Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Articles for deletion
- 01 Jun 2022 – Steven M. Greer (talk · · hist) was AfDed by Nearlyevil665 (t · c); see discussion (7 participants; relisted)
- 04 Jun 2022 – Hydrogen water (talk · · hist) AfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c) was closed as delete by Explicit (t · c) on 11 Jun 2022; see discussion (13 participants)
- 31 May 2022 – Dave Considine (talk · · hist) AfDed by SL93 (t · c) was closed as delete by Explicit (t · c) on 11 Jun 2022; see discussion (4 participants; relisted)
- 27 May 2022 – Polarity therapy (talk · · hist) AfDed by Ari T. Benchaim (t · c) was closed as no consensus by Ritchie333 (t · c) on 14 Jun 2022; see discussion (8 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
- 14 Jun 2022 – Astrology (talk · · hist) has an RfC by Apaugasma (t · c); see discussion
- 19 May 2022 – JP Sears (talk · · hist) has an RfC by Endwise (t · c); see discussion
- 01 Jun 2022 – Rebel News (talk · · hist) RfC by Peter Gulutzan (t · c) was closed; see discussion
Requested moves
- 13 Jun 2022 – Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory (talk · · hist) is requested to be moved to Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory by MiasmaEternal (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 09 Jun 2022 – Russian disinformation in the post-Soviet era (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Propaganda in Russia by Euor (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) submitted for AfC by MaitreyaVaruna (t · c) was declined by Robert McClenon (t · c) on 14 Jun 2022
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, 87 |
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)
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)
- It ended up getting redirected. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 9 June 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.[1] 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)
COVID origin
- Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
There's been some off-wiki recruiting on this[2] and an uptick in activity regarding the virus origin. More eyes maffy 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.
[3] 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."[4] 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 [8]. 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)
- There are newer and better sources than that Feb '20 paper, which is why I think Palpable's proposal is reasonable. One such source is a recent letter published in PNAS calling for an independent investigation into the origins of SARS2, and it cites engineering as a possibility, so it is not a conspiracy theory. This has nothing to do with bigfoot or cold fusion, and wingnuttery isn't something PNAS generally publishes. The new SAGO report is another newer and better source. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- An opinion piece is not a "better" source for anything, when we have peer-reviewed secondary literature. And a report which "said that available data suggests SARS-CoV-2 had a zoonotic origin" is not a good source for showcasing a fringe theory to the contrary in the lede of Wikipedia's main SARS-CoV-2 article. Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I said the PNAS letter is just one such sourcec and StN and Palpable did not actually call to
showcase
any alternatives theories in the lead of the article. What the SAGO report describes as apossibility
[9], you describe as afringe theory
[10], so your POV might need refreshing with newer and better sources. The SAGO report is clearly the WP:BESTSOURCE now, better even than Holmes et al, which it reviewed. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I said the PNAS letter is just one such sourcec and StN and Palpable did not actually call to
- An opinion piece is not a "better" source for anything, when we have peer-reviewed secondary literature. And a report which "said that available data suggests SARS-CoV-2 had a zoonotic origin" is not a good source for showcasing a fringe theory to the contrary in the lede of Wikipedia's main SARS-CoV-2 article. Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are newer and better sources than that Feb '20 paper, which is why I think Palpable's proposal is reasonable. One such source is a recent letter published in PNAS calling for an independent investigation into the origins of SARS2, and it cites engineering as a possibility, so it is not a conspiracy theory. This has nothing to do with bigfoot or cold fusion, and wingnuttery isn't something PNAS generally publishes. The new SAGO report is another newer and better source. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 14:45, 10 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 [8]. 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.[11] 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.[11] 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 ([12]). 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 [13]:
"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: [14]
- 2) Another of the individual studies you cited, which had been present in the article before, shows the exact opposite of what you claim: [15]:
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): [16]. 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 [17], 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 [18]. --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 [18]. --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
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)
- Now with an RfC. XOR'easter (talk) 19:09, 14 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.[19] 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.[20] --mikeu talk 22:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted. –
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)
I was quite shocked to come across this statement in photosynthesis:
- In most cases, oxygen is also released as a waste product that stores three times more chemical energy than the carbohydrates.
As far as I can tell, this statement simply makes no sense (in a standard atmospheric environment, molecular oxygen is abundant and cannot react with the environment, meaning it stores no energy, right?).
I removed that statement and traced it to an editor who has made several such edits to various articles, all containing statements along the lines of declaring that oxygen is a "high-energy" molecule which "stores energy in its double bond".
