Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Articles for deletion
- 02 Jul 2022 – Hello from Heaven! (talk · · hist) was AfDed by Asilvering (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
- 24 Jun 2022 – Skeptics with a K (talk · · hist) AfDed by TipsyElephant (t · c) was closed as redirect by Superastig (t · c) on 02 Jul 2022; see discussion (6 participants)
Proposed deletions
- 23 Jun 2022 – Hello from Heaven! (talk · · hist) PRODed by Asilvering (t · c) and endorsed by TenPoundHammer (t · c) on 25 Jun 2022 was deproded by Dream Focus (t · c) on 30 Jun 2022
Categories for discussion
- 02 Jul 2022 – Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide (talk · · hist) was CfDed by Madame Necker (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
- 25 Jun 2022 – Marjorie Taylor Greene (talk · · hist) has an RfC by Jtbobwaysf (t · c); see discussion
- 14 Jun 2022 – Astrology (talk · · hist) has an RfC by Apaugasma (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 29 Jun 2022 – Quantum brain dynamics (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Quantum mind by SamuelRiv (t · c); see discussion
- 20 Jun 2022 – Fringe science (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Fringe theory by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
- 20 Jun 2022 – Pseudo-scholarship (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Pseudoscience by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
- 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
- 29 Jun 2022 – Conversion therapy (talk · · hist) proposed for splitting by Buidhe (t · c) was closed; see discussion
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 |
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 [1]:
"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: [2]
- 2) Another of the individual studies you cited, which had been present in the article before, shows the exact opposite of what you claim: [3]:
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): [4]. 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 [5], 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 [6]. --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 [6]. --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)
- Inbreeding depression is very real and not fringe, and there's no reason why it wouldn't apply to humans. But that's all I can say for now, since I haven't delved into this topic. Xcalibur (talk) 02:12, 18 June 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
|
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.[7] 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 andcertainly 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)- It took quite a bit of searching but I did find some better references for Bathyembryx. Some of those also mention the species in the other two articles. I changed my mind about a merger. I think that there's enough for disputed new species claimed by Beebe or some such better title, especially given the overlap like the background section. --mikeu talk 20:41, 24 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.
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.
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 I still think it might be worth making the mono ideologies article about mono ideologies in general and expanding it with other uses of the term Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- If there is an article about monoideologies in general it should be separate from this one. If you look at this article, monoideologies are only mentioned a few times, although it's been blown up in the opening of the intro. The article overall is about the relationship between SNF and Christianity, where the rhetoric about monoideologies only appears occasionally, as one of several elements. Ffranc (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ffranc@Æo I still think it might be worth making the mono ideologies article about mono ideologies in general and expanding it with other uses of the term Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 12:56, 21 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)
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)
- Thanks. So I should have a hat note linking there? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven, Mfb, Chiswick Chap, XOR'easter, WegianWarrior, Crossroads, Brunton, Orangemike, Bearian, and CambridgeBayWeather: The Isaac Newton Vail#Reception section refers to Flood_geology#Canopy_theory, as it should. However, ice canopy is both a modern term and a historical fringe theory. I'd say that "ice canopy" should redirect to the modern definition rather than an obscure and archaic term. I've pinged others who participated in the AfD for further opinions. --mikeu talk 00:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks I've add the template, here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven, Mfb, Chiswick Chap, XOR'easter, WegianWarrior, Crossroads, Brunton, Orangemike, Bearian, and CambridgeBayWeather: The Isaac Newton Vail#Reception section refers to Flood_geology#Canopy_theory, as it should. However, ice canopy is both a modern term and a historical fringe theory. I'd say that "ice canopy" should redirect to the modern definition rather than an obscure and archaic term. I've pinged others who participated in the AfD for further opinions. --mikeu talk 00:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. So I should have a hat note linking there? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:03, 18 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)
- This article could use some language in the lead that articulates what context this hypotheses exists in, i.e. it's not a mainstream scientific one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg and 1566 celestial phenomenon over Basel
