Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Did you know
- 15 Mar 2021 – Plandemic (talk · · hist) was nominated for DYK by Gerald Waldo Luis (t · c); see discussion
- 06 Mar 2021 – Paul Rolan (talk · · hist) was nominated for DYK by Gronk Oz (t · c); see discussion
Articles for deletion
- 02 Mar 2021 – Mir Mohammed Raza (talk · · hist) AfDed by Bonadea (t · c) was closed as delete by Eddie891 (t · c) on 09 Mar 2021; see discussion (6 participants)
Redirects for discussion
- 07 Mar 2021 – Ngamba-namae (talk · · hist) →List of cryptids was RfDed by Hog Farm (t · c); see discussion
- 07 Mar 2021 – Njago-gunda (talk · · hist) →List of cryptids was RfDed by Hog Farm (t · c); see discussion
- 07 Mar 2021 – Devil monkey (talk · · hist) →List of cryptids was RfDed by Hog Farm (t · c); see discussion
- 07 Mar 2021 – Chipekwe (talk · · hist) →List of cryptids was RfDed by Hog Farm (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 06 Jan 2021 – Quantum mechanics (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by Tercer (t · c); see discussion
Good article reassessments
- 06 Mar 2021 – Ron Paul (talk · · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by SecretName101 (t · c); see discussion
Requests for comments
- 22 Feb 2021 – COVID-19 misinformation (talk · · hist) has an RfC by DeFacto (t · c); see discussion
- 20 Feb 2021 – JP Sears (talk · · hist) has an RfC by Jtbobwaysf (t · c); see discussion
Requested moves
- 08 Mar 2021 – Lemuria (continent) (talk · · hist) is requested to be moved to Lemuria (hypothetical continent) by Eridian314 (t · c); see discussion
- 04 Mar 2021 – Balloon boy hoax (talk · · hist) move request to Balloon boy by Lollipoplollipoplollipop (t · c) was not moved; see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 14 Jan 2021 – Sherwin Wine (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Humanistic Judaism by Kyuko (t · c); see discussion
- 08 Dec 2020 – Jonestown conspiracy theories (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Jonestown by LuckyLouie (t · c); see discussion
- 21 Oct 2020 – Gateway belief model (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Sander van der Linden by Doug Weller (t · c); see discussion
- 08 Sep 2020 – Evolutionary creation (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Theistic evolution by My very best wishes (t · c); see discussion
- 11 Aug 2020 – Good luck charm (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to List of lucky symbols by Lord Belbury (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be split
- 16 Jul 2019 – Humanists International (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Zythe (t · c); 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 |
Wuhan Lab Leak again
There is yet again agitation at Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Spinning_off_accidental_leak_theory and Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology to give credence to the fringe "Lab Leak" origin of SARS COV 2, feel free to assist if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Adding a mention of Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory, a related draft that has recently been declined a few times. —PaleoNeonate – 04:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also adding a mention of The Cambridge Working Group, a new article on an organization whose notability is not too well established (sources have only passing mentions). I wonder if it might be better off smerged into Marc Lipsitch, since little I've found so far really discusses it apart from him. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- I looked a bit at the latest recreation of the leak draft. The lead attempts to convince the reader that only some scientists consider noozotic more likely than a lab leak and that a noozotic only origin would be an increasingly minority view. I left a talk page post about an obviously misrepresented source. If the article is kept, the body will also need work to avoid unreliable sources and synthesis (the old draft's talk page with some synthesis-related examples were lost from public view with the deletion). —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- The lede of the draft lays in with some drastic POV-pushing, and much of the text looks like MEDRS violations or at least a disregard for WP:DUE. While looking into the New York Magazine story included there, I did find some commentary that wouldn't be suitable for an article itself, but is still entertaining. A bioethicist:
Here's a neatly threaded "oh fuck no" of my response to the @nymag's cover story of irresponsibility, asking "but what if" nCov2019 really was a lab escape. Protip, @nymag: leave What If to Marvel.