(Please note that all this is about chemistry, not nuclear reactions.)
I'm afraid this rises to the level of pseudoscience, and someone will have to go through all the places where this editor cited what they claim to be their own publications, but thought I'd ask for a second opinion before doing that.
IpseCustos (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- It seems that the problematic edit is this one : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Photosynthesis&diff=1058709581&oldid=1057406610
- It seems to mention many times that oxygen and chlorophyll are "high energy" molecules.
- It's referenced to this paper, which is apparently by the editor in question. Building off his earlier work "Oxygen Is the High-Energy Molecule Powering Complex Multicellular Life: Fundamental Corrections to Traditional Bioenergetics"[21]
- I'm no biochemist, so I can't evaluate his claims. It does seem that he's a real professor of chemistry and not a crackpot, but if this is really a "fundamental correction" to the field, we should't be reporting it as established fact until there's more than just one chemist saying it. ApLundell (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that is one of the many problematic edits. I wasn't sure whether it was okay to link to or name explicitly the editor in question.
- I assume you mean we should not be reporting it as established fact, for now?
- I would just like to point out that
- generally speaking, some crackpots are real professors (Serge Lang and Linus Pauling come to mind)
- I'm not calling this specific editor or the author of the papers a crackpot, at this point
- I'm not convinced the two are the same person.
- This affects quite a few articles and some of the problematic statements have been there for years, apparently unchallenged. That may count as evidence that I'm wrong and it's perfectly good science. On the other hand, the paper author himself claims fundamental differences between his views and the established science, which would mean the "extraordinary evidence" standard applies. Also, many of the edits could have been challenged as undeclared COI, OR, RS, or, in the photosynthesis claim, purely for getting the numbers wrong. That they weren't makes me suspect they weren't reviewed very closely. IpseCustos (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would support reverting all such edits. COI in service of advancing one's pet theories is an occasional form of WP:REFSPAM and fringe theory pushing. I note that the journal cited in that edit is an MDPI journal. Crossroads -talk- 05:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Of course I meant "shouldn't". fixed. ApLundell (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- The editor (AGF, also the author of the papers) has responded to my concerns on my talk page (and agreed to let me link to the response).
- The last paragraph, I think, is particularly remarkable:
- In summary, unless you can produce references and evidence to the contrary, you will have to acknowledge that the oxygen theory of combustion and respiration energetics is actually the only known quantitative theory of combustion and respiration energetics that has explanatory and predictive power.
- This concerns about 80 articles, including fire and fuel. I do not feel the burden of producing such references and evidence is on me, but would appreciate further external opinions. IpseCustos (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Remove them all. Grandiose self-promotion. You are entirely correct that the burden of providing references is not upon you. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- The editor's claim that
unless you can produce references and evidence to the contrary, you will have to acknowledge that the oxygen theory of combustion and respiration energetics is actually the only known quantitative theory
indicates they should read WP:NFRINGE, WP:GNG, and WP:OR, particularly the independent sourcing. Maybe they have solved a major thermodynamic and biochemical question, but we need to source that to someone else's academic paper that indicates the view's prevalence within mainstream science. Convince other scientists, and we'll follow. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)- No, Wikipedia is not going to replace a conventional/mainstream understanding of various well-studied non-essoteric bits of science with content based on WP:PRIMARY studies by a single author/group. I don't need to study the science to know that that's against policy here, nor are wikipedia editors required to do their own research to disprove an editor's one-off idea. DMacks (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I must strenuously object. All my writing about science is rigorous and consistent with the laws and experimental results of thermodynamics. I am a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a published expert in chemical thermodynamics and chemical energy in peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is agreement in chemistry textbooks that conversion of relatively weak electron-pair bonds to stronger bonds releases energy, which means that relatively weak bonds store chemical energy. That is the essence of what I’ve been writing, and it is not in dispute among experts.
- Contrary to common assumptions, there is no “scientific consensus” on the energetics of combustion, respiration, and batteries. I have read dozens of chemistry textbooks and can tell you that they do not derive that combustion is always exothermic, or why the heat of combustion (LHV) is strictly proportional to the amount of O2 consumed, or why carbohydrates have less than half the heat of combustion, per gram, than fat, or how batteries store and release energy. (If you can cite quantifiable textbook answers to these questions, please indicate that in a response.)
