologists claim about such creatures. If no sources independent of the fringe crytozoology belief exist, how can we write an objective article about the belief? But (and I'm addressing whoever wrote this mess of an article) don't dragoon legitimate sources that never intended to support the existence of cryptid whales into an article about cryptid whales and position them as supporting the existence of cryptid whales. That's WP:OR.- LuckyLouie (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- The one reliable looking source that mentions cryptozoology and "cryptozoological analysis" (though not "crypid") is "Cetaceans with two dorsal fins" (1991) in Aquatic Mammals, but one source hardly justifies an entire article with an explicitly fringe title. --tronvillain (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I thought that article was pretty interesting. Comparing the article to, say, Jeb J. Card's 2016 article on cryptozoology, evidently this is before the ceiling really caved in and academic tolerance ran out. Difficult to say exactly what the dynamic is there, but a bunch of cryptozoologists seem to be involved with its authorship, judging by the article's acknowledgements. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I’m not sure how much of the article is just an editor saying things and then following it up with a random source that can’t be checked User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well I should very much like to fix the article but I’m not allowed to edit it, it won’t let me. It’s like I’m banned from it or something User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you're talking about Wikipedia's cryptozoology article, you are more than welcome to check each and every source. Depending on your location, these are all available via Google Books. The article is currently locked due to edit-warring by an involved editor. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- The one reliable looking source that mentions cryptozoology and "cryptozoological analysis" (though not "crypid") is "Cetaceans with two dorsal fins" (1991) in Aquatic Mammals, but one source hardly justifies an entire article with an explicitly fringe title. --tronvillain (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It is slightly starting to annoy me that BOF is constantly "name calling" and attempt to delegitimize any editor that disagrees with him. Doesn't seem that professional to me. Even though Cryptozoology is a Pseudoscience, it's WikiProject was only trying to add and improve articles relating to it and not "Legitimizing it" as you claim. I am not at all stating that Cryptids exist, many of them do not, but the purported SIGHTINGS of mystery animals should be included into the WikiProject and not removed from it just because it doesn't mention the word cryptid. Cryptozoology itself is defined as "the study of hidden animals and of still unknown animal forms that have yet to be proved by science. This was later expanded to include any "out-of-place animals, and feral animals". The full definition can be found Here--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully that link was helpful... It's hard finding a detailed definition from someone that isn't a part of the pseudoscience. :( --Paleface Jack (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to with much of this, but the link you provide is to a work by Loren Coleman, who is a very active and outspoken cryptozoologist. As anthropologist Jeb J. Card and others point out, biologists in fact do what you're talking about, but they don't resort to pseudoscience. Cryptozoologists dress themselves as zoologists while raising an angry first at academics (while, say, sometimes making a buck or two in the process or shilling Young Earth creationism). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I’d like to point out again, being a cryptozoologist does not make you an unreliable source to talk about cryptozoology User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- See, for example, WP:PROFRINGE. As academics note, adherents of the pseudoscience have gained a reputation for misrepresenting themselves and their arguments to make outlandish claims appear more legitimate to, for example, promote causes such as Young Earth creationism, to promote commercial ventures, or simply to make what they do appear more respectable. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I’d like to point out again, being a cryptozoologist does not make you an unreliable source to talk about cryptozoology User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Stop name calling BloodofFox.... Dunky does have a point though... Wikipiedia is and ENCYCLOPIEDIA not an opinions board. We just report information, not use it as a place to rant and rave about how you don't agree with one subject. If there is information that is reliable than it SHOULD be added, regardless of ones opinions/leanings. You have been very disruptive and rude to quite a few users including myself, resorting to name calling when you don'e agree with them. Please just let it go BloodofFox... For the sake of ALL of our mental health.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Might you provide a diff for this purported “name calling”? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff?--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Although the title of the page is a bit weird, mysterious whales are not just the province of cryptozoology but are part of zoology, Quoy and Gaimard and Giglioni did not identify as cryptozoologists and Bob Pitman has talked about unknown Mesoplodon species in the 1990s (Pitman, R. L., A. Aguayol and J. Urbán r 1987. Observations of an unidentified beaked whale (Mesoplodon sp.) in the eastern tropical Pacific. Marine Mammal Science 3: 345–352. subsequently described and allocated see Pitman, R. L. and Lynn, M. S. (2001), BIOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS OF AN UNIDENTIFIED MESOPLODONT WHALE IN THE EASTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC AND PROBABLE IDENTITY MESOPLODON PERUVIANUS. Marine Mammal Science, 17: 648-657. doi:10.1111/j.1748-7692.2001.tb01010.x). The problem here is the title of the page (replace "cryptid" with "mystery"?). If you are going to claim Quoy and Gaimard and Giglioni are cryptozoologists presumably because of their insidious apparently pseudoscientific observations(fancy suggesting in the 19th century that there were unknown species of whale, what a bunch of crazies!) you have to also include Bob Pitman one of the foremost marine mammalogists in the world as one too. See the problem with labelling all of cryptozoology, pseudoscience? It is hardly consistent to say if cryptozoologists speculate about unknown species of whale, it is pseudoscience, but if zoologists do it is science. P'raps it is time to stop the anti-cryptozoology witchhunt and have more nuanced articles?Tullimonstrum (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wow! I never thought about it that way before. I agree with you Tull. It's time to stop the witch hunt and just have articles with reliable sources no matter what side they're on.