Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Articles for deletion
- 04 Jun 2022 – Hydrogen water (talk · · hist) was AfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion (11 participants)
- 01 Jun 2022 – Steven M. Greer (talk · · hist) was AfDed by Nearlyevil665 (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
- 31 May 2022 – Dave Considine (talk · · hist) was AfDed by SL93 (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
- 27 May 2022 – Polarity therapy (talk · · hist) was AfDed by Ari T. Benchaim (t · c); see discussion (6 participants; relisted)
- 13 May 2022 – Intelligence in Nature (talk · · hist) AfDed by Slatersteven (t · c) was closed as keep by Stifle (t · c) on 01 Jun 2022; see discussion (14 participants; relisted)
Categories for discussion
- 30 May 2022 – Category:Films featuring hypnosis (talk · · hist) was CfDed by StarTrekker (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 26 May 2022 – What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur'an (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by Nicholas Michael Halim (t · c); start
- 27 Dec 2021 – Warsaw concentration camp (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by Szmenderowiecki (t · c); see discussion
Featured article reviews
- 28 Jan 2022 – Green children of Woolpit (talk · · hist) was put up for FA review by Q28 (t · c); see discussion
Requests for comments
- 01 Jun 2022 – Rebel News (talk · · hist) has an RfC by Peter Gulutzan (t · c); see discussion
- 19 May 2022 – JP Sears (talk · · hist) has an RfC by Endwise (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 28 Feb 2022 – Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Russian–Ukrainian information war by Freedumbz (t · c); see discussion
- 26 Feb 2022 – COVID-19 party (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Pox party by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
- 16 Feb 2022 – Apocalypticism (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to End time by Beland (t · c); see discussion
- 07 Feb 2022 – Sol Invictus (holiday) (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to The Satanic Temple by Singularity42 (t · c); see discussion
- 02 Feb 2022 – New chronology (Fomenko) (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Anatoly Fomenko by TrangaBellam (t · c); see discussion
- 06 Jan 2022 – Astral body (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Subtle body#Western esotericism by Skyerise (t · c); see discussion
- 23 Jun 2021 – Disinformation (company) (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Russ Kick by TipsyElephant (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be split
- 18 Nov 2021 – Hypnosis (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Vizjim (t · c); see discussion
- 16 Jul 2019 – Humanists International (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Zythe (t · c); see discussion
Articles for creation
- 16 Apr 2022 – Draft:Kyushu Dynasty Theory (talk · · hist) has been submitted for AfC by MaitreyaVaruna (t · c)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 |
Draft:Kim Iversen
I was asked to restore this deleted article to draft, which I did (I think the subject is pretty clearly notable), but shortly found myself needing to remove content sourced to the subject's Twitter and YouTube posts and other WP:RSP-disfavored sources presenting fringey takes on COVID-19 in particular. I expect that this will eventually return to mainspace, and will need eyes on it. BD2412 T 05:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a little concerned with how much weight is given to The Daily Beast's rather inflammatory article, in the lead, replete with quotes. WP:DAILYBEAST is a biased sourced with an unclear consensus on reliability, with a warning advising "particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." (this particular article is in the Confider newsletter, previously called Source Material, which looks rather gossipy). Per MOS:LABEL, what the Daily Beast labels "parroting Kremlin talking points about Ukrainian neo-Nazis" might just be mentioning the well-documented existence of Ukrainian neo-Nazis. And what DB calls "seemingly defending the Chinese government's brutal treatment of Uyghurs" is not necessarily the same as "actually defending". Potentially disingenuous misreadings or interpretations shouldn't be quoted in the lead of a BLP, even if the underlying claims of grumbling staffers are true. And if DB is the only source covering what it calls a "saucy scooplet", then maybe it's better to err on the more conservative than scandalous side for now. --Animalparty! (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Confider is a news letter which defines itself as "Media scooplets you can't get anywhere else - that everyone will be talking about tomorrow" that "deliver[s] a buffet of juicy media morsels to your inbox". This looks worse than Daily Beast in general, and we already shouldn't be using Daily Beast for controversial statements about BLPs. So a particularly unreliable gossip newsletter of an already marginally reliable source definitely should not be used for controversial statements about BLPs. Endwise (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with creating this article is that we don't have sufficient reliable sources to create an informative article. The same applies to many youtube personalities and even legacy media journalists.
- The lead of the draft article says Iversen is a progressive talk radio whose show features primarily populist viewpoints. Both the terms progressive and populist are vague. The lead ignores that her main message today is conspiracism. But although there are probably a few hit pieces about her in partisan media, there's no body of literature that seriously examines the subject.
- If we cannot write an informative article, readers are better served by having no article than one based on passing references to her and assorted hit pieces. It's not as if readers cannot google her name and decide what to read about her. Or they can learn more about her by watching one of her shows than they could from the draft article.
- TFD (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Lots of primary sources on Copper peptide GHK-Cu
I found a very fringey looking advertisement on a local (physical) bulletin board, took it home, and looked up some of the research it mentioned. It led me to this page. MarshallKe (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- @MarshallKe: What's the fringe part? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- The advertisement I found was about selling patches that reflect your natural infrared light, "elevates" this copper peptide, and makes you young again by activating and creating new stem cells. While this is not in the article, the MEDRS-violating claims in the article support the claims of the advertisement. MarshallKe (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- It seems like a common component in anti-aging skincare (google "copper peptide anti-aging skincare"); the article says
Several controlled facial studies confirmed anti-aging, firming and anti-wrinkle activity of copper peptide GHK-Cu
but does not cite any sources. The source issues are worrying, but I know nothing about the subject matter, so despite being improperly sourced the article could all be completely fine and correct for all I know. Maybe people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine will have a better clue. Endwise (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- It seems like a common component in anti-aging skincare (google "copper peptide anti-aging skincare"); the article says
- The advertisement I found was about selling patches that reflect your natural infrared light, "elevates" this copper peptide, and makes you young again by activating and creating new stem cells. While this is not in the article, the MEDRS-violating claims in the article support the claims of the advertisement. MarshallKe (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks more of a WP:MEDRS issue to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I also noticed that there is some significant overlap in the authorship of the studies; in particular, 5 consecutive references have F. X. Maquart as an author. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- It can't really be a MEDRS problem unless you think that "looking your natural age" is a disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty strong disagreement from me, MEDRS applies to more than just diseases. Even restricting to being used for wrinkle removal, that seems to fit our definition of WP:BMI; specifically as a treatment for a condition, and whether/how it works. Even if reasonable minds can differ, I think that fits the
relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health
criteria (emphasis added). - In addition to the anti-aging claims, there's clear BMI/MEDRS content that needs a closer look:
In humans, GHK-Cu is proposed to promote wound healing, attraction of immune cells, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects, stimulation of collagen and glycosaminoglycan synthesis in skin fibroblasts and promotion of blood vessels growth. Recent studies revealed its ability to modulate expression of a large number of human genes, generally reversing gene expression to a healthier state.