- Biochemistry textbooks have no convincing explanation why fermentation of glucose produces only 2 ATP, while respiration of glucose + 6 O2 produces 30 ATP (attributing this difference to incomplete decomposition of glucose in fermentation is invalid, because splitting glucose up all the way into 3 CO2 + 3 CH4 releases only 15% of the energy of glucose combustion with 6 O2, and complete decomposition of glucose into 6 formaldehyde molecules would release no energy at all). They also fail to explain how nearly half of all the energy of aerobic respiration is released by the reaction of O2 at Complex IV of the inner mitochondrial membrane without any bonds of an organic molecule being broken. Nor can the textbooks, or relevant reviews, on bioluminescence, explain the source of the energy of the photons (~ 200 kJ/mol) emitted, for instance by fireflies, and why O2 is the only indispensable reactant in bioluminescence. (Again, please feel encouraged to reference quantifiable textbook answers to these bioenergetics questions.)
- Without a textbook theory of the energetics of combustion and aerobic respiration, it is necessary to refer to more specialized literature, for instance by K. Ross, H. Weiss, and myself, that achieves all these explanations, and more, based on the accepted bond-energy principles of chemical energy mentioned above.
- Any editor is of course free to replace one type of explanation with another, better one if it is properly referenced, but just removing relevant and valid statements that explain notable observations, e.g. why combustion is always exothermic, without a better replacement is not acceptable.
- IpseCustos has even started to delete statements of relevant thermodynamic facts (for instance that the heat of combustion (LHV) is strictly proportional to the amount of oxygen consumed, or that heat can be converted completely into work in a non-cyclic process like the reversible isothermal expansion of an ideal gas, where heat q is fully converted into work w, according to w = -q). This must stop.
- Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
If you can cite quantifiable textbook answers to these questions, please indicate that in a response.
Given your familiarity with the topic, can you cite such a textbook (ideally, written by someone other than yourself) that repeats your findings? If so, it would make the case for inclusion much simpler, and we'd be able to add it easily without the potential WP:COI concerns. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Textbooks do not derive that combustion is always exothermic
- That is because combustions are by definition exothermic? I do not claim to a good memory but if I recall correctly, Law's seminal text on combustion physics had defined combustion as such.
Textbooks do not derive how batteries store and release energy
- When I used to be a child, I was frequently excited at having discovered a pioneering answer to some question. The excitement was short lived because every single time my teacher impressed upon me how I had merely reframed the answer quoted by the book in my own way.
- TrangaBellam (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- My two cents is that Klaus Schmidt-Rohr| should stop editing anything that requires citing his own work. He's smart and well-intentioned, and IMHO, he is
definitelynot promoting fringe theories. BUT he's blind to the inherent problem of editing topics where he is actively publishing. There's also the issue of "righting great wrongs", which seems to influence his editing, he seeks to set the record straight because the rest of us are sleep walking. One can sympathize with his angst, but he just needs to live with the situation. I also actively publish, but I avoid editing virtually anything where my research would be cited. If Klaus Schmidt-Rohr| wishes to promote his views, which, again is ill-advised (COI), then he should be required to cite textbooks or major reviews written not by him. Best of all, he should apply his insights and enthusiasm into themes other than bioenergetics. Stated differently, if he so damn smart, he should prove it by editing outside of his wheelhouse.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)- I do not think that he is righting any wrong. Nothing in this paper is remotely pioneer (I can cite atleast half-a-dozen texts who provide the same treatment but not from USA) from a conceptual pov and that the paper was published at "Journal of Chemical Education" attests to it. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you could provide some references to these texts. Then we could quote these and document that this is not a "fringe theory".
- Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
he is definitely not promoting fringe theories
- I'm confused as to why you are so sure about this. I'd like to point to just one example, the statement in photosynthesis that I deleted: normal (ordinary triplet) oxygen "stores three times more chemical energy" than the carbohydrates produced along with it.