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nice strawman - no one claimed that Quoy or Gaimard or Giglioni were cryptozoologists, so the argument doesn't follow. The problem is the appropriation of things like reports of unknown whales by pseudosciences like cryptozoology. You have an article (or a section of a cryptozoology encyclopedia) called "cryptid whales", then you scrape together any and all reports of unknown or strange whales, and presto, those reports are all now "cryptids." --tronvillain (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hardly a strawman, the lead of the page says cryptid whales are things claimed by cryptozoologists. The next few paras say Quoy and Gaimard and Giglioni claimed they exist. Therefore presumably the naive reader is meant to think they are cryptozoologists. Now if you want to get rid of the ridiculous lead sentence, fair enough. Perhaps "There have been claims of unknown species of whales reported by zoologists and others throughout history." would be accurate. Tullimonstrum (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Here's a fine quote that fits this situation: "Cryptozoology purports to be the study of previously unidentified animal species. At first glance, this would seem to differ little from zoology. New species are discovered by field and museum zoologists every year. Cryptozoologists cite these discoveries as justification of their search but often minimize or omit the fact that the discoverers do not identify as cryptozoologists and are academically trained zoologists working in an ecological paradigm rather than organizing expeditions to seek out supposed examples of unusual and large creatures." (anthropologist Jeb Card, more at Cryptozoology#Reception_and_pseudoscience). Sound familiar?
- Hardly a strawman, the lead of the page says cryptid whales are things claimed by cryptozoologists. The next few paras say Quoy and Gaimard and Giglioni claimed they exist. Therefore presumably the naive reader is meant to think they are cryptozoologists. Now if you want to get rid of the ridiculous lead sentence, fair enough. Perhaps "There have been claims of unknown species of whales reported by zoologists and others throughout history." would be accurate. Tullimonstrum (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nice strawman - no one claimed that Quoy or Gaimard or Giglioni were cryptozoologists, so the argument doesn't follow. The problem is the appropriation of things like reports of unknown whales by pseudosciences like cryptozoology. You have an article (or a section of a cryptozoology encyclopedia) called "cryptid whales", then you scrape together any and all reports of unknown or strange whales, and presto, those reports are all now "cryptids." --tronvillain (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wow! I never thought about it that way before. I agree with you Tull. It's time to stop the witch hunt and just have articles with reliable sources no matter what side they're on.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't the place to pass off cryptozoology as zoology. Cryptozoology speculation about beach blobs as sea monsters next to serious discussion among zoologists about undiscovered species is simply not OK. You've made your position on cryptozoology clear in the past — you've lobbied against the numerous academics out there describing cryptozoology as a pseudoscience before — but if you're going to edit these articles, you'll be saving yourself a lot of trouble by observing WP:PROFRINGE. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- From the *Skeptical Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience* (edited by Michael Shermer the famous pseudoscience apologist!) "Cryptozoology ranges from the peudoscientific to the useful and interesting depending on how it is practised". which seems pretty NPOV and a sensible tone for the cz articles on Wikipedia.Tullimonstrum (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- We have an avalanche of academic sources flatly referring to it as a pseudoscience (and rather strongly, no doubt in part due to all of the Young Earth creationism connections and because, as Card puts it, "cryptozoologists often show their disdain and even hatred for professional scientists"). Like I said, we're well past this point. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- But those associations, if strong, which I am not sure about, it would not make cz pseudoscience. I am also not convinced having a definition which says "if self-described cryptozoologists do X it is pseudoscience but it isn't if zoologists do X where X is the same activity" makes logical sense and it would not have been a defensible position in my old philosophy of science 101. More importantly you are cherry picking within sources. Abominable Science concedes there is valid cryptozoological research (although cz is mostly rubbish) and Sharon Hill says the same see https://www.csicop.org/sb/show/cryptozoology_and_pseudoscience and there are academic zoologists publishing cryptozoology in peer reviewed mainstream zoology journals (and they identify it as cryptozoology e.g Paxton, Naish etc. ). Indeed almost most of the detailed skeptical refs qualify the pseudoscience association, but we are moving off the topic of cryptid whales. My point was that the (vast) majority of "cryptid whale" species ("mysterious" would be better IMO) have been proposed by mainstream naturalists (Giglioli, Quoy and Gaimard, Sibbald, Pitman), not cryptozoologists so the current lead is just inaccurate. It also means that, using your own argument, Bloodofox, that the topic is now science so all is well. Tullimonstrum (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- In that article Sharon Hill also says
I prefer another term for pseudoscientific endeavors: 'sham inquiry.' Cryptozoology typically qualifies."
And Abominable Science says"If its adherent want cryptozoology to be taken seriously as a true science, rather than as a pseudoscience or "sham inquiry," they must have to begin to play by the rules of real science."