No inline citations here, and the sentence before includes a dead link that appears to be a WP:PRIMARY promotional site. So yeah, not good. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)- Do you really believe that wrinkles are a medical condition? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's reasonably perceived as such when discussing a treatment, yes. To back that up:
Talk with a doctor specially trained in skin problems, called a dermatologist, or your regular doctor if you are worried about wrinkles.
National Institutes of HealthSo, if a product is intended, for example, to remove wrinkles or increase the skin’s production of collagen, it’s a drug or a medical device.
US Food and Drug Administration- So yes, the article's claim that
Facial cream containing GHK-Cu and melatonin increased collagen in photoaged skin of 20 female volunteers, performing better than vitamin C and retinoic acid
fits our definition of Biomedical Information which requires MEDRS sourcing, in addition to literally fitting the FDA's example definition of a drug. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)- I think it depends on the claim. I do not agree that GHK-Cu cream applied twice daily improved aged skin appearance is biomedical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- We're not talking about
improved aged skin appearance
, we're talking about an explicitly medical claim: that topical application of a chemical changing body chemistry in a quantified way. The primary study claim of "increased collagen" is unambiguously BMI, and a specified dosage of a synthetic substance for that purpose is regulated by the FDA as a drug. I struggle to see how that doesn't far exceed the criteria in BMI. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)- I copied that line straight out of the article. If we are talking here about the current contents of the article, then we should be talking about non-drug cosmetic claims in the article (in addition to the drug-based claims, some of which are cited to the same source as the cosmetic claim I quoted). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also, it looks like most, if not all, of this can be cited to:
- Khalid, Fakra; Gorouhi, Farzam; Maibach, Howard I. (2016). "Anti-Aging Topical Peptides and Proteins". In Howard I. Maibach, Jared R. Jagdeo, Peter Elsner, Raja Sivamani (ed.). Cosmeceuticals and Active Cosmetics (Third ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-4822-1417-8. OCLC 919719500.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
- Khalid, Fakra; Gorouhi, Farzam; Maibach, Howard I. (2016). "Anti-Aging Topical Peptides and Proteins". In Howard I. Maibach, Jared R. Jagdeo, Peter Elsner, Raja Sivamani (ed.). Cosmeceuticals and Active Cosmetics (Third ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-4822-1417-8. OCLC 919719500.
- Start on page 144 under the heading "Topical Signal Oliopeptides".
- For wound healing and a little history, you might like to supplement it with this book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think there is a valid point here that it should be controversial whether or not skin appearance is biomedical information. Another example: sports bras' effect on breast motion biomedical information? MarshallKe (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see the issue now, the article contains both definite BMI (ie. increases collagen) and potentially non-BMI (ie. skin appearance) claims. Perhaps clearer distinction between the two is the solution. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Also, I'd suggest replacing as many papers with recent(ish) books as possible, and attenuating any claims that aren't clearly supported by those books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also, it looks like most, if not all, of this can be cited to:
- I copied that line straight out of the article. If we are talking here about the current contents of the article, then we should be talking about non-drug cosmetic claims in the article (in addition to the drug-based claims, some of which are cited to the same source as the cosmetic claim I quoted). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- We're not talking about
- I think it depends on the claim. I do not agree that GHK-Cu cream applied twice daily improved aged skin appearance is biomedical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you really believe that wrinkles are a medical condition? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty strong disagreement from me, MEDRS applies to more than just diseases. Even restricting to being used for wrinkle removal, that seems to fit our definition of WP:BMI; specifically as a treatment for a condition, and whether/how it works. Even if reasonable minds can differ, I think that fits the
- It can't really be a MEDRS problem unless you think that "looking your natural age" is a disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I also noticed that there is some significant overlap in the authorship of the studies; in particular, 5 consecutive references have F. X. Maquart as an author. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- The information in question has been removed per WP:MEDRS until such time somebody can find or get access to a valid source for it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: I just removed even more primary sources, plus an obviously non-MEDRS reference about an home acne treatment using GHK-Cu. A medical source ([1]) failed verification regarding an acne-related claim, but can be used elsewhere as a secondary source regarding cosmetic applications. Are there any unacceptable sources remaining? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Yet Another JP Sears Scrubbing Flare Up
Over at anti-vaxxer/MAGA/conspirituality comedian JP Sears's Wikipedia entry, I'm seeing yet another flare up of scrubbing activity, particularly among embedded users hoping to censor anything deemed 'critical' of the subject, WP:RS be damned. In fact, the talk page there nowadays has about two to three users who appear to be there solely to remove anything 'critical' or 'political' about the article's subject (they haven't done a single thing else). See Talk:JP_Sears#Wikipedia_is_not_Censored:_Yet_More_Attempts_at_Removing_WP:RS_from_the_Article. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Interested editors may want to participate in an RfC on the matter: Talk:JP_Sears#RfC. Endwise (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Kambo cleanse
Changes this month suggest a vast improvement of the evidence situation. Is that justified? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Talk:Kambo cleanse#Review of holistic delivery/presentation of article, and some specific points regarding the 'evidence' a thread by User:Ablations who made many of those changes may be of relevance. Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks @Hob Gadling and also @Nil Einne for mentioning that talk section - yes that thread is very relevant, and was made a while back with no progress. So some of those suggestions were implemented in a minor and careful fashion with notes left on the edits pointing out some of the fixes (such as media articles being used as sources), however - I believe there could potentially be an issue with the way some references were cited (the <ref> tags were used, and I noticed this made them appear a little differently to how the rest appear). Hope this all makes sense.
UPDATE: I just had another look and it appears another editor has fixed these up!! Bless him. Ablations (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Move request Reverse sexism ––> Discrimination against men
Another one that may be of interest: Talk:Reverse sexism#Requested move 17 May 2022. OP's rationale cites Volumetric scientific works
. Generalrelative (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
COVID vaccine "side effects"
- COVID-19 vaccine side effects ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
POVFORK of COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events, with non-WP:MEDRS sources. My attempt to blank and redirect has been reverted by the page creator. More wise eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- What's the POV part of the POV fork? It seems like a reasonable fork from the main article, to go into more detail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- You think the section at COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events is so large a split is justified? The POV is to air material only available in unreliable sources, as part of an anti-WP:MEDRS point-making exercise (see recent Village Pump discussions). Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's already a whole article on Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination, so it does seem plausible that there'd be enough material to write an article on all such adverse events. Endwise (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh boy, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#What_MEDRS_is_NOT seems like a load of fun... Bakkster Man (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the "Jiggly boobs" stuff is one of the more amusing self-owns I've seen on WP in a while. Amusement in an otherwise grim time! Alexbrn (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, my wife glanced over at my phone while I was reading that and I think she had a different opinion on what I mean when I tell her I'm editing Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the "Jiggly boobs" stuff is one of the more amusing self-owns I've seen on WP in a while. Amusement in an otherwise grim time! Alexbrn (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- You think the section at COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events is so large a split is justified? The POV is to air material only available in unreliable sources, as part of an anti-WP:MEDRS point-making exercise (see recent Village Pump discussions). Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Anyway, this is probably now moot as it's been AfD'd: WP:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 vaccine side effects. Alexbrn (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Can someone(s) help a student editor with Draft:Pseudoscience on social media
This seems like a very important topic given recent events, eg the Buffalo shooting, but it's written as an essay and I really do not have the time to help. I did find another source[ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pseudoscience-fake-news-social-media-facebook-twitter-misinformation-science-a9034321.html] but I've just got too much on my plate and start chemo in a few days. Thanks. I've told the student that I've posted here. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- If I have some time I'll pop by, probably won't be for a couple days though. Also, of I haven't mentioned it yet, good luck with the treatment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Socionics
More eyes needed on socionics, where IPs are objecting to its description as pseudoscientific. Article has historically had issues with socking and was semiprotected until recently. Crossroads -talk- 00:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- This way madness lies;) -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Gustaf Kossinna
I came across this guy reading Angela Saini's Superior, where he is described as someone whose theories the Nazis liked a lot.