- It's perfectly legitimate to say "that's too chemical/physical for me, so I can't tell whether it's a fringe theory", or even to say that it doesn't look like a fringe theory to you, but to say it is definitely not a fringe theory is a very strong statement, and one which I must disagree with. IpseCustos (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- The record shows that I have comprehensively edited technical aspects, often fairly advanced, of numerous articles not related to bioenergetics but to thermodynamics more generally, mass in special relativity, chemical equilibrium, acids, kinetics, electrochemistry, NMR spectroscopy, statistical mechanics, etc. In fact, on Aug. 1, 2020, you asked me to improve the articles on exothermic reaction and exergonic reaction. Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do not think that he is righting any wrong. Nothing in this paper is remotely pioneer (I can cite atleast half-a-dozen texts who provide the same treatment but not from USA) from a conceptual pov and that the paper was published at "Journal of Chemical Education" attests to it. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- My two cents is that Klaus Schmidt-Rohr| should stop editing anything that requires citing his own work. He's smart and well-intentioned, and IMHO, he is
As I see it, Klaus Schmidt-Rohr is entitled to add (limited) content and references to his own work, per WP:SELFCITE. These particular papers are WP:Primary in nature and relatively recent, so not yet widely critiqued in WP:Secondary sources which Wikipedia would prefer to use. My reading of the work is that it makes a plausible case to explain, for example, the use by plants of two photosystems. Some of the suggestions can be challenged, as with all theories. Thus I wouldn't call oxygen released by plants a waste product. Plants only photosynthesise when in sunlight: at other times they respire, using oxygen like the rest of us, so the "waste" product gets recycled. Also, I don't like the idea that oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a "weak double bond". If so, why doesn't it form an O8, or similar, allotrope as sulfur does? That would replace four double bonds with four single ones. [I don't expect anyone to respond, I'm just giving an example of why primary sources are less preferred]. To calculate the free energy released by a chemical reaction requires one to know all the starting materials and all the products. Calling one particular component "high energy" is not terribly helpful. So, in summary I suggest that Schmidt-Rohr help remove some of his more prominent citations, especially in the lead sections of articles, until the statements can be backed up by secondary references from review-type articles or books not written by him. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't like the idea that oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a "weak double bond"
- I'm sorry to keep asking, but what, if anything, is a high-energy molecule even supposed to be? The idea isn't just questionable, it's a statement that is ill-defined and "not even wrong". I've read through this editor's contributions on Wikipedia and the relevant papers, and there is no rigorous definition in there what the chemical energy of a molecule, in the absence of a specific reaction that it's involved in, is even supposed to be.
- There are vague hints that he means something like the enthalpy of formation divided by the number of electrons usually considered available for covalent bonding, but that directly contradicts claims stating that oxygen stores "three times more" chemical energy than carbohydrates, or that chemical energy is "stored in", rather than reduced by, chemical bonds.
- Anyway, I've now opened an RfC about one specific claim, that the heat of combustion (LHV) of an organic fuel is strictly proportional to the amount of oxygen required in its combustion. IpseCustos (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing up interesting scientific questions. Here are some comments: -- It is others who call oxygen a waste product; I consider it a valuable molecule storing most of the chemical energy in the biosphere and thus making all complex lifeforms possible. -- Oxygen does not form chains because two O-O single bonds are even weaker than the double bond in O2 (2x142 kJ/mol vs. 498 kJ/mol). So oxygen chains are less stable (higher in energy) than O2 and break up spontaneously. -- A high-energy molecule is one that releases a lot of energy in countless reactions with millions of other molecules and does so forming a variety of products. F2, O2, H2O2, and NOx are examples. A high-energy molecule must have relatively weak electron-pair bonds, because it is the conversion of weaker to stronger electron-pair bonds that releases a lot of energy. Since the electron-pair bonds in organic fuels, CO2, and H2O are all significantly stronger than those in O2, reactions of the latter with organic molecules will always release a lot of energy. If you know that a molecule is high in chemical energy, you can predict that its reactions will be very exothermic (unless another high-energy molecule is formed). That is very useful in understanding bioenergetics. Indeed, in biochemistry, the analogous concept of "energy-rich" molecules is widely invoked. (However, some of the biomolecules often considered energy-rich do not meet the criteria for a high-energy molecule, since they release a lot of energy only in reaction with O2, and one must acknowledge that the energy released may come from O2 with its relatively weak double bond.) Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Klaus Schmidt-Rohr I think you have fallen into the sort of trap that results from trying to give simple explanations for complex science. Earlier I asked why the "weak double bond" wouldn't result in the formation of allotropes with solely single bonds, and you replied
because two O-O single bonds are even weaker than the double bond