Some scientists may very occasionally describe what they're doing as cryptozoology, and some "cryptozoologists" may occasionally do actual science, but the overwhelming evidence appears to be that cryptozoology as a whole is described by relevant experts as a pseudoscience (or a euphemism for pseudoscience). And yes, the existing lead isn't entirely accurate, but that's at least partially a product of the article title and the cryptozoology books being used as references. --tronvillain (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- In that article Sharon Hill also says
- But those associations, if strong, which I am not sure about, it would not make cz pseudoscience. I am also not convinced having a definition which says "if self-described cryptozoologists do X it is pseudoscience but it isn't if zoologists do X where X is the same activity" makes logical sense and it would not have been a defensible position in my old philosophy of science 101. More importantly you are cherry picking within sources. Abominable Science concedes there is valid cryptozoological research (although cz is mostly rubbish) and Sharon Hill says the same see https://www.csicop.org/sb/show/cryptozoology_and_pseudoscience and there are academic zoologists publishing cryptozoology in peer reviewed mainstream zoology journals (and they identify it as cryptozoology e.g Paxton, Naish etc. ). Indeed almost most of the detailed skeptical refs qualify the pseudoscience association, but we are moving off the topic of cryptid whales. My point was that the (vast) majority of "cryptid whale" species ("mysterious" would be better IMO) have been proposed by mainstream naturalists (Giglioli, Quoy and Gaimard, Sibbald, Pitman), not cryptozoologists so the current lead is just inaccurate. It also means that, using your own argument, Bloodofox, that the topic is now science so all is well. Tullimonstrum (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- We have an avalanche of academic sources flatly referring to it as a pseudoscience (and rather strongly, no doubt in part due to all of the Young Earth creationism connections and because, as Card puts it, "cryptozoologists often show their disdain and even hatred for professional scientists"). Like I said, we're well past this point. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- From the *Skeptical Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience* (edited by Michael Shermer the famous pseudoscience apologist!) "Cryptozoology ranges from the peudoscientific to the useful and interesting depending on how it is practised". which seems pretty NPOV and a sensible tone for the cz articles on Wikipedia.Tullimonstrum (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't the place to pass off cryptozoology as zoology. Cryptozoology speculation about beach blobs as sea monsters next to serious discussion among zoologists about undiscovered species is simply not OK. You've made your position on cryptozoology clear in the past — you've lobbied against the numerous academics out there describing cryptozoology as a pseudoscience before — but if you're going to edit these articles, you'll be saving yourself a lot of trouble by observing WP:PROFRINGE. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Why doesn't someone either put this article up as an AFD discussion or improve it? All I read is endless complaint on both sides and deletions with reverts. I thought we were supposed to work on consensus here. The article as it stand is pure speculative fringe. I think it could stand some more sourcing but seriously, there is not actually any reputable scientific sourcing about this. At best it is folklore. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would support this article as a delete at AfD. I have been unable to find significant coverage of cryptozoologist takes on beach blobs or mystery whales in independent sources. If we can muster up enough non-pseudoscientific sources, that might also make for a "mystery whale" article (or whatever it may be called).
- As for the "endless complaint on both sides" you mention, keep in mind that much of what you're witnessing is cryptozoologists — some of them organizing off-site — expressing displeasure at encountering Wikipedia's pseudoscience guidelines and policies for the first time (the project lacked from an early date, for example, folklorists, a presence that would have counteracted this influence). A few cryptozoologists on the site are quite openly doing as much as they can to maintain Wikipedia as a platform to promote the pseudoscience. As scholars note as a major aspect of the subculture, some of this passion may stem from Young Earth creationism or commercial interests. It's typical pseudoscience push-back but a lot of articles are meanwhile benefiting from the scrutiny. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Whether Cryptid whales exist is totally irrelevant. They are the subject of controversy and reports, and have been for a very long time. We have an article on Water Babies, and there lack of existence does not bespeak that article as being a "Fringe theory." All articles can be improved, and no doubt this one should be. AFD under those circumstances is a waste of everyone's time. That is enough to keep the article in Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- The link you've provided is a redirect to a disambiguation page. We cover folklore topics all the time if there are reliable sources on it (WP:Folklore is a great resource doing great work). However, pseudoscience — in short, frequently quacks and crackpots passing their obscure work off as science, often to attack, say, mainstream understanding of science — is another matter entirely. See WP:PROFRINGE. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'd look for some sourcing on this but I have too many irons in the fire at the moment to really dig in quite yet. Perhaps I'll circle back and take a crack at it at some point. T o your other point, yep, the crypto folks are super resistant to reasoning (as most proponents of various pseudosciences are in my experience). You've clearly encountered them. I like the folklorists much better. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Our world wide readership has many needs, not just taxonomy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- "frequently quacks and crackpots passing their obscure work off as science". Some of it is science and some is high quality research whilst not science is certainly good history of science. Look at the paper by Raynal and Silvestre on the cryptid whales page. Raynal, self describes as a cryptozoologist. Now you might not like the papers conclusions but you cannot say it is sloppily researched or badly written and it is published in a peer reviewed SCIENCE journal. I think some of you are confusing the cryptozoology of bad tv programmes and online articles with SOME of the written stuff which is actually of pretty good quality. Also cz is not a profession of belief. Blodofox keeps on calling me a cryptozoologist but I just think it is an interesting topic but I don't for a moment think any of the classic cryptids exist. Wikipedia cannot just ignore high quality sources because editors dislike the allegiances of the authors. Oh for the record I am not part of any cryptozoology wikipedia conspiracy which I have never heard about. Anyway since when did skeptics believe in conspiracies?Tullimonstrum (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Of course, that was in 1991. Still, you inspired me to look him up: Michel Raynal, a... French computer scientist. Huh. --tronvillain (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not the same guy. But if you want more recent peer reviewed stuff here is some. https://doi.org/10.1080/08912960902830210, https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00630.x, anh.2005.32.1.1 I think the authors of these papers might be justifiably upset if you refer to them as "pseudoscientists". Tullimonstrum (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's absolutely the same guy. --tronvillain (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've met him (the cryptozoological one), it is not the same guy! If you don't believe me, check the computing one's publication list.Tullimonstrum (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, you're right. I was misled by one of his other articles. Also, this, where Loren Coleman accidentally lists him as having a PhD in computer science instead of biochemistry --tronvillain (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC); edited 15:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, here he is. So, a cryptozoologist educated and employed in unrelated fields who managed to get into a mainstream publication back in 1991. --tronvillain (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- That page on the Cryptowossname has beee visited four times today. One was you, two were me. Who was it? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, here he is. So, a cryptozoologist educated and employed in unrelated fields who managed to get into a mainstream publication back in 1991. --tronvillain (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, you're right. I was misled by one of his other articles. Also, this, where Loren Coleman accidentally lists him as having a PhD in computer science instead of biochemistry --tronvillain (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC); edited 15:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've met him (the cryptozoological one), it is not the same guy! If you don't believe me, check the computing one's publication list.Tullimonstrum (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's absolutely the same guy. --tronvillain (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not the same guy. But if you want more recent peer reviewed stuff here is some. https://doi.org/10.1080/08912960902830210, https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00630.x, anh.2005.32.1.1 I think the authors of these papers might be justifiably upset if you refer to them as "pseudoscientists". Tullimonstrum (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Would love to hear about all this "some of it is science" from the cryptozoology circles. I believe the academy would as well, as that might yield some kind of, say, institutional recognition of cryptozoology. The closest thing to any institutional support for cryptozoology I'm finding today is Young Earth creationism textbooks aimed at private schools presenting stuff by Coleman as anti-evolution ammunition ([1], still looking to see exactly what these say). As for off-site cryptozoology organizing and general complaints, you can find some of it simply doing an off-site search for my user name and cryptozoology related-keywords. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Of course, that was in 1991. Still, you inspired me to look him up: Michel Raynal, a... French computer scientist. Huh. --tronvillain (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- "frequently quacks and crackpots passing their obscure work off as science". Some of it is science and some is high quality research whilst not science is certainly good history of science. Look at the paper by Raynal and Silvestre on the cryptid whales page. Raynal, self describes as a cryptozoologist. Now you might not like the papers conclusions but you cannot say it is sloppily researched or badly written and it is published in a peer reviewed SCIENCE journal. I think some of you are confusing the cryptozoology of bad tv programmes and online articles with SOME of the written stuff which is actually of pretty good quality. Also cz is not a profession of belief. Blodofox keeps on calling me a cryptozoologist but I just think it is an interesting topic but I don't for a moment think any of the classic cryptids exist. Wikipedia cannot just ignore high quality sources because editors dislike the allegiances of the authors. Oh for the record I am not part of any cryptozoology wikipedia conspiracy which I have never heard about. Anyway since when did skeptics believe in conspiracies?Tullimonstrum (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Our world wide readership has many needs, not just taxonomy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Whether Cryptid whales exist is totally irrelevant. They are the subject of controversy and reports, and have been for a very long time. We have an article on Water Babies, and there lack of existence does not bespeak that article as being a "Fringe theory." All articles can be improved, and no doubt this one should be. AFD under those circumstances is a waste of everyone's time. That is enough to keep the article in Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll begin by addressing LuckyLouie's issue that "Cryptozooligist Eberhart is used as the main source for the assertion that cryptozoolgists believe cryptid whales exist
". However, Eberhart's book that lists "Giglioli's Whale" (which Eberhart calls "The Magenta Whale") does not substantiate that Eberhart believes in its existence. I hope you realize this.
The original paragraph did not say Cryptid whales were cetaceans "claimed to exist by cryptozoologist". Before this edit it just said "sea creatures claimed to exist", so in plain reading the reader would see this as claims being made by earlier naturalists such as Giglioli and Sibbald. Not cryptozoologists.--Kiyoweap (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean, this is one of the linchpins of the argument of this being pseudoscience: the pretense that every cryptid that Ebert et al. talks about, they are claiming they have proven the existence of. If it were true, I agree that would be enough to call them fringe, without further elaborating. But it is a lie.