A lot of unsourced information added today - who in the world is "Charlie Solis" or "Charlie Davis Solis"? It's been added by User:DellBuddie1 who may be identifying himself on his user page as Solis, at least that's all that's on this user page. Our article on Conrad Hass has references but no citations, and I removed on that was a forum (although Hass is shown by 19th c sources as born in Dornback, which that was what the source was probably used for. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Charlie Solis Here. I have a degree in physics from Michigan Tech University and build micro gas + steam turbines. I cofounded TesTur Energy, a Combined Heat And Power Generation company. I also do research in rockets and rocket history. I’m sorry if my edits are still unfinished. I’m new to actual editing of wiki pages. I’m working on the citations for the work I added. However much of it is just parroting what’s already on the Conrad Hass, and company, pages. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have further questions. I’m still trying to figure out how to put a proper citation in the edits page but needed to sleep as it’s getting late where I am in Detroit. Will continue adding citations in the morning. Ps. I hope this is how to respond to you…— Preceding unsigned comment added by DellBuddie1 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have removed all the changes referred to by Charlie on the two pages noted above, with an edsum noting WP:COI and WP:CIR. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- So as long as my name is not attached the information is acceptable? I have citations for everything. Most of what was added was already information from other wiki pages. I just brought it together in this wiki, as the phenomenon can be shown to be the result of contemporary artillery specialists. I didn’t really change anything just added further information to what was already stated in the page about the “military interpretation” using known found manuscripts from the time. -Charlie— Preceding unsigned comment added by DellBuddie1 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think that the best advice I can give you is to read the welcome message Doug left on your Talk page, and follow the links it contains and read them carefully. Try to remember that Charlie Solis is just another stranger on the internetz to wikipedia. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Charlie - I know how confusing it is to learn to edit Wikipedia correctly. Adding content and code is one thing, knowing what to add and how to say it is another one. Please start with small edits, and work your way up. As you progress you will gain the skills that are needed to edit so that the edit remains. You have a sandbox that you can use to experiment with, and there are places to ask for help if you have questions. But we aren't mind readers, if we see something being added to a Wikipedia page without citations, we can't assume that the editor is just waiting till they have more time to add them. When you make the change to a live Wikipedia page, we expect it to be with the citation attached. We were all brand new once and even still make mistakes. So play around with your edits, start with a small page that you have no conflict with (butterflies, birds, structures that sort of thing) and use your sandbox. In time with practice you will find you are starting to give advice to new editors. Sgerbic (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- So as long as my name is not attached the information is acceptable? I have citations for everything. Most of what was added was already information from other wiki pages. I just brought it together in this wiki, as the phenomenon can be shown to be the result of contemporary artillery specialists. I didn’t really change anything just added further information to what was already stated in the page about the “military interpretation” using known found manuscripts from the time. -Charlie— Preceding unsigned comment added by DellBuddie1 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Astrology, again
There is a current RFC on Talk:Astrology regarding the inclusion of the word "pseudoscience" in the lede. 5.151.22.143 (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- It would be weird for us not to include the word "pseudoscience" early on in an article on this quintessential pseudoscience. But there are more problems than that with the article, and I made a suggestion about the structure that I would appreciate comments on. Most of the article is, and should be, about the history of thought. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Like everything else on this site, the articles in that corner were built piecemeal with no central plan, and I expect that bits and pieces were added to Astrology rather than related pages simply because the former is more visible. So, we'd probably benefit from a systematic re-evaluation and reorganization that properly sorts out what should go in Astrology, what should go in Astrology and science, whether we need an Astrology and astronomy in addition to Astrology and science, etc. Since we can't agree on three sentences, though, I doubt that will ever work. Incidentally, Planets in astrology looks like it needs some attention — there's a lot of "astrologers say" when it might just be one astrologer who says. XOR'easter (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- What the OP writes here is a misrepresentation: the RfC is not about whether to include the term, but about how to include the term. We're all for including it early there. Looking at the contribution history of this IP, not having made 25 edits since 2018 but citing Arbcom findings and coming to my talk in reaction to a RSN thread, I'm also a bit concerned about them being a logged out editor. Anyway, all input in the RfC is more than welcome! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Webster Technique