. If so, why then aren't you promoting the alternative idea that "oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a weak single bond"? I read an article DOI:10.1021/jacs.7b04232 that goes into considerable detail on this topic and I'd prefer that Wikipedia tried to summarise the whole story without over-simplification. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)- Michael D. Turnbull, thanks for this scientific discussion. I would have no objections at all against a more detailed presentation of the energetics of combustion and oxygen on Wikipedia, and would be happy to work on it collaboratively with others. In the past, I have just tried to keep edits brief so they don't come across as disruptive or imposing. One could make a statement similar to the one you propose, saying that "oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a weak sigma bond" (it's not a single bond because the accepted bond order of O2 is two, not one). But just focusing on one of the formal bonds would be insufficient in a generalized bond-energy analysis to predict the heat of combustion. Here one must count formal or electron-pair bonds (or analyze the bond energy divided by bond order); otherwise the number of bonds in the reactants and products changes in an unpredictable manner and one cannot make general predictions. Please note that this analysis has not just tried but actually succeeded and explained a result for all kinds of organic molecules of great complexity: The heat of combustion, corrected for the condensation of water, is 419 kJ per mole of O2, with a small uncertainty of only ±3%. That's precise enough for fire-safety science and bioenergetics (e.g. the energy derived from ATP hydrolysis under various conditions has a much larger relative uncertainty). I'd like to add that the conventional "theory" cannot even predict from any basic principles whether a generic organic molecule will have an exothermic reaction with O2 or not, let alone predict how much heat is released - that is in a category beyond overly "simple": it's "not even wrong". Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Klaus Schmidt-Rohr I think you have fallen into the sort of trap that results from trying to give simple explanations for complex science. Earlier I asked why the "weak double bond" wouldn't result in the formation of allotropes with solely single bonds, and you replied
- Just to defend that article, it does not in any way subscribe to the "view" that the energy released by a chemical reaction can be apportioned (nontrivially) to the individual reactants. That "view" is indeed an over-simplification, even compared to the admittedly simple answers traditional established chemistry has to those questions.
- IMHO, and I realize this is not the consensus opinion of this board, we should attempt to remove basic category errors from the affected articles rather than summarising recent research. I would go as far as to question the value of even describing dioxygen as anything but a double-bonded molecule in an encyclopedia in which the lede paragraph of photosynthesis fabulates about 80% of the energy of photosynthesis being stored in the oxygen rather than the carbohydrate. IpseCustos (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- From that paper:
- With the exception of gold, absolutely every element reacts exothermically with oxygen
- Who wants to be the one to create the neon oxide article?
- (Sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful. Writing papers is hard, and letting a thing or two slip through is absolutely normal and forgivable, particularly in the introduction.) IpseCustos (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- From that paper:
A high-energy molecule is one that releases a lot of energy in ... reactions ...
- You're defining one non-standard concept in terms of another. In general, in an exothermic reaction A + B -> C + D + energy, there's no (good) way to apportion the energy released between the reactants A and B, so there's no way to tell how much energy was released by A or B.
- I maintain that no scientific definition has been given according to which O2 is "high-energy". Is it okay if I remove those specific statements, or do you have usable references and a definition that we can link to? IpseCustos (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are misconstruing the given definition of "high-energy molecule". It is not based on a single reaction of A + B. It is based on a large number of reactions. For instance, you compare dozens of reactions of glucose, and dozens of reactions of 6 O2, with molecules in the biosphere. You will find that reactions of glucose release much less energy, on average - so glucose is not very "energy-rich" in the biosphere (contrary to the claim on its Wikipedia page). We can explain why: Glucose has strong O-H and C-H, and pretty strong C-C and C-O bonds. As textbooks tell us, it is reactions that convert weak (formal) bonds to strong bonds that are exothermic. Per two formal bonds, the bond energy of O2 is relatively small (weak bonding) compared to all other common molecules in the biosphere, which explains its appearance as a high-energy molecule. My peer-reviewed paper in ACS Omega 5: 2221-2233 (2020) contains this definition of a high-energy molecule with quantitative examples (I don't know if you consider that a usable reference). I must agree that "high-energy oxygen" is not finding consensus among editors. As you will see, I have eliminated it in many of the phrases you had flagged. On the other hand, stating that chemical energy is stored in the relatively weak double (or sigma) bond of O2 is an application of textbook principles to a specific case. Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't worked as a chemist for twelve years, and that was a break from database IT, but I have a follow-up question to a claim that diatomic oxygen is "high-energy" because it has a double bond. Why, then, doesn't diatomic nitrogen, which has a high-strength triple bond, support very energetic combustion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- That would be because Schmidt-Rohr's argument is that the bond has to be weak in order to be high-energy. As I've commented above, simple explanations are attractive but sometimes misleading. Hydrogen bonds are weak but good luck extracting their energy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- But I agree with the Original Poster that the claim that diatomic oxygen is "high-energy" as such is not even wrong in the absence of a further explanation that I haven't seen. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The explanation or defining quality was given above: A high-energy molecule is one that releases a lot of energy in countless reactions with millions of other molecules and does so forming a variety of products. A high-energy molecule must have relatively weak electron-pair bonds, because as textbooks tell us, it is the conversion of weaker to stronger electron-pair bonds that releases a lot of energy. Klaus Schmidt-Rohr 108.26.180.6 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't worked as a chemist for twelve years, and that was a break from database IT, but I have a follow-up question to a claim that diatomic oxygen is "high-energy" because it has a double bond. Why, then, doesn't diatomic nitrogen, which has a high-strength triple bond, support very energetic combustion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd just like to mention the discussion at WP:COIN#Oxygen. IpseCustos (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Matt Ridley – "science writer", or ... ?
- Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19 ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Some disagreement on how to characterize a co-author of this book, Matt Ridley. The present term "science writer" as well as being jejune, could seem a bit too coy in light of the fact The Guardian characterizes him as "a Conservative hereditary peer best known for his sceptical writings on climate change"[22] as well as mentioning other related notions that are not really "science" (e.g. that fracking protests are Russia-backed[23], or that CO2 emissions are merely "greening" the planet.[24]) He evidently refers to himself as a "science writer" for example in this[25] piece which contains some surprising claims too on dietary fat. Alexbrn (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Addendum, note the coyness is being manifested[26] in other reverts too. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Second addendum: I note Michael Hiltzik, who is a Pulitzer-prize winning reporter, and author of several books, but who is critical of the lab leak conspiracy theory, is described merely as a "columnist". Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, technically, he is a science writer. I liked "The Red Queen". But he is also an anti-science writer, so calling him a science writer is a half-truth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- He is a science writer, & the Guardian (or rather Mark Honigsbaum) is wrong, over the long term anyway, about what he is best known for, which is his generally well-regarded books on non-CC topics like genetics, which is what his doctorate was about. That and his disastrous period on the board of Northern Rock. He was only a voting member of the Lords for 8 years or whatever, & has only been a peer since 2012 - he was actually better known before this. The Guardian is hardly neutral in this area. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn: Actually, Michael Hiltzik was described as 'columnist and journalist'. It now reads, columnist, journalist and author. Bonewah (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Guardian does not need to be neutral, it only needs to be reliable. Ridley has chosen to taint his own reputation by joining several dubious groups. If he wanted to be called a science writer, he should have stayed one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Per MOS:TENSE, I'd suggest he "is a science writer" if he ever was one. With any reliable and notable criticism of his veering into pseudoscience/woo being an additional description. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- He can still be described as a science writer and noted for being a climate change sceptic if that is what other sources consistently refer to him as. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney
Falls under fringe because he's best known for a fringe theory. My main issue is with the Knights Templar bit as I think we should never use Alan Wilson, a retired shipping expert, and Baram Blackett, a businessman. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- We also shouldn't be relaying so much nonsense either from Lomas & Knight, an electrical engineer and an advertising exec. Much of the Templar section relies on Lomas. Just as an example, the article currently says "He claims that the founder of Templars Hugues de Payens was married to a sister of the Duke of Champaine (Henri de St. Clair)." Except Champaigne was a County, and the count at the time named Henri had no association whatsoever with the St. Clairs. This is pure hoax/fraud/amateur incompetence that we are giving voice to. Agricolae (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Joseph Eidelberg
I found this double WP:WEASEL: Many scholars believe that the story of Exodus, as told in the bible, did happen, yet only some of it can be proven.