And a virologist:Baker is in no way qualified to write a deep dive about this topic unless it is regarded as the work of fiction this is. After all, this is the searing insight of a man who once published a entire collection of Literary with a capital L fantasies about people fucking trees.
XOR'easter (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)- I've gone ahead and nominated The Cambridge Working Group article for deletion for a lack of substantial coverage, given that somebody has already placed a notability template. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is probably too far on the WP:PRIMARY/editorial end of the spectrum to be directly useful in an article, but it's recent and interesting. XOR'easter (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, good and sad at the same time, —PaleoNeonate – 16:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, I think the quote "Despite much noise to the contrary, there is no credible evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was ever known to virologists before it emerged in December 2019, and all indications suggest that, like SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, this virus probably evolved in a bat host until an unknown spillover event into humans occurred." is pertinent. Too many people think that "China is censoring research = there's a coverup", when there is no good reason to that this is the case. Nobody, including the Chinese govt knows the virus's origin. The problem with the "lab leak" postulation is that it appeals to conspiracist thinking, the idea that the pandemic must be a result of human intervention, whether negligence or malice, rather than the pandemic merely being the outcome of natural processes, as with all previous pandemics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is probably too far on the WP:PRIMARY/editorial end of the spectrum to be directly useful in an article, but it's recent and interesting. XOR'easter (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and nominated The Cambridge Working Group article for deletion for a lack of substantial coverage, given that somebody has already placed a notability template. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- The lede of the draft lays in with some drastic POV-pushing, and much of the text looks like MEDRS violations or at least a disregard for WP:DUE. While looking into the New York Magazine story included there, I did find some commentary that wouldn't be suitable for an article itself, but is still entertaining. A bioethicist:
- I looked a bit at the latest recreation of the leak draft. The lead attempts to convince the reader that only some scientists consider noozotic more likely than a lab leak and that a noozotic only origin would be an increasingly minority view. I left a talk page post about an obviously misrepresented source. If the article is kept, the body will also need work to avoid unreliable sources and synthesis (the old draft's talk page with some synthesis-related examples were lost from public view with the deletion). —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also adding a mention of The Cambridge Working Group, a new article on an organization whose notability is not too well established (sources have only passing mentions). I wonder if it might be better off smerged into Marc Lipsitch, since little I've found so far really discusses it apart from him. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Most are probably already aware but in case, there's a related RSN thread: WP:RSN § Are New York Magazine and Infection Control Today reliable sources for the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab? —PaleoNeonate – 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- It seems now that most of the discussion has migrated over to the RSN. I wasn't expecting such a strong response, but its better to have more people to discuss the issue to try to generate some kind of concensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a disaster area of a discussion, I'm afraid. People seem to be arguing that the "lab leak hypothesis" is a legitimate scientific theory, and simultaneously, scientific sources are not needed to document it. XOR'easter (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, so was the WIV talkpage, at least its mostly in one thread this time. ScrupulousScribe's wallo'text "discussion" style doesn't help matters, which is why I asked for the topic ban in the firstplace. In any article including of the "lab leak" postulation, it needs to be made absolutely clear that a. There is zero actual evidence for it. b. There is a politicized and conspiratorial atmosphere surrounding the origins of the virus. I think it is universally agreed by the participants of the discussion that the bioweapon or malicious origin claims are conspiracy theory. The idea that the virus is a result of "gain of function" research seems to be more fringe than the simple "lab leak" postulation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- To adapt an old joke about the Physical Review, the RSN thread is expanding faster than light, but there's no contradiction with relativity because no information is being transmitted. XOR'easter (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, so was the WIV talkpage, at least its mostly in one thread this time. ScrupulousScribe's wallo'text "discussion" style doesn't help matters, which is why I asked for the topic ban in the firstplace. In any article including of the "lab leak" postulation, it needs to be made absolutely clear that a. There is zero actual evidence for it. b. There is a politicized and conspiratorial atmosphere surrounding the origins of the virus. I think it is universally agreed by the participants of the discussion that the bioweapon or malicious origin claims are conspiracy theory. The idea that the virus is a result of "gain of function" research seems to be more