I just reverted this edit at Webster Technique, as the paper supporting the 92% success rate was a questionnaire survey. I thought someone here might want to check whether I was right to revert, and put it on their watchlist. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Tewodros I
@Dawit S Gondaria:, is pursuing undue/fringe ideas here imo, they state that despite several sources including the one currently attached to the article is not referring to the Adal Sultanate because of some dating errors. Upon review I tried explaining in vain that the sources are indeed discussing Adal but they wont even compromise instead they're latching onto one source that vaguely states "Walasma princes" killed the emperor. I provided several references that state he was killed by Adal but its been rejected for their preferred interpretation. Would like outside opinion on this, 3rd opinion was already tried and not accepted either by the user. Link to discussion can be found here [8]. Magherbin (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Magherbin: i choose a uncontroversial neutral term Walashma since it was directly quoted from the source and covered both [Ifat Sultanate] and [Adal Sultanate]. Adalites is a controversial term, and Magherbin reading sources out of context to imply Adal was before the date 1415, while many other sources provided by quotes in the references is conflicting this after 1415. You said
I provided several references that state he was killed by Adal but its been rejected for their prefreed interpretation.
You provided two sources (Abir Mordechai and BRILL publisher source) for the term Adal killed Tewodros I, and have read Tadesse Tamrat out of context (deliberatly or out of incompentence) to create this timeline for yourself. Tadesse Tamrat was talking Ifat and Adal in geographical terms (see Quotes nr 1 on talkpage covers entire pages 285-287). Abir is a old publication, and was uncertain in his wordings, BRILL publisher was not, a total of 2 sources. I provided several more recent sources that Ifat Sultanate was still around untill 1415. This has been put forward to WP:DRN an hour ago Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Grey School of Wizardry
Reads like an advertisement. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Having travelled through Whitehall, New York (the home of America's navy!) many times, I can assure one and all that there is nothing magical about the place. Dumuzid (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: The revisions that got deleted as a result of the first to AFDs are worse. You're an admin, so you can see them. The current version isn't bad by comparison, and the third AFD was a keep. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Anachronist yes, but I'm just commenting on what I see as hype/puffery, esp. in the lead. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Well, I just revised the lead after finding some superfluous words and a claim that isn't even in the article body. It should be more neutral now. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Well, I just revised the lead after finding some superfluous words and a claim that isn't even in the article body. It should be more neutral now. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Anachronist yes, but I'm just commenting on what I see as hype/puffery, esp. in the lead. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Teal Swan
There is a current discussion at the BLP Noticeboards[9] about weighing of sources on Teal Swan that editors may be interested in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Sherrie Lynne Lyons
I'm not sure she's notable. I'm pretty sure she doesn't work where it says she did but can't confirm it. Linkedin says adjunct at Empire State College, part of SUNY who published her book. I can see BLP vandalism in the history. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Her book having at least two independent reviews probably makes her notable as per criterion 3 of WP:AUTHOR CT55555 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Makes sense when included, I agree. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis
See recent edits and material I reverted now reinserted. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reverted, and I called it pseudoscience in the lead, since the phrase of the title is used for claims of modern shift, not Rodinia. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree the claim is definitely fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Yuhwang-ori
The article contains fringe-sounding nutrition and health claims not backed by MEDRS; in fact, none of the references are adequately identified. The subject is a grade of duck meat produced from birds that were fed high volumes of sulfur. Also, the text is very informal in tone and has grammatical errors. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just took a knife to it. It seems to be a real thing though. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Detoxification foot pads
Could use more improvements. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Friends of Science in Medicine
- Friends of Science in Medicine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gasp! They are "criticized" by quacks! Actually, it's just disagreement again. Good page for watching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article is very out of date. I quote:
"The group further demanded that all alternative medicines be taken off private health insurance which the Australian Government subsidizes. The Australian Government is currently examining the evidence of clinical efficacy, cost effectiveness, safety and quality of natural therapies. The result, expected in April 2015, will include a decision as to which natural therapies should continue to receive the rebate.