The article would probably profit from historians having a look at it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, today everybody and their own dog are called "scholars". They just have to publish something remotely resembling scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Star of Bethlehem
This is about [27]. While I don't think that the nativity stories from NT gospels have historicity, I don't think that the authors of the gospels were spewing astrological gobbledygook (meaning that they were secretly adepts of the Christ Myth Theory). Even if we, modern people, regard them as tall stories, it does not mean that they were awarely lying like a dog. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm not sure what the issue is here. This new section simply summarizes a paper recently published in a reputable and peer-reviewed academic journal, Religion in the Roman Empire - so can hardly be considered to be "complete bollocks" - and the author of the paper makes no profit from the sales of that journal. No claim is made that the authors of the gospels were versed in astrology, only that they were recording a story which had astrological roots in the context of Hellenistic horoscopes for royal birth. The paper in question makes reference to material from the time and place and people in question - the Dead Sea Scrolls - to show that astrological thinking was present, and the link to between the scrolls and Teucer of Bablyon is particularly pertinent as Teucer specifically mentions the decans of the Manger and the Child on the Lap of His Mother. It was extremely common at this time to use astrology in the context of royal births, which is what this was viewed as. The popular theory of Molnar is based on this context. And in what sense does this mean they were consciously lying? Saying that astrology was used to justify messianic claims does not mean that they necessarily did not believe those claims, but who knows, maybe they didn't - we cannot say. But in any case saying they cannot have been lying is not in any way an academic statement.Please remove the block and allow the edit to be reinstated as it does not appear to be based on a reasonable objection. Thank you. Archaeopteroid (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would also like to add that this also has nothing to do with the Christ Myth Theory. If astrologers retrospectively drew up a horoscope for a historical figure then the fact that the horoscope might have skewed the birth date and time to fit with expectations does not mean they viewed the figure themselves as mythical. Again, please remove the block and allow the new section because the removal seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Archaeopteroid (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well for a start, what is with that bizarre section title, can not that be said in three words? Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- For another start, just because it was published with peer-review, it does not mean that such view gained traction in the mainstream academia. So, peer-reviewed does not exclude fringe or WP:UNDUE.
- The problem with symbolic interpretation is that it transforms any row of words into any other row of words. See, they were not saying the Jesus was born in a manger, what they really meant is that Jupiter was in the decan Manger.
- Same problem as with the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus: about many of them, there is no evidence they were meant as prophecies, the rest simply do not claim to be speaking about the Messiah, and there is one OT messianic prophecy that applies to Jesus, only it says that Jesus was a false prophet. Similarly, there is no evidence that the NT gospels were talking about Jupiter's position. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. If the title is complicated it is because the theory is complicated, but we cannot expect history to oblige us by being simple. Archaeopteroid (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- For the record: Unless you see it as a historical fact, Jesus being born in a manger presents a problem, a question, a puzzle, because why would you invent that motif? What was its purpose? Luke says the Manger was the "sign" (semeion) of the birth, and this word was used in Hellenistic astrology to mean a star sign. So it is not really transforming one row of words into another. Likewise, when Mathew's account says the Magi saw the child with his mother in this house of the virgin mother, then, since The Child With His Mother is a decan in the sign of Virgo, the Virgin, again there is very little transformation of one row of words into another, only a challenge to our assumptions about what those words originally meant. The NT may not mention Jupiter, but it does mention a star, and Jupiter was the star of royalty. If the fact that the NT doesn't mention Jupiter is an issue, why then are there existing sections on the page that explain the star as Jupiter? Archaeopteroid (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding peer-review doesn't exclude fringe - maybe so, but there has to be a valid reason for calling something fringe. That some early Christians were interested in astrology is a perfectly legitimate matter for historical discussion and indeed the general scholarly consensus is that some of those groups most certainly did have such interests, as there are written sources. Archaeopteroid (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not clear what point is being made about symbolic interpretation. I'm not trying to have a row or any kind and symbolic is the wrong word I think. If Luke and Matthew wrote down a story as they heard it, without knowing what it meant in the original context, then it is surely valid to consider what the original story pertained to in a logical and methodical manner. The Star of Bethlehem page on Wikipedia hosts a large number of different theories coming from different perspectives, many of which have very little connection to the actual texts about the Nativity. A new perspective on what those texts meant is surely at least as valid as a theory that has very little connection to them at all. Archaeopteroid (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Archaeopteroid: are you William Glyn-Jones? MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- My motivation here is simply that the question of the Star of Bethlehem question now has an answer that has better arguments than many of the others on the Wikipedia page so it ought to find it's place there. If a media response is required, so be it, we shall wait and see and revisit this later. In the meantime, it is utterly inappropriate that it be listed as a fringe theory, so I would request that it be taken off this list. Archaeopteroid (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- For example, there is nothing in the Gospels to suggest the Star was an unusual spectacle, only that Herod was interested in the time of its rise. The idea that it was some great astronomical phenomenon is itself an interpretation, and one that has no basis in the texts themselves. Meanwhile, "Magi" implied astrologers and the usual reason why astrologers observed the stars in connection with royal birth was the obvious one - for astrological purposes. The Wikiopedia page therefore is lacking excessively weighted towards the astronomical perspective and needs to include theories looking at the astrological question, of which Glyn-Jones's paper is recent example, and results form a review of earlier examples of this perspective, such as Bullmer-Thomas and Molnar. Archaeopteroid (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- It could in other words be argued that it is actually far more the case that the attempts to identify an unusual astronomical object that are fringe and that it is time we returned to take a closer look at the texts, rather than continuing to make the same old assumption Archaeopteroid (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's quite true that Herod being interested in astrology is a mainstream view. But that does not automatically translate into your view being mainstream.