Therefore you need to illustrate by actual specific examples of what pieces of pseudoscience are being used, portrayed as definitive scientific proof. I am not seeing any of this here or in the Cryptozoology article.
Another pillar of Bloodofox's claim is the constant association he tries to create with Young earth creationism as if these notable cryptozoologists are steeped deep in its belief. He mentions it 6 times in this thread, clearly overkill, an additional 2 times elsewhere on this noticeboard, in Talk:Cryptid whale as well.
A third is his notion that an "avalanche of academic sources flatly referring to it as a pseudoscience
". If that were true he should not have to refer to this Jeb J. Card figure, who seems to be a relative non-entity, four times in this thread. He should be able to quote from a variety of figures of higher esteem and standing, here or in Cryptozoology. It is a grossly inflated claim.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- While most academics ignore pseudosciences, those who have bothered to comment on cryptozoology have some harsh words for it, some of which we outline at Cryptozoology#Reception_and_pseudoscience. I'd say there's enough there to qualify as an 'avalanche', but your rock measurements may vary. "This ... figure" and "relative non-entity" you refer to is one Jeb Card at Miami University's Department of Anthropology ([2]), and his work in question happens to have been published in 2016, making it one of our most recent sources on the pseudoscience (WP:FRIND and all).
- Where cryptozoology is mentioned nowadays, it's increasingly because of its strong associations with Young Earth creationism and for, say, misrepresenting itself to the public as a science. Paleontologist Donald Prothero has probably been the most vocal about this, especially in regard to Mokele-mbembe and so-called "living dinosaurs" (both popular topics among the crypto-creationist set reaching at least back to creationist-funded missionary/cryptozoology/let's-try-to-prove-evolution-wrong trips evidently as far back as the early 1980s). But we've also got other recent WP:FRIND-friendly figures discussing this topic on the article (Cryptozoology#Young_Earth_creationism).
- As for your statement that I "lie", before continuing further down that path, I recommend reviewing WP:AGF and WP:No personal attacks. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- So the short answer is no. You can't name an "avalanche" of people besides this Card person, and Prothero who flatly refer to crytozoology as pseudoscience. Card being newly published, well, we don't engage in "this rookie gonna be MVP some day" predictions. If this author is not currently a frequently or significantly cited source on this topic, the source should not be given the WP:UNDUE prominence you have given him. This WP:FRIND argument is also very weak as well. The person has obviously taken sides on this, so we don't treat this as a great source because he is somehow "independent" and uninvolved.
- As an example, we might give more weight as added opinion the input from previously mentioned "Darren Naish", as he is cited in the Loxton & Prothero book and all. But perhaps you don't want to legitimize Naish because he tends to show more sympathy. Truth is, the amount of WP:CHERRYPICKING you engage in is quite serious, and you are not doing WP:NPOV editing.
- Yes I do realize Prothero is a leading critic of cryptozoology. And I see Prothero does call it flat out a "pseudoscience" here[3] where he displays the good taste (sarcasm!) to lambaste Roy Mackal upon learning of his death. However you know very well he is a proponent at one end of the spectrum. Quote: "Daniel Loxton is quite sympathetic to cryptozoology; Donald Prothero is much more critical", from Abominable Science.[4]
- And I don't see the famous cryptozooligist Mackal's Mokele-mbembe expedition connected to creationists. The connection is with this obscure creationist monster hunter William Gibbons, isn't it? --Kiyoweap (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- You know, you don't need to write entire essays in talk page edit summaries.--tronvillain (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- And I don't see the famous cryptozooligist Mackal's Mokele-mbembe expedition connected to creationists. The connection is with this obscure creationist monster hunter William Gibbons, isn't it? --Kiyoweap (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- The "avalanche" would be, as I pointed out before, this entire section: Cryptozoology#Reception_and_pseudoscience. Take your pick. Of course, there's plenty more that we can (and I eventually will) add as time permits.
- As for Card, it seems like you have a bone to pick with his academic work. Perhaps you should message him and take your concerns up with him directly. Or maybe Miami University. Enjoy. On the Wikipedia side of things, Card's work falls perfectly in line with WP:RS and Wikipedia isn't a balanced field for pseudosciences: see WP:FALSEBALANCE along with, say, WP:PROFRINGE or WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Or just WP:RS. Basically, as you're aware, adherents of pseudosciences and fringe topics don't call the shots here. Academics don't get herded into the background to be dismissed as "skeptics" and crackpots and quacks don't get to define their own terms. In turn, Wikipedia isn't the world's leading dispenser of flat earth propaganda and doesn't read like a Young Earth creationism textbook. It's also not trying to convince you that there's a sauropod in the Congo and that evolution is a damnable lie. Behold the beauty of WP:FRIND.