A fine illustration of why we warn against using the word "currently.. ! The references for this snippet are from 2012 — 2014. Anybody know what the Australian Government decided, and/or how it went after 2015? Bishonen | tålk 20:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC).- If I'm reading it correctly, according to this page, the 2015 review resulted in a number of therapies being excluded. Then they conducted a review calling for additional evidence for the 2019 - 2020 period to review. Then more evidence was apparently submitted. Then it doesn't indicate any conclusion, that I can see. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Science-Based Medicine
- Science-Based Medicine ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Some discussion lately at the article on how to characterize this website and its activities (including maybe mention of its role on Wikipedia). May be of interest to FTN regulars. Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Just a reminder... WP:Parity applies to the sourcing for the SBM article. IOW, not so strict rules as for mainstream topics. Just sayin'. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC) |
Robert Clancy and "miraculous drugs"
- Robert Clancy (doctor) ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Got one or more IPs keen to remove any mention of false claims from this person; could use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- These IPs are all from one small range, 103.79.255.0/24. I've blocked it indefinitely from the article. Bishonen | tålk 11:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC).
Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories
Could use a going over. Of course, there are no theories in the article, just speculation and hypotheses. I'm not sure we should have sections labelled "Disputed evidence", as anything not disputed probably doesn't belong in the article. The Iceland section is a bit confusing. Worse is the "Claims of Norse contact with the Toltec" which seems based on this University of York article[11]. The problem is the author works in the University nursery[12] and is a member of the Visitor Experience Team Member at York Museums Trust, I'm not sure that "5 years of experience in various customer-facing roles alongside the full-time study of Medieval Archaeology, with a specialisation in The Viking Age and it's peripheries; from 535 AD to the mid-15th century" qualifies him as an RS.[13] Doug Weller talk 16:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Forgot. Toltec suggests there may have been no Toltec people. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Polarity therapy
Polarity therapy was created last month, and proposed for speedy deletion per WP:G4 because of the deletion in 2012 resulting from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polarity therapy. However, I had to decline the speedy-deletion nomination because this incarnation of the article is substantially different from the deleted one. The topic seems to have significant coverage in mainstream-consumer health websites, which might meet our threshold of notability even if no WP:MEDRS can be found (and I'm skeptical that any MEDRS sources can be found on this alternative health topic). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nought out of ten for spolling at that theraphy page. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- After futzing around with this a bit I've ended up blanking and redirecting to Randolph Stone, where his quackeries are dealt with more thoroughly, and where they make more sense in context per WP:NOPAGE. I don't think there was any new suitably-sourced actual knowledge here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, well, I am pleased to see the comments above. Pity all the children who left stay anonymous with their accusations of child abuse. His son has a Youtube channel where he gives the facts out. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist,[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]],Whiteguru.Thank you all for participating here and sharing your views. But the article has beeen moved without giving me opportunity to expand. Isnt it wrong as per Wikipedia policy. In every past such instances, I was asked to elaborate the article and I did it. There are many articles where there is no universal consensus but they exist. Request you all to consider. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Gardenkur: What you should do is expand on the topic in the Randolph Stone article, citing WP:MEDRS compliant sources, and then if it grows big enough we can think about splitting it out into its own article. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist. Thanks for your prompt response. However as you felt earlier that it meets Wikipedia policies I left it for other editors to improve. Will do the same now. Gardenkur (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did not say that. I said that it didn't meet WP:G4 speedy deletion criteria, and it might meet our threshold of notability. Now that I know there is already another article that covers this topic well enough, additional work must be done for the topic to merit a stand-alone article. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
YEC in the US a conspiracy theory?