In June 2015, two ground-breaking archaeogenetic studies appeared to confirm certain key aspects of Kossinna's theories on settlement archaeology and Indo-European migrations, in what has been referred to as Kossinna's Smile.
This sounds dubious to me, especially because of the peacock term "ground-breaking". There is a slow discussion about it on the Talk page - April 2020, November 2020, January 2022. Maybe that can be sped up if knowledgeable editors chime in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, Kossinna is one of those awkward 19th century figures who was simultaneously an awful, awful person and a genuine "father of the field" for prehistoric archaeology.
- Kossinna's smile is the title of a great paper by Volker Heyd which, far from saying that archaeogenetics proves Kossinna right, criticises it for unthinkingly reviving some of his (fallacious) ideas. – Joe (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've made some changes to the text in the article, which indeed wasn't great. I'm not sure if Kossinna's Smile is a valid redirect. – Joe (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Changes look good. Tewdar 08:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- As for the "ground-breaking" archaeogenetics articles, Volker Heyd, author of "Kossinna's smile", says:
One might eventually look back at June 2015 as a turning point for archaeologists dealing with the third millennium BC and the approximately 30 centuries thereafter. That month, two ancient DNA (aDNA) papers were published in the scientific journal Nature (Allentoft et al. 2015; Haak et al. 2015), with far-reaching implications for our understanding of the later prehistory of Europe and Western Asia.....While I have no doubt that both papers are essentially right, they do not reflect the complexity of the past.
- Sounds like a reasonable take. Tewdar 07:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Heyd also talks a bit about the spread of the Indo-European languages, and the relevance of these papers for the two main competing hypotheses:
On another level, everyone will also have to accept the existence of large-scale prehistoric migrations, the fact that they were a driving force of cultural change and that there was a link to the Indo-European languages, which in turn makes the late dispersal theory much more probable than the supposed connection with early farming.
- These two studies, and subsequent papers, pretty much killed off Renfrew's "PIE from Neolithic Anatolia through spread of farming" model. Tewdar 08:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think that's all true, but it's of limited, if any, relevance to our article on Kossinna. When his name comes up, it's not to say that new results confirm his theories (he identified PIE with the Corded Ware culture and his story of its spread was basically the familiar blonde haired Aryans conquering Europe fantasy), but to point out that the way these early archaeogenetics papers treated ancestry, culture, and migration is eerily reminiscent of Kossinna's "equation of ethnic identification with archaeological culture" (as the abstract for the Heyd article puts it). – Joe (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. I think the only reason Kossinna might be smiling about anything is because aDNA studies demonstrate that "large migrations happened"... Tewdar 08:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think that's all true, but it's of limited, if any, relevance to our article on Kossinna. When his name comes up, it's not to say that new results confirm his theories (he identified PIE with the Corded Ware culture and his story of its spread was basically the familiar blonde haired Aryans conquering Europe fantasy), but to point out that the way these early archaeogenetics papers treated ancestry, culture, and migration is eerily reminiscent of Kossinna's "equation of ethnic identification with archaeological culture" (as the abstract for the Heyd article puts it). – Joe (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- But, if Kossinna is smiling about anything, it's not because recent archaeogenetics studies validate his theories of Indo-European origins. Because they don't. Tewdar 08:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Dan Gibson (author)
Self published author with what seems to be a fringe idea about where early mosques pointed. Unhappy new editor on talk page challenging neutrality. I just removed a chunk of trxt explaining how one of his critics was the greatest expert ever and I’m not sure if the King sources meets rs, the journal it’s in seems dubious.[2] Doug Weller talk 19:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- On further perusal David A. King (historian) seems a very reliable source. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Based on the scope of the status quo article and a quick skim of sources on the web, shouldn't the article be Early Islamic Qiblas? Most of the coverage is focused on his book and the responses to it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Jordan Lead Codices
Jordan Lead Codices ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) These are almost certainly a forgery, but the article is terrible and gives far too much prominence to a David Elkington. See a publicity website for him, his Graham Hancock page and most importantly, an Ofcom report about a rejected complaint he made about the BBC coverage of him which is pretty damning.[3] I don't have much confidence in Margaret Barker either as she seems pretty fringe. Article needs a major cleanup. I haven't found anything recent, but this doesn't seem to be used. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is from 2019: Spotting a fake: Flourishing industry of Jewish manuscript forgeries and discusses the Centre for the Study of the Jordanian. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Parascience
is a two sentence stub. Ran into it when hidden comments were added to Ancient Aliens.[4] Not sure if they are appropriate or if we need to do something about the article. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- The stub appears to indulge in a bit of editorializing. The Stanford page cited says Martin Mahner proposed the term “parascience” to cover non-scientific practices that are not pseudoscientific. So it's a proposed term, not a recognized category. And it does not say anything about "examin(ing) phenomena that are not recognised to exist physically", etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- New page patrol should be stopping crap like that, rather than allowing it. They're recruiting desperately atm too. Should it be prodded or AfD'd? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- It’s in Collins dictionary and a number of other sources. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Neither then. OK. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Google Scholar has a lot of high-quality sources. I commented on Talk:Parascience#No_sources?. 5Q5|✉ 12:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Neither then. OK. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- It’s in Collins dictionary and a number of other sources. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- New page patrol should be stopping crap like that, rather than allowing it. They're recruiting desperately atm too. Should it be prodded or AfD'd? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Robb Elementary School shooting
I received a warning from Taxin609 about edit warring, which I half expected, however, neither Benmite or Pennsylvania2, the other parties involved, received a warning despite both having a history of edit warring, and the disputed content is still in the article when this is an issue best resolved on the Talk Page. 48Pills (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- @48PillsPlease see my talk page. Taxin609 (Talk To Me) 01:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
COVID origin
- Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
There's been some off-wiki recruiting on this[5] and an uptick in activity regarding the virus origin. More eyes may be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Today I learned: Wikipedia
is owned and operated by Google or Microsoft and or maybe the Alphabet company aka Google.