fringe than the simple "lab leak" postulation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a disaster area of a discussion, I'm afraid. People seem to be arguing that the "lab leak hypothesis" is a legitimate scientific theory, and simultaneously, scientific sources are not needed to document it. XOR'easter (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- See also Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Another article for review is List of accidents and incidents involving laboratory biosecurity. —PaleoNeonate – 02:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- ScrupulousScribe, one of the main instigators, has been topic banned from "writing about the Covid-19 lab leak theory, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and anyone directly associated with the Institute, on any Wikipedia page (with some noticeboard exceptions described on their talk page) for three months from 20 January 2021. " which should relieve some of the pressure. I agree with Boing that the Huang Yanling article was egrigious, and was the final straw. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Do any of you know the difference between serial passage and virus construction? Feynstein (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note there is now a RfC on this topic at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#RFC to fix this once and for all. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is a good idea. All a RfC does is create a magnet for canvassing. We already had a discussion on this early last year, which overwhelmingly rejected the "lab leak" supposition. Its already very clear that the vast majority of "lab leak" proponents on Wikipedia are single purpose accounts, some of which are associated with off-site pro "lab leak" collectives which are seeking to influence Wikipedia, while most people who support the fact that it is a conspiracy theory are wikipedia regulars. A RfC will not stop these people, all it does is become a magnet for their attention so that they can then attempt to overwhelm the concensus of regular, non SPA editors.
The best tactic, as is usual on Wikipedia, is to stonewall them until they get frustrated and either stop editing or engage in personal attacks which get them topic banned.Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)- I suspect you may be right. One hopes the admins will be on the lookout for any shenanigans in the RfC response. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Small comment to let editors know I reported parts of this discussion I find very problematic to WP:ANI. Feynstein (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is a good idea. All a RfC does is create a magnet for canvassing. We already had a discussion on this early last year, which overwhelmingly rejected the "lab leak" supposition. Its already very clear that the vast majority of "lab leak" proponents on Wikipedia are single purpose accounts, some of which are associated with off-site pro "lab leak" collectives which are seeking to influence Wikipedia, while most people who support the fact that it is a conspiracy theory are wikipedia regulars. A RfC will not stop these people, all it does is become a magnet for their attention so that they can then attempt to overwhelm the concensus of regular, non SPA editors.
- Another article to audit is Roland Wiesendanger, —PaleoNeonate – 03:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Alexei Eryomin and noo-topics
There seems to be some synthesis and possibly COI editing going on with a cluster of articles involving
- Alexei Eryomin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I found my way into this via the AfD for "Noometry", which pointed to this thread at WikiProject Medicine. XOR'easter (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- I made Noogenesis into a redirect but was reverted; frankly, it's a garbage article and something needs to be done about it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's basically that "Omega Point" nonsense again. The fatuous and illogical teleological argument redivivus as incomprehensible woo. What a mess! Other subjects mentioned in that discussion I have not looked at but are doubtless magnets for fringe of this kind. GPinkerton (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Noometry" was deleted but the other articles still need attention. XOR'easter (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Anyone feel like taking the editing machete to noogenesis? There's possibly some material of historical interest near the beginning, but everything that starts with "Recent developments" reads like Ray Kurzweil machine-translated into Russian and back and wikified under the influence of a righteous bong hit or three. XOR'easter (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's basically that "Omega Point" nonsense again. The fatuous and illogical teleological argument redivivus as incomprehensible woo. What a mess! Other subjects mentioned in that discussion I have not looked at but are doubtless magnets for fringe of this kind. GPinkerton (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noogenesis. jps (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting that; I have to mostly step away for a while (no time for content work, no energy for behind-the-scenes disputes), but I left a !vote. XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information ecology jps (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexei Eryomin jps (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Plate theory (volcanism)