See the links I added to Talk:Young Earth creationism#YEC as a conspiracy theory (in the US). It seems that the idea was important enough for at least two creationist sites to attack it. Maybe it's significant enough not to be WP:UNDUE in the article? Doug Weller talk 09:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Sanat Kumara
And his family. Is this woowoo really all encyclopedic? Doug Weller talk 15:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Alfred Kinsey
Need more eyes upon Alfred Kinsey. See [14]. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I took out the anti-Kinsey movement section, given that it starts off with an ad-hominem and seems mostly devoted to discrediting Reisman as if she were the only critic of the work, which she is not. The article on the reports is conspicuously more balanced, and Kinsey's own article does need to mention that, as the thing is rather hagiographic as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- So, agree with your view. I was mostly reacting to people who have been rabble-roused by What is a Woman? in order to write rants that Kinsey was a
child abuser or fraud.
- I am a man who fights against egregious violations, I usually don't touch nuanced stuff. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- So, agree with your view. I was mostly reacting to people who have been rabble-roused by What is a Woman? in order to write rants that Kinsey was a
Mind control protester images
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Move_Earth_to_new_Habitable_Zone
Interesting collection of images: one showed up at Microwave auditory effect. If they are used in other articles, captions will definitely need editing to conform to FRINGE guidelines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like that's the only enwiki article impacted and they've been around for about a year, so I don't know that it needs much more scrutiny. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Larries#Requested_move_1_July_2022
Move discussion on a CT you probably never heard about. Opinions welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Because of my age, I'm going to treat this one the same way I treat Wrestling and Religion. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 17:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- For context, the discussion is about whether the article should be titled after the conspiracy theory or the adherents of the conspiracy theory. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 20:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Empirical limits in science
- Empirical limits in science ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- {{Did you know nominations/Empirical limits in science}}
I don't have much time for Wikipedia lately but thought I'd post these links here, considering that other regulars are familiar with science and its principles. My impression is that this may be confusing empirical science with naive realism; science of course goes way beyond human senses to formulate and test hypotheses (and it develops its own extra senses, a simple example being chemistry). This article probably belongs in WP but may need extra eyes, one of the proposed DYN seemed misleading, particularly. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is a bit of a strange article. It looks like a decent overview of how various technologies have allowed for scientific observations to be made beyond the boundaries of human sensory faculties. Of course, if I were writing this article, I don't know that I would emphasize it this way: separate sections for "taste" and "touch" seem quite weird when there is only one section on moral and epistemological judgment. But I don't think anything here is actually incorrect. jp×g 21:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Contested redirect and so now at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empirical limits in science. jps (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Gospel
This is about [15]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- This seems premature - I literally just dropped the comment, and the other party hasn't had time to respond yet. I obviously won't complain if others want to stop by and take a look but to be clear, there is no dispute / edit war / anything afoot here, just a perfectly standard editing discussion. It's not (yet?) a big deal. SnowFire (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- bruh, SnowFire deleted 4,000 bytes of text from an article apropos of nothing. Give WP:BRD a chance, please. I've responded at Talk:Gospel Red Slash 04:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Red Slash: Just as a point of clarification, I didn't randomly slash a long-standing section. All of that material was added just a few weeks ago. So, the bold was adding the section, the revert was me reverting it, and you're the one being bold again. ;-) (Will discuss content on the talk page, just wanted to mention this as a procedural matter.) SnowFire (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Lucius Artorius Castus
There has been an ongoing dispute among editors among the status of the article, specifically content related to a supposed inspirational relationship of the subject to the legend of King Arthur by Linda A. Malcor and coauthors. I have no ability to discern whether or not that relationship exists, but it is adequately cited, at least at face, though other editors contend that it flies in the face of scholarly consensus (usually by demonstrating their knowledge of the original Latin, rather than pointing to secondary sources). See e.g. Special:Diff/1096381621. Any input onto the ongoing dispute would be appreciated, as would willingness to guide the editors along the dispute resolution process. Pinging @TonySullivanBooks and Artoriusfadianus as a courtesy (several IP editors are involved as well). Feel free to briefly state your reasoning and view of the dispute here. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will try to be brief and to the point.