[6] It's good to know that clairvoyants on Twitter are on the case. This whole time I thought I was part of an entirely different cabal. Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC) - This may be aimed at me? For the record I was led to the SARS-CoV-2 discussion after I looked in to Alexbrn edit-warring on the 2022 monkeypox outbreak article. Palpable (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you strike that untruth, or produce evidence of "edit-warring". Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- First revert, with context on the talk page. The edit being reverted included the comment "Please do discuss edits on Talk page, and do not wholesale revert, per WP:REVONLY—thanks kindly!"
- Second revert, which was deemed an abuse of WP:MEDRS at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Are you burned out yet?
- Third revert
- Palpable (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your links don't show any any warring (or even link to reverts). You probably need to learn what WP:EW is to avoid making further untrue statements. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Help:Reverting states that "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion". Your actions fall within WP:EW from what I can tell. If someone else wants to explain why they don't, I'm happy to learn.
- It sounds like I should have just taken this to Admin but it's been over 48 hours. -- Palpable (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Aside from the edit warring issue, my point in commenting here was to object to your insinuation that I came here due to some garbage on Twitter. AGF please. I've had this account since 2010 though I was inactive for many years. Palpable (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
which was deemed an abuse of
Well, if one person deemed that, then it has been well and truly deemed.- Removing new and improperly sourced material is not edit-warring. Putting it back in again and again is. See WP:BRD. Instead of flimsy accusations, how about using actual reasoning in favor of the text in question? On the Talk page of the article itself, where that sort of thing belongs, instead of cluttering this noticeboard? --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are confusing two different pages. Talk:2022 monkeypox outbreak#Majority of cases in gay and bisexual men (MSM) and Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Zoonotic origins which was closed on the pretext that somebody somewhere said something on Twitter. At this point this is clearly a job for Admin and I will drop it until I figure out the right venue. -- Palpable (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
You are confusing two different pages.
Bullshit. I did not even mention any pages, I just refuted your bad reasoning in a general way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are confusing two different pages. Talk:2022 monkeypox outbreak#Majority of cases in gay and bisexual men (MSM) and Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Zoonotic origins which was closed on the pretext that somebody somewhere said something on Twitter. At this point this is clearly a job for Admin and I will drop it until I figure out the right venue. -- Palpable (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your links don't show any any warring (or even link to reverts). You probably need to learn what WP:EW is to avoid making further untrue statements. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you strike that untruth, or produce evidence of "edit-warring". Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The source used does not say the virus is of zoonotic origin, it says it likely is. If you want to make a definite statement ruling out other possible origins, you need a source that does that. Alternatively, you could use the type of wording used in the current source. You can't just say you have read all the literature and this is your informed conclusion. TFD (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- The opening of the source: "The present outbreak of a coronavirus-associated acute respiratory disease called coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is the third documented spillover of an animal coronavirus to humans in only two decades that has resulted in a major epidemic" [my emphasis]. Alexbrn (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- The source also seems to be using "zoonotic" in a slightly different way than the zoonotic article. What the source claims that the virus is zoonotic in the sense that it derived from a bat virus, which is uncontroversial. As far as I can see, the source does not deny the possibility of lab involvement at some point - but the phrasing in the article construes it that way. -- Palpable (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Alexbrn, sorry I thought that later wording qualified the statement: "rapidly spread in the human population after a likely spillover from bats or from a yet unidentified intermediate host." I see now that the author was probably referring to the bat origin as likely.
- An article in the British Medical Journal says that "The theory that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated in a lab was considered a debunked conspiracy theory, but some experts are revisiting it amid calls for a new, more thorough investigation."[7] I don't know where that research has led, but if the lab leak theory has again been discredited or has been determined to be an extremely remote possibility, then at least there should be some clarification in a footnote.
- TFD (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I know the BMJ article reflects the current thinking. There are other references in the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article - e.g. the US Intelligence Assessment agrees that a purely zoonotic origin is likely but unproven.
- While neither of these sources have the weight of a refereed journal, they address the proximal origin question, unlike the current source. It is telling that the refereed publications avoid taking a stance on that.
- I think the key point is that the burden of proof for establishing uncertainty is much lower than the burden of proof for any particular hypothesis. -- Palpable (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how Wikipedia works. "There is uncertainty" can be said about literally anything. Wikipedia still defers to high quality sources in determining how to deal with that uncertainty. Given those sources (brief listing here; you can do your own research on PubMed if you so please) pretty much unanimously find that the lab leak is at best something like
unlikely and not supported by available evidence
(and most are far less generous than this), then we must reflect these rather clear findings as such, even if there are some minority dissenting voices, even if what the scientific sources say is not the same thing as political agencies or newspapers say. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)- Yes, and in my understanding the remaining "sane" lab-leakers are arguing for a zoonotic lab accident in any case; the "bio-engineered" narrative has long been recognized as a conspiracy theory. In any case, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is linked: readers can read all about that kind of stuff there. To insist fringe views are crowbarred into the WP:LEDE of the main article is textbook WP:UNDUE and out-of-alignment with the WP:BESTSOURCES. Alexbrn (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- And since people somewhere complained about sources not being recent; here's a sampling from a quick search on PubMed (somehow allowed myself to get distracted past a reasonable sleeping hour on a Saturday night; so there you go):
- These are all from 2022, and tend to go in the same direction as existing sources as given in the articles (from a quick look)... Really people should WP:DROPTHESTICK, or understandably get frustrated when they refuse to adhere to Wikipedia's sourcing and content guidelines. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- "We confirm that a direct proximal ancestor to SARS-CoV-2 has not yet been sampled"
- "Findings support a “bat origin” but results are not highly convincing"
- "the pandemic probably started from a natural source"
- (1) is pretty strong but all these papers hedge their claims more than the article text. Palpable (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- (Yet nobody is accusing them of being conspiracy theorists for including the word "probably") - Palpable (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- The excellent sources we cite don't entertain the possibility (it could have come from a meteorite; that possibility is not entertained either). Querying zoonosis is indeed to swim in the conspiracy theory stream. There's a good lay piece on this here. (Quote: "Plausible routes for a lab origin do exist—but they differ from the engineering-based hypotheses that most lab-leak rhetoric relies on. The lab in Wuhan could be a relay point in a zoonotic chain in which a worker became infected while sampling in the field or being accidentally contaminated during an attempt to isolate the virus from a sample.") Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Y'know, the only thing I asked for was the inclusion of some small amount of uncertainty (like the word "probably") in the article lede.
- As documented on the Investigations page, my fellow fringe conspiracy theorists include the US Intelligence Community, the director of the NIH, the director general of the WHO, and senior biologists at top universities. So that's some consolation.
- I understand that you've worked hard on these "guidelines" but their zealous prosecution here is unlikely to improve Wikipedia's credibility. -- Palpable (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- 1. using an article which is about the "natural origins of SARS-CoV-2" and which specifically states
The origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be unambiguously traced to horseshoe bats, genus Rhinolophus. SARS-related coronaviruses, like SARS-CoV-2, are dispersed over a large geographical area across southern China and Southeast Asia. They have undergone extensive recombination throughout their evolutionary history indicating frequent transmission among their Rhinolophus host species.