- Since we're on the topics of Prothero and Mackal, there's a section in the same work about Mackal's "credentials" (such as p. 12), and some discussion about Mackal's connection to Young Earth creationist and missionary Eugene Thomas, who guided and interpreted for Mackal on "expeditions" in Congo and who went on to baptize cryptozoologist Gibbons in the late 1980s (in the Congo, of course) (p. 292). Gibbons would go on to produce a lot of cryptozoology material and launch plenty more "expeditions". As far as I can tell, he's still at it today. Along with Gibbons and crew, there's plenty more about it in Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science!, alongside other writings by Prothero and crew.
- All that said, bumbling around in the Congo to find an antiquated notion of a dinosaur and thus finally prove those accursed experts wrong (while now and then being taken advantage of by locals) is without question deep fringe stuff. But fortunately for those of us writing these articles, at least it's often funny. Of course, none of this is anymore out there than, say, Coleman and Clark's entry on neanderthals in their Cryptozoology: A to Z.
- Between you and me, I just don't think academic embrace of cryptozoology is coming anytime soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry that it has to be me again who points out that this is a noticeboard. Noticeboards are for posting short notices, and maybe a few comments to the short notices.
Should this discussion not be on, I don't know, Talk:Cryptid whale? Or Talk:Cryptozoology? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Undergoing a lot of editing. Mostly ok I think. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I had a look at one that didn't seem to be entirely supported by the added reference (the African peanut/cotton one). --tronvillain (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just traced the translated quote back, and across three pages it had managed to lose the original source of the translation and have a few errors introduced. The original doesn't appears to support anyone finding land. --tronvillain (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. Currently the Afrocentrism article is little more than a puff piece; doctoring up what amounts to pseudohistory with flowery words to appear legitimate. I object to the new lede, in particular, this edit.
- On top of that, we have a major POV violation (and possibly copyvio), in this edit, which also managed to screw up the whole formatting of the page, AND there are spelling/grammatical errors all over the place. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
USS Nimitz UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Radar visual reporting of a UFO during a 2004 Navy training mission, much hyped in mainstream media in 2107 2017. Some recent lobbying on the Talk page seeking to diminish/invalidate criticism by skeptics, particularly Joe Nickell, and boost/validate the narrative of proponents, namely "To The Stars Academy", a fringe advocacy group seeking funding for UFO research. This group played a significant role in fueling sensational media reporting last year, and is currently promoting a purported "classified report" about the incident. Some obvious WP:SYNTH now being edit-warred to the article [5], [6] in an effort to rebut critique by Nickell of To The Stars Academy's fringe narrative. A few more eyes appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition and SYNTH is not presumed Kintpuash (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think the term the young people use nowadays is "WTF?" Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Radar visual reporting of a UFO during a 2004 Navy training mission, much hyped in mainstream media in 2107.
Well, we've got 87 years before those sources get published, so I would remove them all from the article for now. Yes, this comment is a joke. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ha. Good catch. But we'll have proof of alien spacecraft any day now (or so ufologists have been saying for the last 50 years). - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Placebo
- Placebo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A discussion that started on talk:homeopathy has spread to a one-against-many dispute at placebo, an article I incidentally find to be rather bloated with references to woo-mongers bigging up the magic of placebo. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, looks like a lot of primary research there for a medical topic. --tronvillain (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Joseph Mercola, cancer from cell phone radiation, flouride harmful
- Joseph Mercola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've removed new content from the article [7]:
New content on phones: cancer risks arise from mobile phone radiation, which is increasingly supported by modern science and groups of scientists
Old version: cancer risks arise from mobile phone radiation, which is pseudoscientific
I only glanced at the article Mobile phone radiation and health, but the new content seems to be fringe. The old version seems awkward at best.
New addition on fluoride: fluoride and fluoridation is harming overall health. Mercola is supportive of the lawsuit brought by six non-profits against the EPA for failure to enforce their Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) regulations based specifically on evidence of the neurotoxic effects of fluoride on the developing central nervous system.
I think his views on fluoride may deserve mention, but this addition looks to be skirting FRINGE to use the article as a soapbox for fringe viewpoints.--Ronz (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Mercola's media presence is an open sewer, clearly some of it will run into our article from time to time, and we need to take a power rod to it. Good work. Incidentally, I regularly purge links to mercola.com from other articles. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Like this? [8]
- Maybe the site is a candidate for MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Kent Holtorf
- Kent Holtorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article said "He is a board examiner of the American Board of Anti-Aging Medicine (ABAAM)" without noting that this is not a recognized board, and "[h]is practice focuses on alternative therapies that are not yet standard practice with mainstream doctors,[2] maintaining that mainstream medicine tends to be an average of 17 years behind the emergence of new and advanced treatments".
I fixed those egregious issues, but there's a lot more to do here. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Mokele-mbembe, crypto-creationists, and mystery sources
Hello, folks. I'm putting together a rewrite of the infamous Mokele-mbembe, but I'm having some trouble making sense of the sources. For those of you haven't been involved in the recent pseudoscience cleanup efforts in these areas (articles around the living dinosaur-Young Earth creationism-cryptozoology pseudoscience circle, that is), this article may be perplexing and the topic requires a little background.