- We have a stone inscription below:
- L ARTORI[.........]STVS 7 LEG
- III GALLICAE ITE[....]G VI FERRA
- TAE ITEM 7 LEG II AD[....]TEM 7 LEG V M
- C ITEM P P EIVSDEM [...] PRAEPOSITO
- CLASSIS MISENATIVM [..]AEFF LEG VI
- VICTRICIS DVCI LEGG [...]M BRITANICI
- MIARVM ADVERSVS ARM[....]S PROC CENTE
- NARIO PROVINCIAE LI[....] GLADI VI
- VVS IPSE SIBI ET SVIS [….]T[...]
- Some historians just as Higham and Tomlin suggest an Antonine date is more likely. Others such as Loriot, Birley and Davenport suggest Severan. No-one claims to be certain except those pushing the Artorius Castus =King Arthur theory. Putting it simply the style suggests Antonine but the wording suggests Severan. A date range of c.160-240 thus covers all the expert opinions.
- The main topics of controversy, aside from the dating, are in lines 5, 6 and 7.
- ……………………………[…]AEFF LEG VI
- VICTRICIS DVCI LEGG [...]M BRITANICI
- MIARVM ADVERSVS ARM[….]S…………
- These three missing pieces have a number of possible interpretations:
- 1. PRAEFF LEG VI means praefectus of the Sixth.
- In the second century this would normally be accompanied by CASTRORUM which denotes the third in command, the camp prefect. However this began to be dropped from inscriptions in the late second century, the last attested case being c. 202. In fact we have a similar inscription from Caerleon dated to 198-207 which uses the same phrasing:
- RIB 326 dated to 198-209 A praefectus legionis of the Second at Caerleon: praef(ectus) leg(ionis) IIAug(ustae)
- Equestrian legionary commanders did not generally appear until the time of Gallienus (Egypt is an exception being one of the four great prefectures). Early examples under Severan were specific and termed equestrian prefects acting vice legati rather than praefectus legionis. Thus a praefectus legionis without CASTR in an inscription of this time was likely late second or early third century and a camp prefect.
- The pro-Artorius Castus =King Arthur proponents would have it that he was a praefectus not of the sixth but of an auxiliary unit. They insist auxiliary units were attached to legions permanently. However these units were only attached for campaigns. When in forts they had their own command structure and reported to governor not the legionary commander. In inscriptions they would always refer to the auxiliary name e.g. praefectus ala (or cohortes) I Tungrorum. Yet the stone indicates clearly praefectus legio VI Victrix.
- Even more bizarrely they claim he must have been commander of a specific unit, the Sarmatians. A claim we have no evidence for other than Cassius Dio stating 5,500 were sent in 175. Which is why the proponents have to date Castus to this time period because they have to connect him to Sarmatians. And they have to place Sarmatians in same area as Castus. The only evidence for a unit of Sarmatian is at Ribchester in the wrong period for them, c225-40 and closer to Chester and the Twentieth legion.
- 2. DVCI LEGG [...]M BRITANICIMIARVM: The missing letters could be:
- LEGGIONUM (unlikely with a double G)
- LEGG ALARUM (Cavalry wings)
- LEGG TRIUM
- LEGG DUARUM
- Most scholars go for option 3 or 4. However only the pro-Artorius Castus =King Arthur proponents insist this must be LEGG TRIUM and that this must mean he led all 3 legions in their entirety.
- The historians listed above all agree this can simply mean detachments or vexillations. The absence of vexillations on the stone is not particularly significant. Indeed the fact it does not list the legions by name suggests the implication is it was detachments. The likely interpretation of the next bit makes this even more likely.
- 3. ADVERSVS ARM[….]S:
- Funerary, dedication or monument inscriptions such as this would always name the enemy.
- Internal enemies would be called public enemies, defectors or rebels.
- External enemies would be named.
- There are only two known names beginning ARM.