, and picking one quote which does not put this hypothesis in doubt, and interpreting this the wrong way, seems like WP:CHERRYPICKING to me... - 2. This article is again unambiguous:
Taking into account the SARS-CoV-2 dating and its MRCA properties, three scenarios are most probable: (a) The SARS-CoV-2 ancestor has been incubating for years inside bats, accumulating mutations, and probably through a random event, e.g. in the Huanan wet market, the virus was transmitted in humans, (b) A less virulent SARS-CoV-2 ancestor was infecting humans for years, until accumulation of mutations increased its virulence, (c) The SARS-CoV-2 ancestor has been circulating in intermediate hosts until transmission to humans by a random event.
The lack of certainty about the bat origin is here covered by the scientists in a specific way (i.e. we don't know for sure where the virus comes from, but it looks like it's from bats). You using this to argue that the "results [not being] highly convincing" is supposedly reason for us to cover an (unmentioned by the source) hypothetical lab-leak origin more favourably than the source does again seems like misinterpretation of the sources. - 3.
Although there is not yet any substantial evidence for a lab leak, and most scientists support a natural origin of the virus, by a jump to humans from bats, if it was a direct spillover—or, more likely, through an intermediate mammal, researchers have looked into genetic features of SARS-CoV-2 bioengineering signals. A team of scientists combed through the genome sequence for any signs of lab tinkering and determined that were not engineered genetic elements and they concluded that SARS-CoV-2 was not a laboratory construct
- Again, all of these sources support the current wording of the various topic articles, which is that
Most scientists say that as with other pandemics in human history, the virus is likely of zoonotic origin in a natural setting, and ultimately originated from a bat-borne virus.
andAvailable scientific evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin.
(in the detailed Investigations into the origin of COVID-19); orThe scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.
(in the very summary-level overview at COVID-19 pandemic). Endlessly arguing over this and misinterpreting the sources is disruptive and borderline sea-lioning. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)- The only thing I've objected to was the lede of the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 article. I concur that most of the topic articles are sufficiently cautious in their claims. -- Palpable (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Palpable please read WP:1AM, and stop wasting everyone's time here. Rabbit holes like this (if done repeatedly and in sea-lion-like fashion. have gotten many users banned on this site. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think Palpable's proposal to include a small amount of uncertainty is reasonable. No good sources describe a natural occurrence of zoonosis with certainty in regards to COVID's origin. Certainty will be established once an intermediate host is found, and SAGO's Christian Drosten said that will require the Chinese government's cooperation, which they will hopefully get in the near future [11]. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- The cited source asserts it was of zoonotic origin. RS describes the "bio-engineered" stuff as a conspiracy theory. A demand for "certainty" would have Wikipedia hedging its bets about everything from bigfoot to cold fusion. Instead we follow decent sources without indulging wingnuttery unduly. Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think Palpable's proposal to include a small amount of uncertainty is reasonable. No good sources describe a natural occurrence of zoonosis with certainty in regards to COVID's origin. Certainty will be established once an intermediate host is found, and SAGO's Christian Drosten said that will require the Chinese government's cooperation, which they will hopefully get in the near future [11]. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Palpable please read WP:1AM, and stop wasting everyone's time here. Rabbit holes like this (if done repeatedly and in sea-lion-like fashion. have gotten many users banned on this site. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- The only thing I've objected to was the lede of the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 article. I concur that most of the topic articles are sufficiently cautious in their claims. -- Palpable (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- 1. using an article which is about the "natural origins of SARS-CoV-2" and which specifically states
- The excellent sources we cite don't entertain the possibility (it could have come from a meteorite; that possibility is not entertained either). Querying zoonosis is indeed to swim in the conspiracy theory stream. There's a good lay piece on this here. (Quote: "Plausible routes for a lab origin do exist—but they differ from the engineering-based hypotheses that most lab-leak rhetoric relies on. The lab in Wuhan could be a relay point in a zoonotic chain in which a worker became infected while sampling in the field or being accidentally contaminated during an attempt to isolate the virus from a sample.") Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and in my understanding the remaining "sane" lab-leakers are arguing for a zoonotic lab accident in any case; the "bio-engineered" narrative has long been recognized as a conspiracy theory. In any case, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is linked: readers can read all about that kind of stuff there. To insist fringe views are crowbarred into the WP:LEDE of the main article is textbook WP:UNDUE and out-of-alignment with the WP:BESTSOURCES. Alexbrn (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how Wikipedia works. "There is uncertainty" can be said about literally anything. Wikipedia still defers to high quality sources in determining how to deal with that uncertainty. Given those sources (brief listing here; you can do your own research on PubMed if you so please) pretty much unanimously find that the lab leak is at best something like
Is Decipherment of rongorongo a fringe article?
And if so, does it comply with WP:FRINGE? See the talk page also. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- User:Doug Weller - I am not one of the regular editors here. (I do have a degree in the history of science.) However, my opinion is that whether it is a fringe article depends on what you mean by a fringe article. The efforts to decipher rongorongo are not fringe scholarship. Claims to have successfully deciphered rongorongo are fringe theories.
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. But I’m still saying WP:FRINGE applies, do you? Does it comply? Doug Weller talk 18:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- User:Doug Weller - That will require reading the article in depth as opposed to looking at it. I will review it in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- User:Doug Weller - I have read the article. If the question is whether it presents fringe theories as fringe theories, my conclusion is that it does. It refers to the various claims to have deciphered rongorongo as "fanciful". Is there some more specific question, or is it simply a matter of ensuring that fringe theories are not presented as mainstream?
- Any theory as to how to read rongorongo is a fringe theory, because the mainstream view is that it is not true writing. It doesn't present any theory on the decipherment of rongorongo as a mainstream theory. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Just the size of some of the entries, eg De Laat where I think we shouldn't use his self-published works but only the review which is a reliable source. I hadn't noticed but it seems to now become part of an edit war.[12] Doug Weller talk 14:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Even in an article that either is a collection of exercises in futility (in case Rongorongo will never be deciphered) or the future's past errors (in case it will be deciphered, and only one proposal will be proven correct), I suppose that the principle of due weight still applies. Since WP merely reflects, proposals that have received more attention in peer-reviewed academic sources should obviously also receive more coverage in the page, and vice versa. –Austronesier (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Due weight applies. The open question of mainstream scholarship is whether rongorongo is true writing. If so, it is likely but not certain to be deciphered. If it is proto-writing, it is unlikely to be deciphered. The difference between rongorongo and hieroglyphics or cuneiform is that it was always known that hieroglyphics and cuneiform were writing. (There had been previous attempts to decipher hieroglyphics that confused things because they were wrong.)