Essentially, the article is written like so many others related to it on Wikipedia: mostly in direct violation of WP:PROFRINGE. Individuals who fall out of line with the fringe view, like academics, are described as a "skeptic" and ushered into the back. Heavy emphasis is placed on "sightings", etc. Where this one differs from the usually quackery is that reliable sources on this topic in fact do exist (thus meeting WP:FRIND), but they tell a very different story than the current article does. It turns out that a lot of the material produced on this topic results from Young Earth creationist-cryptozoologist overlap, as paleontologist Donald Prothero's work on this topic illustrates (see his The Story of Life in 25 Fossils: Tales of Intrepid Fossil Hunters and the Wonders of Evolution, pp.232-234, Columbia University Press and also Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other Famous Cryptids, pp. 115-116, 262-265, Columbia University Press with Loxton).
In short, creationist groups have been funding cryptozoologist trips to Africa to find this purported dinosaur (or, if you're a cryptozoologist, a "cryptid") for quite some time now (reaching back as far as the 1980s, even). Their goal? To 'prove evolution wrong'. Typically, while well known, you won't find this less than savory fact mentioned by notable adherents of the pseudoscience themselves (but you might find a citation or two to genesispark.com from cryptozoologists, like in George M. Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology(!)). It all makes for a case book example of why WP:FRIND is so important in these corners.
This idea of Mokele-mbembe comes from somewhere, yet the ultimate source of these concepts seems pretty blurry. A lot of writers mention it comes from some kind of folk belief, but that may not actually be the case. For example, editors who have researched the history of the concept of the yeti knows that this can be a complex topic, perhaps even resulting from some kind of misunderstanding in translation, and then taking on a life of its own. Anyway, does anyone know of any solid sources on the origin of the Mokele-mbembe concept? Any specialist linguists, anthropologists, or folklorists who can shine some light on how all this developed as a vehicle for the we-gotta-find-a-dinosaur-to-prove-evolution-is-wrong crowd?
(Also posted at WP:RSN a few days ago, but also posting here since it's quite relevant to this noticeboard.) :bloodofox: (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Part of the problem with all such articles is distinguishing “folk lore” from “pop culture” and both of those from actual scientific fact. All three can (and should) be addressed in a well written article... but they need to be kept separate and clearly indentified. Not easy to do. My hat is off to those attempting the clean up. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. These topics can be tough to approach, particularly when they're flooded with fringe sources that one must first wade through before figuring out what's actually happening. We're lucky when we can find academic sources but they're usually very enlightening. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- "We're lucky when we can find academic sources but they're usually very enlightening." Assuming the academic bothered to do the research. When trying to locate sources for a number of Byzantine biographies a few years back, I found quite a few texts by American university presses that had errors in the dating or location of events. In some cases they were reproducing errors by various secondary sources, without consulting the relevant primary sources. Dimadick (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I have myself encountered this. Fortunately, my experience has been that this is the exception rather than the rule. I haven't found this to be regional so much as perhaps institutional. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- "We're lucky when we can find academic sources but they're usually very enlightening." Assuming the academic bothered to do the research. When trying to locate sources for a number of Byzantine biographies a few years back, I found quite a few texts by American university presses that had errors in the dating or location of events. In some cases they were reproducing errors by various secondary sources, without consulting the relevant primary sources. Dimadick (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. These topics can be tough to approach, particularly when they're flooded with fringe sources that one must first wade through before figuring out what's actually happening. We're lucky when we can find academic sources but they're usually very enlightening. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the big day is finally here!
Enjoy! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- You can tell it's true because my nosey Christian neighbors were nowhere to be seen this morning. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- I predict a recalculation soon.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wait, false alarm! My neighbor just sent me a text complaining about a tree overhanging his property by 3 inches and asking me why I was throwing out the box for a new television last night. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah... but that begs the question... do you know where was he texting FROM? 🧐 Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- [9] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- lol. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- "I don't care if I can't take it with me, he's diminishing my property values!" Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- lol. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- [9] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah... but that begs the question... do you know where was he texting FROM? 🧐 Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
And the silly tabloid makes a major error in the first paragraph of the text "The Rapture is an event many Christians believe marks the return of the son of God – and all the believers will disappear from Earth up to Heaven in the "twinkling of an eye". "
The Rapture as a concept is held by only a minority of Christians, and the popularization of the idea is largely credited to John Nelson Darby (1800–1882).
Back in the 2000s, comic book writer Chuck Austen wrote an X-Men storyline concerning the Rapture, and attributed the concept to the dogmas of the Catholic Church. The story was largely ridiculed in Internet comic-book websites, because Austen had a very poor understanding of the Rapture, that most people supporting the concept are Protestants, and that Catholic teachings on "prophetic" books have nothing to do with Dispensationalism. See here for more conversation on the topic: https://comicdomwrecks.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/top-5-chuck-austen-x-men-moments/ Dimadick (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a chat site. Please try to keep stuff on topic.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a chat. This is about the misconception that the Rapture is a widely held or particularly old belief of Christians. It is neither, just another minority view. Dimadick (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Many does not mean most.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a chat. This is about the misconception that the Rapture is a widely held or particularly old belief of Christians. It is neither, just another minority view. Dimadick (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a chat site. Please try to keep stuff on topic.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: - the solstice was at June 21, 2018, at 10:07 UTC so you posted it too late for the Future Predictions so now it has to go in the very long section of Past Predictions. Has the next "End of the World" prediction popped up in the "Daily Whatever" or do they limit them to once a week?