If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis". Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought, which is a Good Thing.
— WP:FLAT- Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the section is to be removed because it has yet to gain mainstream traction, that is one thing, and I can accept that. But for it to be placed on a list of "fringe" theories in the meantime is a whole other thing and does not accord at all with the spirit or nature of the theory. It lumps a theory in a peer-reviewed journal together with genuinely fringe theories, and the danger of that is that it could skew subsequent reception. I.e. while I can accept a need to see what the mainstream reception is before it is included on Wikipedia, I cannot accept that it should be included in a list that would skew that very reception in an unwarranted manner. Archaeopteroid (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Listen, friend, if Albert Einstein had published his annus mirabilis papers inside Wikipedia, they would have been deleted as fringe. So, don't complain, you're still in good company. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Meanwhile the stage of your paper is still either WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. And these discussions don't get deleted, but eventually archived. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- ok, fine, I get it. Archaeopteroid (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Listen, friend, if Albert Einstein had published his annus mirabilis papers inside Wikipedia, they would have been deleted as fringe. So, don't complain, you're still in good company. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Meanwhile the stage of your paper is still either WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. And these discussions don't get deleted, but eventually archived. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the section is to be removed because it has yet to gain mainstream traction, that is one thing, and I can accept that. But for it to be placed on a list of "fringe" theories in the meantime is a whole other thing and does not accord at all with the spirit or nature of the theory. It lumps a theory in a peer-reviewed journal together with genuinely fringe theories, and the danger of that is that it could skew subsequent reception. I.e. while I can accept a need to see what the mainstream reception is before it is included on Wikipedia, I cannot accept that it should be included in a list that would skew that very reception in an unwarranted manner. Archaeopteroid (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Archaeopteroid: are you William Glyn-Jones? MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well for a start, what is with that bizarre section title, can not that be said in three words? Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Michael Woodley, New York Times Profile
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination), which I nominated, closed as Delete. Since then, his work was cited explicitly by the shooter in the 2022 Buffalo shooting and now The New York Times has done a profile of Woodley: [28].
I really don't have the stomach for this. Does anyone else?
jps (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I read the NYT, so no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- If this NYT article had been available at the time of the 2nd deletion discussion what effect would it have had on the end result? Reading the NYT article over I think it would have pushed it a bit more to the keep column but only some. It is very much not complementary and contains very little content about Woodley, mostly about his writings. I think it is more likely that we will see a Wikipedia page in the future about a book authored by Woodley than of Woodley himself. Just because a bit more content has been created about a BLP does not mean that the Wikipedia page needs to be written, we are only compelled to write pages that we find interesting enough to sink hours of time into. Move onto other projects jps, as I voted in the 2nd deletion discussion, I'm against salting articles. If someone tries a third time, then we will deal with it then. Until then, plenty of other work to do, and it is a beautiful day outside. Sgerbic (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Ice canopy
For some reason ice canopy was a redirect to Flood geology#Vapor/water canopy. However, there is noting in flood geology to explain why. So it now redirects to Sea ice#Fast ice versus drift (or pack) ice where the term is explained. What I need is a {{redirect}} in that section saying why someone interested in an ice canopy should see flood geology. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- FYI, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annular Theory (Vailan Theory) about Isaac Newton Vail theories. --mikeu talk 22:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Interdimensional hypothesis
This article contains only a description of the theory and its proponents, with some sources being from pro-fringe media. In particular, some mainstream evaluations of this pseudoscience are wanted. Rundown of sources:
- This one is definitely not pro-fringe, primarily describing the beliefs held by ufologists.
- Dead link from History.com, not an RS regardless of POV.
- Can't evaluate this book, but it's by Jacques Vallée, who is one of the main proponents.
- Brad Steiger.
- A duo of ufologists who probably don't match any Wikipedia article.
- Steven J. Dick is likely mainstream.
- David Hatcher Childress.
- Hilary Evans.
John Keel and The Repo Man are also mentioned without inline references. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good find. Page definitely needs work. I've just chopped The Repo Man as OR, and that's just for start. Feoffer (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)