- The difference between rongorongo and the Akashic records is that there is an open question of whether rongorongo is true writing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Even in an article that either is a collection of exercises in futility (in case Rongorongo will never be deciphered) or the future's past errors (in case it will be deciphered, and only one proposal will be proven correct), I suppose that the principle of due weight still applies. Since WP merely reflects, proposals that have received more attention in peer-reviewed academic sources should obviously also receive more coverage in the page, and vice versa. –Austronesier (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Just the size of some of the entries, eg De Laat where I think we shouldn't use his self-published works but only the review which is a reliable source. I hadn't noticed but it seems to now become part of an edit war.[12] Doug Weller talk 14:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Akashic records
Are the Akashic records a fringe theory? My assessment is that they are a fringe theory, but I am requesting other opinions. I reviewed Draft:Linda Howe, which states that she is an authority on the Akashic records, and am requesting comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not really, it is a non-scientific religious concept. To the extent that anyone claims that it is literally true and scientifically provable, that would be pseudoscience, the same way that the 21 grams experiment is pseudoscience, while the concept of a soul is just not scientific. Looking at that bio, it is fact challenged. I'd treat it like you'd treat a prospective bio for a Prosperity gospel preacher that claims praying their way will make you a millionaire. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are you, User:MrOllie, saying that it isn't a fringe theory because it lacks even the minimal scholarly content required to be a fringe theory? I agree that theosophy and anthroposophy are religions rather than theories. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I am pretty sure there are a lot of believers in the Akashic records that consider them essentially scientific texts. Same is true of adherents to both theosophy and anthroposophy. jps (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:So fringe doesn't apply to any of the sections, including those using self-published sources? Doug Weller talk 08:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Wrong thread. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it is a fringe theory, but so also are all religious or spiritual belief systems. It means that they have little or no support in academic literature. But what difference does that make to how the article is written? TFD (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)</>
- Isn't it a mythical tome located on the astral plane? Like something in D&D? Not so much fringe in itself, but if (say) somebody claims to have visited the plane, consulted the tome, therein found a medical system described, and then did medicine on earth accordingly, that would certainly be fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am using the term fringe as it is defined in policy: "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." The astral plane is not an accepted view in physics and the tomes recording all of history isn't accepted in history studies. But I wondered what difference it made if fringe applies. Obviously we shouldn't present this as a fact or as a theory with substantial support in academic literature. TFD (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't it a mythical tome located on the astral plane? Like something in D&D? Not so much fringe in itself, but if (say) somebody claims to have visited the plane, consulted the tome, therein found a medical system described, and then did medicine on earth accordingly, that would certainly be fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think that we have agreement that the existence of the Akashic records is not a mainstream theory. It doesn't matter whether it is fringe or less than fringe. I declined the draft BLP that stated in the voice of Wikipedia that the subject is an authority on the Akashic records. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think that the presumed tome is said to be located on a different plane of existence than the astral plane. It doesn't matter unless one believes that the planes of existence exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Lysenkoism
First edit warring by IPs, now, finally discussions on the Talk page. But with accusations of Lyssenkoism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Stanislav Drobyshevsky
Article on a "Russian anthropologist and science popularizer".
"Drobyshevsky condemns the popular theory, put forward only according to the data of geneticists, that there are no human races, since their existence is visible to every person. He believes that the lack of mass collection of morphological data by the anthropologists of the world, both on large and small races after the Second World War, led to a failure in world science in the anthropological study of races
".
Drobyshevsky may possibly believe this. Wikipedia shouldn't however be asserting it as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely agree. There was a related recent discussion of the source Antropogenez.ru that Drobyshevsky edits at RSN ([13]). NightHeron (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Stanislav Drobyshevsky ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hipal (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Move request Reverse racism ––> Discrimination towards white people
Here's another move request that may be of interest: Talk:Reverse racism#Requested move 31 May 2022. The OP appears to believe that evidence exists to support the existence of discrimination towards white people, and that the current article title unjustly delegitimizes this evidence. Generalrelative (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I suppose there is technically discrimination against any group you can name whatsoever, in specific circumstances, by specific people. The question is when it rises to the point of notability, and when isolated incidents are being treated as if they were typical. This looks much more like the latter. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 15:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I want to clarify that I know discriminating against white people for their race is extremely rare and even more rarely actually serious, but reading the reverse racism page makes it seem like it doesn't exist in any form, when that obviously isn't the case. I withdrew my rename nomination, but I'm currently trying to find a good place to place this source (https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism), which takes the same stance as the rest of the sources, but has a very important first paragraph that acknowledges the fringe discrimination's existence and tells readers the distinction in a way even people who disagree with the rest of the article like myself can agree with, instead of blowing it off. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please use the "move request" discussion as indicated. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mathsci:, if you're not going to use the reverse racism talk page, I'd like to discuss this with you here. Regardless of the article's neutrality, the first sentence acknowledges up a very common slightly different definition of reverse racism that is mentioned in the overview, something I feel like is completely ignored by other sources. As Adam Cuerden said here,
I suppose there is technically discrimination against any group you can name whatsoever
. The Alberta source not only acknowledges the existence of anti-white discrimination, it explains how it never reaches the damaging heights of anti-black discrimination. (Sorry about that first sentence, I typed this as you were typing on my talk page, thanks for replying) Unnamed anon (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)- (edit conflict) User:Unnamed anon is "forum shopping' on this noticeboard. The posting concerned a requested move, which was almost unilaterally opposed (with the title unchanged). At the moment there might be a report at WP:AN3 in the standard way, due to a content dispute mentioned on Talk:Reverse racism (as explained by NightHeron and Sangdeboeuf) and on the user's own talk page – currently there seems to be no relevance to this WP:FTN. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Mathsci:, if you're not going to use the reverse racism talk page, I'd like to discuss this with you here. Regardless of the article's neutrality, the first sentence acknowledges up a very common slightly different definition of reverse racism that is mentioned in the overview, something I feel like is completely ignored by other sources. As Adam Cuerden said here,
The discussion which led to this proposal, at Talk:Reverse sexism is also relevant. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Is Dysgenics a fringe theory?
@Generalrelative has reverted my edits. I have cited paper from PNAS on the negative relationship between education related polygenic scores and fertility. Is that fringe?--203.186.250.135 (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Generalrelative has removed my citation to PNAS paper [14]:
"Based on 129,808 Icelanders born between 1910 and 1990, we find that the average POLYEDU has been declining at a rate of ∼0.010 standard units per decade, which is substantial on an evolutionary timescale. Most importantly, because POLYEDU only captures a fraction of the overall underlying genetic component the latter could be declining at a rate that is two to three times faster."
What other evidence you need?--203.186.250.135 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- One isolated population, that may have other pressures does not a valid theory make, we go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- 1) The two individual studies you added (including the Iceland study) were pretty thoroughly debunked by the PNAS study that came afterward: [15]
- 2) Another of the individual studies you cited, which had been present in the article before, shows the exact opposite of what you claim: [16]:
Taken together, these trends provide no evidence that social sorting is becoming increasingly genetic in nature or that dysgenic dynamics have accelerated.