- 1. ARMORICANOS
- 2. ARMENIOS
- The first seems too long for the missing gap and the regional name is not attested in that period. Still perhaps a form ARMORICOS could have been used.
- The second is seen as most likely as we do indeed have 3 campaigns in Armenia against Armenians. We have coins depicting this, emperors taking the title Armeniacus, and inscriptions referencing the 233 war:’expediteone Partica et Armeniaca’.
- Plus we have the first reading in 1850 which claimed to see signs of an E as the fourth letter. The stone has since been weathered.
- No other alternative tribal or peoples’ name has been found to date but that option remains open.
- The pro-Artorius Castus =King Arthur proponents reject the first reading and claim because ARMENIOS is not found anywhere else it must be impossible.
- They have suggested ARMATOS, armed men. But this is too vague and not found on any similar inscription.
- However the two examples they have offered of ARMATOS are not funerary, dedication or monument inscriptions listing a cursus honorum or tres militiae military career. One is a law code written on 9 bronze tablets concerning a town in Spain, The second is in a similar context but on stone on the Danube. Both are embodied in text and relate to the carrying of arms. Literary examples are irrelevant as it’s a Latin word.
- Their insistence the most likely options are ‘impossible’ and every historian who has looked at it is wrong is just bizarre. We do indeed have individuals who travelled from Britain to the other side of the empire. The governor of Britain, Priscus, was sent to Armenia and he captured the capital in 163. To deny even the possibility he was accompanied by units from Britain is not reasonable.
- The problem as I see it is there is a fringe theory with a small but devoted group of believers. Any page concerning Lucius Artorius Castus, Sarmatians, Roman Britain or King Arthur is targeted and adjustments, both minor and major, are made to fall in line with their theory.
- For example on the Governors of Roman Britain page they placed Artorius Castus as a Roman governor in Britain c. 191-7. Roman Britain was an imperial province with senatorial governors throughout the 2nd and early 3rd centuries. Castus was an equestrian. His inscription makes no mention of this and would have been the pinnacle of his career.
- The word dux evolved throughout the centuries. In the second century it was a descriptor simply to denote ‘commander’. It’s on several inscriptions as that. It did not become an official title until the early third century c. 230s (first attested is the Dux Ripae at Duro-Europos) and when it did it concerned a geographical area not a temporary command over a body of troops in a campaign. The Artorius Castus =King Arthur proponents insist this denotes a post similar to the dux in the 4th century in northern Britain. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I will try to be brief
You failed.- This is a noticeboard. It is a board for posting notices. Notices which tell the reader that something is going on somewhere, and where it is going on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- See this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Artoriusfadianus#c-WhinyTheYounger-2022-04-28T13%3A59%3A00.000Z-TonySullivanBooks-2022-04-28T12%3A35%3A00.000Z.
- And please leave the page as it was. Otherwise you can delete my profile. Wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia if allow men like sullivan to ignore new information and doesn't deserve person like me. Artoriusfadianus (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- A fringe theory is a theory held by only a few. Unless this is a mainstream opinion it is fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The page can't be left as it was because you keep posting hugely speculative and unfounded statements about Lucius Artorius Castus, Sarmatians, Roman Britain and the Arthurian legend. I'm happy to take each topic point by point and spend as long as you have got to explain why you cannot make the statements you do and present them as fact. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- No idea what you mean. The person above asked for info and I supplied it. What's that link for you put below? Am I supposed to do something with it? It doesn't seem to go to the relevant talk page of the article in question where I've posted similar explanations. I'm very happy to post more information as long or as short as you like on any particular page or by email. But you are going to have to be very very clear exactly what you want and where you want it because this is not an easy site to navigate or understand. ta TonySullivanBooks (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- How comes whenever I reply to someone it doesn't sit under the message I replied to? TonySullivanBooks (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Chronovisor for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronovisor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Books by "New Paradigm Books" are used in other articles too: [16]. They publish authors of junk books I am familiar with, and de:Hartwig Hausdorf. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)