- Looks VERY much like a chat to me...--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Considering we're all still here and able to add to this discussion, I think it's safe to say that this prediction didn't come to pass. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- It was a homeopathic rapture. Seriously, though, among the many variations of Christianity, there are some that believe that the resurrection of the dead, Jesus' Second Coming and the Final Judgment have already happened. See Preterism#Full preterism. Go figure. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
- There is another theory which states that this has already happened. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, we already know that 42 is the answer, so we can expect this to happen the moment someone figures out the question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, that's wrong. Somebody has to figure out the question first. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- They clearly don't, else the mice would have been out of a job. Although, there is -I am given to understand- a certain bowl of petunias whose thoughts at a particular moment might be germane to the subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, that's wrong. Somebody has to figure out the question first. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, we already know that 42 is the answer, so we can expect this to happen the moment someone figures out the question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
This short discussion is far more noticeboard-y than all those long pages above where you, Paleface, and others try to argue for your own standpoints on the subject of whether cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. The news it points to could conceivably lead to WP edits by people who want to include the news in some article, and a few snarky but informative comments are tradition on this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
a few snarky but informative comments are tradition on this page
To be fair, people getting all bent out of shape and upset over said snarky comments is just as much of a tradition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)- I think it's pedants like you that are the cause of it all, getting your hammer and trousers mythologies mixed. Hmmmph. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm the cause of a lot of bad things, I'm afraid. Many of them of involved mixed up trousers. Hammers frequently appear. It's madness, I tell you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's pedants like you that are the cause of it all, getting your hammer and trousers mythologies mixed. Hmmmph. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Marios Kyriazis
- Marios Kyriazis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The main author of this article is user:Mazkyri, an obvious name match for the subject. As usual with any content related to life extension, the article heaps fulsome praise on the subject but with a dearth of sources outside the walled garden of anti-ageing quackery. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I just cut out a bunch of "this traces back to ancient Greece" twaddle. I would appreciate someone looking over my (un-)work. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Deletion discussion for Foundation for Thought and Ethics
Potentially of interest to the community: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Thought and Ethics. XOR'easter (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
2600:1010:b149:71e0:463:2c:4c65:6dbf (talk · contribs · WHOIS) "exposing corruption in Wikipedia" by adding unsourced fringe theories to Fluoride [10] [11] TeraTIX 13:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- "thus a primary weapon to continue the enslavement of humans." That's some grade-A stuff, right there. We have a True Believer of the highest order on our hands. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Our IP editor also had a go at MMR vaccine controversy, since reverted. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not just that. I've compiled a list of the stuff he/she believes. He/she believes that fluoride cannot be found naturally in water, Wikipedia editors are trying to deceive and brainwash people, fluoride is put in water to poison and control people, plants do not absorb fluoride, fluoride does not prevent tooth decay, dentists are in on the conspiracy, coconut oil is perfect for keeping your gums healthy, teeth heal themselves, our entire skeletons completely heal themselves every ten years, the only studies done on fluoride for the teeth were by an aluminum company, selling fluoride is a form of genocide, Nazis used fluoride in concentration camps, the use of fluoride in water is illegal, fluoride is used to harm the pineal gland (which is apparently your third eye) to stop you from accessing limitless hidden senses, films are trustworthy sources, alternative medicine isn't pseudoscience, the MMR vaccine causes autism, Wakefield worked on the MMR vaccine, vaccine are poisonous, vaccines are not mainstream, the levels of sometimes toxic things in vaccines are dangerous, stories on an anti-vaxxer website are trustworthy and are evidence against vaccines, and there is a giant conspiracy by the government, pharmacies, and places that offer free flu shots. Wyrm127 (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I shall keep those things in mind as I go about my daily business today. HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wow. Just... wow. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 11:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well he seems to have lost interest now.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- He did warn us about the enslavement of humans, I guess. Maybe they came to get him. HiLo48 (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- This thread is an affront to Gingers everywhere. Strike the oppressor!! um. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am a proud ginger. Anyone want to make something of it? Also, Wyrm127, you forgot to mention that brain cells retract like turtleheads near mercury. I found that one more than a little bit unintentionally humorous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- This thread is an affront to Gingers everywhere. Strike the oppressor!! um. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- He did warn us about the enslavement of humans, I guess. Maybe they came to get him. HiLo48 (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IP for 72 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring. I didn't block their range, as they have so far only used this one IP, but I'd appreciate an alert in case anybody notices further disruption at the same articles from other IPs beginning with "2600:1010:b149:71e0". Bishonen | talk 15:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC).
- Verizon Wireless... that's a damn big range. It would be best, if he pops up again, to semi-protect his articles of interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Set protection to PC1 for a month. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- A bit of an overreaction to my mind.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)