- 3) Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources wherever possible, and see the new one I just added (published this year in English; first published by Springer Nature in German in 2019): [17]. Here's the quote I included in the citation:
Since the nineteenth century, a “race deterioration” has been repeatedly predicted as a result of the excessive multiplication of less gifted people (Galton 1869; see also Fig. 9.1). Nevertheless, the educational and qualification level of people in the industrialized countries has risen strongly. The fact that the “test intelligence” has also significantly increased (Flynn 2013) is difficult to explain for supporters of the dysgenic thesis: they suspect that the “phenotypic intelligence” has increased for environmental reasons, while the “genotypic quality” secretly decreases (Lynn 1996, p. 111). There is neither evidence nor proof for this theory.
Generalrelative (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- For the second point, in the PNAS paper [18], the authors said:
“ | Thus, although there may be positive selection on height and slight negative selection on additive measures of the genetic architecture of education, these are not accelerating (32). | ” |
- So the paper actually confirms the dysgenic trend, contrary to "genetic studies have shown no evidence for dysgenic effects in human populations". --203.186.250.135 (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- 1) No that is not their point. The term
may be
simply indicates that this possibility is within the error range. Here's what they say prior to the sentence you just quoted:For example, although the less educated respondents in the population have a fairly stable number of offspring over the birth cohorts, those with greater observed (i.e., phenotypic) education levels have fewer children over time. A similar pattern can be observed for height where only in more recent birth cohorts do we see those with higher stature having fewer children. Both of these phenotypic trends would seem to imply dynamics of emergent or strengthening dysgenic reproductive patterns. However, when we look at the relevant genetic scores in Fig. 2C, we find that the dysgenic trends inferred from phenotypic associations between education and height on the one hand, and fertility on the other, are not present with respect to the genotypic data.
(Emphasis added.) - 2) Even if it were their point, we go with what the reliable secondary sources say. One of the reasons why is that primary sources so often give rise to this kind of misinterpretation by editors. Another is that they are easy to cherrypick. Generalrelative (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are misinterpreting the paper. The author want to say the strength of dysgenic selection is not accelerating. Falling down is different from an acceleration in the speed of falling. The secondary sources just tells that some people have a different opinion. There are many other secondary sources support the theory, for example in a reference work [19]. --203.186.250.135 (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, you and I could go back and forth saying things like "No you're misinterpreting the study!" Luckily for us, Wikipedia solves that problem by requiring us to base article content on reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are misinterpreting the paper. The author want to say the strength of dysgenic selection is not accelerating. Falling down is different from an acceleration in the speed of falling. The secondary sources just tells that some people have a different opinion. There are many other secondary sources support the theory, for example in a reference work [19]. --203.186.250.135 (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- 1) No that is not their point. The term
- Your edit "Some genetic studies have shown a selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment in United States, the source you quote here "Based on 129,808 Icelanders ", Icleand is not part of the USA. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- No. See my edit here:
- Your edit "Some genetic studies have shown a selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment in United States, the source you quote here "Based on 129,808 Icelanders ", Icleand is not part of the USA. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just searched and got some good secondary sources here.--203.186.250.135 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- FYI, this edit was entirely inappropriate. The WP:ONUS would be on you to explain how these sources support the idea of dysgenics in humans, and then to persuade others that your explanations withstand critical scrutiny. Generalrelative (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
Bionic Reading
Up for deletion for notability, but it has the smell of something fringey. One would expect some research backing up the technique if nothing else. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Certainly if the article is kept, any claims that it actually works would have to be backed up with solid scientific evidence. From a quick Google, it seems that people are pushing apps for this hard. I wouldn't install any of them on any device I own - another bad smell... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
RfC on Source Discussing Del Bigtree, Miki Willis (Plandemic), Marla Maples, JP Sears, etc. Meeting
There's an ongoing RfC here about whether we should use Vice for reporting on a meeting to pray for Trump and discuss conspiracy theories around George Soros that featured notable anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, conspiritualists, etc. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- interesting that you didnt post this on RSN, seeing as its about sourcing. If you do, be sure to mention that the line your proposing we quote directly is actually sourced to a podcast, as noted here by @ScottishFinnishRadish: nearly two weeks ago. Bonewah (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is the Fringe Theories Noticeboard and this source is focused on fringe figures. It is interesting, isn't it? Welcome. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's not strictly about sourcing, though that's obviously a significant part of it. The other side is the notability of the gathering, both alone and in relation to Sears, and how linked it is to his broader political advocacy. The argument that swayed me was that it's not solely that Vice isn't the best source to use for what was said, but that there doesn't seem to be any other source on the topic, which often indicates a lack of notability. The "Vice said, according to a podcast..." attribution claim in particular makes it hard to have a full throated defense against a BLP concern.
- Regarding this noticeboard, it's not like this is a case of whitewashing, as best I can tell (with the prior notice having cleaned up some past concerns). The section still mentions anti-vax and other public activities, this particular sentence is either notable based on an attributed hearsay presumption, or a private event that's not nearly as notable as the rest of the section. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Two editors on the article have now attempted to remove very single reference in the "political activities" section; that is, the subject's antivaxxer activities. Attempts at whitewashing are a very real thing on that article. Unfortunately, this sort of behavior is all too typical for fringe articles on the site. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Could you please provide the edits that you're referring to that removed these references? In my recent edit, I summarized the quote based on how I interpreted the consensus on the recent Talk Page discussion, but I did not remove any references. Unless I'm missing something? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Two editors on the article have now attempted to remove very single reference in the "political activities" section; that is, the subject's antivaxxer activities. Attempts at whitewashing are a very real thing on that article. Unfortunately, this sort of behavior is all too typical for fringe articles on the site. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Great Barrington Declaration
There is a discussion on the article talk page about the use of the word "Fringe" in the opening paragraph of the article. I am involved as an admin as I just had to block an edit warring IP. However, after reading the discussion I am concerned that use of the term "fringe" is not supported by reliable sources and the arguments for its use sound rather WP:SYNTHy to me. Could some experienced editors have a look? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Economics has an RFC
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220607214440im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Economics has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The dispute is on whether we can give due weight to critics of the field, some of whom equate it to pseudoscience. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Astrology at AN
This discussion at WP:AN may be of interest to the notice board. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- A rather lengthy discussion has been transpiring at Talk:Astrology regarding the article lede. XOR'easter (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Currently focused in Talk:Astrology#Lede_revision, for those who don't want to sift through the whole page. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Cryptozoology
I just discovered a set of cryptid articles at WP:NPP created in March that all use similar poor references. The discoveries of these "cryptids" are attributed to William Beebe, an article which fails to mention any of them.
The only possible legitimate reference (weak support for notability) is Robert Ballard's Eternal Darkness.[20] I'd like to get a second opinion: PROD or AfD? Should there be a brief mention in the Beebe article? --mikeu talk 23:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think Prod is waranted. They are 'real' controversial fish (even if they don't exist). They appear to be controversial outliers (along with "Bathyceratias trilychnus") among the valid species described by Beebe (over 80 fish taxa). They are mentioned but not by name in William_Beebe#Impact_of_work_and_legacy. An article in ICES Journal of Marine Science notes none of the four species (described solely based on visual observations) are currently recognized.[1] Carl L. Hubbs criticized the methodology of naming species by sight.[2] An excerpt from Karl Shuker's encyclopedia indicates some of the deep sea cryptids are on a Bermuda postage stamp. Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes treats Bathyceratias as a synonym of Cryptopsaras with B. trilychnus a nomen dubium, and the other genera as available yet of uncertain status. They might all best be redirected to the section of Beebe's article above and fleshed out a bit, or at Bathysphere, or perhaps a single article covering all four cryptids is warranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see Half Mile Down as establishing that there was a historical debate about the (non or otherwise) existence of a species nova. It doesn't seem to have received much attention from others in the field. I wouldn't support the creation of an article about the listed group and certainly not with the sources provided. I do think that Dolan warrants brief inclusion of mentioned "discoveries" in the Beebe article. --mikeu talk 21:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Dolan, John R. (1 September 2020). "The neglected contributions of William Beebe to the natural history of the deep-sea". ICES Journal of Marine Science. 77 (5): 1617–1628. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsaa053.
- ^ Hubbs, Carl L. (16 July 1935). "Half Mile down". Copeia. 1935 (2): 105. doi:10.2307/1436123. JSTOR 1436123.
Hydrogen water
Claims of therapeutic benefit with insufficient counterarguments. All but one of the sources are pro-fringe, and some of the sources are not about "hydrogen water" rather than general medical use of hydrogen. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have taken a quick jab at it with my cellphone. Delete the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- There appears to be some overlap with water ionizer and magnetic water treatment; both of these articles appear to give undue weight to fringe theories (water ionizer#Operation essentially claims "alkaline water" carries an overall electric charge; magnetic water treatment describes "electrolytic devices" as "effective", without being quite clear on what that effect is supposed to be). IpseCustos (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Correct – the surplus hydroxide ions must be matched by an equal amount of positive ions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have deleted the entire "Operation" section of Water ionizer and also removed a reference which has no relevance to the article topic — it is possible that some of the remaining references are also irrelevant to the claims they are used for. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Magnetic water treatment has been cleaned as well. Two sections have been deleted respectively as pro-fringe and for lack of reliable sources, and the article is now short enough that the third section can be condensed into the lead.An image showing the purported mechanism was also removed. We recommend replacing it with an image of a device that purports to do this, and doing the same at Water ionizer. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Jorge Ferrer
Could use more eyes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Western Imperium
Another newly edited article is pushing Francis Parker Yockey and other neo-Nazis. The article was previously deleted in 2010. About two-thirds of its references are to neo-Nazi sources. Llll5032 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- A lot Is sourced to self published sources, eg Yockey’s book Impеrium: The Philosophy of History and Politics written under a pen name. Is there an appropriate board to take this to? Doug Weller talk 18:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion count? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe. If there aren’t enough reliable sources discussing it. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- The right board for this is Sockpuppet investigations. If I'm 99% sure, can I tag for G5 speedy deletion right now, or do I have to wait for the SPI to resolve? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Doh! Sock blocked, revert away. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- The right board for this is Sockpuppet investigations. If I'm 99% sure, can I tag for G5 speedy deletion right now, or do I have to wait for the SPI to resolve? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe. If there aren’t enough reliable sources discussing it. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion count? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Carnivore diet, again
It was the WP:LTA, again. Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Monotrophic diet ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Slow motion edit war underway with an editor arguing a particular source, PMID:34934897, constitutes clinical evidence for the diet. More eyes from savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Slavic Native Faith articles
- Slavic Native Faith's identity and political philosophy
- Slavic Native Faith and mono-ideologies
- Slavic Native Faith's theology and cosmology
These three articles are all quite interesting but they feel to lack relevance to Wikipedia and to be too much focused solely on a Rodnover pov Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 11:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Those articles are accurately built according to academic WP:RS and were created specifically as spin-offs of the main article (1, 2, 3), dedicated to themes pertaining to Rodnovery, as the main article itself was already lengthy. They present the views in an academic style and neutral way, so I think that your tags are completely undue. Wikipedia has articles for Christian theology, Christianity and other religions, and a plethora of other articles only dedicated to Christianity; I think therefore that there is enough space for a small number of articles dedicated to a religion which statistically has more adherents than Zoroastrianism. I also think we should rather focus on deleting articles of intricate amasses of POV material and POV sources (and often not even sourced) like Growth of religion, Christian population growth, and other articles in the same vein.--Æo (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- These began as splits from the main Slavic Native Faith article which had grown too large. They may benefit from a clearer focus and the titles could be discussed (they were previously called "Slavic Native Faith views on identity", "Slavic Native Faith and Christianity" and "Theology in Slavic Native Faith", respectively). But the subjects are relevant and the content is supported by good sources. Pinging Midnightblueowl who created the original, shorter versions. Ffranc (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ffranc@Æo having known they were split off makes them seem more useful. I'd still support changes to their structures. In particular "mono-ideology" seems like it should be the name of Slavic Native Faith and mono-ideologies as nobody else talks about them, and there should be somewhere giving the Russian word for the term Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 16:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, I have found mention of the term "mono-ideology" in other contexts, part of the broader Russian philosophical and politological milieu (where it refers to all Western post-Enlightenment totalising ideologies in general) of which Rodnovery either may or may not be a part; therefore, I think that the article should be restricted to the Rodnover perspective on the topic. Through a rapid search among scholarly sources online, you will find that it is used in various other contexts not strictly pertaining to religion (example).--Æo (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ffranc@Æo having known they were split off makes them seem more useful. I'd still support changes to their structures. In particular "mono-ideology" seems like it should be the name of Slavic Native Faith and mono-ideologies as nobody else talks about them, and there should be somewhere giving the Russian word for the term Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 16:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- These began as splits from the main Slavic Native Faith article which had grown too large. They may benefit from a clearer focus and the titles could be discussed (they were previously called "Slavic Native Faith views on identity", "Slavic Native Faith and Christianity" and "Theology in Slavic Native Faith", respectively). But the subjects are relevant and the content is supported by good sources. Pinging Midnightblueowl who created the original, shorter versions. Ffranc (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Question about whether recent exploration of the mythical Lake Parime should be added
Lake Parime#21st-Century Explorations - this is based solely on a report made to a science meeting and I can find no discussion of it. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are no citations to this work. Until other researchers acknowledge and discuss this it is WP:TOOSOON to demonstrate notability here. We can't base inclusion of section text on existing poor quality references.[21] --mikeu talk 22:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
James Delingpole
He is obviously a climate change denier, and there are more sources for that than we can link without being ridiculous, but some people do not like the term. So, business as usual. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- This reminds me of a list that I read written by Jimmy Wales saying things like: we are not utterly neutral, we are pro-science etc. Feels like a good time to quote it, if I could find it. But I can't.... CT55555 (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you were thinking of the quote reproduced here? XOR'easter (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)