There has been an extensive discussion about the Plate theory (volcanism) article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Plate_theory_(volcanism). "Plate Theory" appears to a minority view in academic geology that mantle plumes aren't real phenomenon and that all volcanism, even those away from plate boundaries can be entirely explained by plate tectonics. The main promoter of this theory appears to be Professor Gillian Foulger of Durham University, a respected academic. For something as complex as mantle geophysics its difficult to get a sense of how seriously this idea is taken by the wider academic community (her book on the topic "Plates vs plumes: a geological controversy" from 2011 has been cited over 200 times). As it stands the article seems like to me (and many other contributors at WikiProject Geology) to be a WP:POVFORK that should be selectively merged into another article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- As an aside, the other major promoter of "plate theory", the now deceased Don L. Anderson has mostly been contributed to by the SPA Annehand, and includes large sections of uncited text and puffery, describing his textbooks as "regarded by colleagues as compelling syntheses of the origins of the Earth and its inner workings by one of the great geophysical authorities of our time." Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- The creator of the Plate theory (volcanism) article SphericalSong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has also extensively rewritten around around a dozen different Hotspot (geology) related articles, trying to cast doubt about the mantle plume theory and promoting the "plate theory", see diffs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, many of them cite "mantleplumes.org (the main website for the "plate theory" supporters, run by Foulger, which looks straight out of an early 2000's geocities page) and the "Plates vs plumes: a geological controversy" book by Foulger. I am unsure that this is in-line with our fringe and NPOV policies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Kent G. Budge has indicated that Foulger herself is likely behind this effort, as she appeared to confront him when he created the Intraplate volcanism article from merging the Plate theory (volcanism) article, causing him to delete the new aritlce. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- As an evident WP:POV push, I have reverted their edits where they insert false balance for their pet theory (except for this, which looks complex; I'll let geology editors handle that). This certainly wouldn't be the first time that a researcher comes to Wikipedia to insert their minority view as truth. Crossroads -talk- 20:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Kent G. Budge has indicated that Foulger herself is likely behind this effort, as she appeared to confront him when he created the Intraplate volcanism article from merging the Plate theory (volcanism) article, causing him to delete the new aritlce. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- The creator of the Plate theory (volcanism) article SphericalSong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has also extensively rewritten around around a dozen different Hotspot (geology) related articles, trying to cast doubt about the mantle plume theory and promoting the "plate theory", see diffs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, many of them cite "mantleplumes.org (the main website for the "plate theory" supporters, run by Foulger, which looks straight out of an early 2000's geocities page) and the "Plates vs plumes: a geological controversy" book by Foulger. I am unsure that this is in-line with our fringe and NPOV policies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, that sure looks POV to me. Given that it is not the universally-accepted explanation for volcanism, its lack of any criticism, or even of the existence of other models, is glaring, as is the site-spam contained within the article - "Since 2003, discussion and development of the plate theory has been fostered by the Durham University(UK)-hosted website mantleplumes.org, a major international forum with contributions from geoscientists working in a wide variety of specialties." This has every appearance of a concerted effort to promote a pet theory. Agricolae (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- The more I search on scholar, the more I think that WP:MEDRS like guidelines should apply to this topic. It's very easy to dredge up dozens of studies supporting "plate theory" by the same limited group of supporters, but there are easily thousands of papers supporting the existence of mantle plumes. This Earth Magazine article is an interesting summary of the history behind mantle plumes and the controversy surrounding them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- There is the WP:SCIRS page, but it's only an essay. Perhaps it should evolve into something more. Crossroads -talk- 20:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- When working on pages like quantum mechanics, I've definitely had hair-tearing moments: "Why would you cite a random website for that when actual books exist?!" XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- There is the WP:SCIRS page, but it's only an essay. Perhaps it should evolve into something more. Crossroads -talk- 20:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- The more I search on scholar, the more I think that WP:MEDRS like guidelines should apply to this topic. It's very easy to dredge up dozens of studies supporting "plate theory" by the same limited group of supporters, but there are easily thousands of papers supporting the existence of mantle plumes. This Earth Magazine article is an interesting summary of the history behind mantle plumes and the controversy surrounding them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
There is also Gfoulger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), which based on the name I think can be safely assumed to be Foulger. This account has only a handful of edits but was used to oppose the merge of Plate theory (volcanism) into Intraplate volcanism at Talk:Intraplate volcanism. If there is sufficiently strong evidence that SphericalSong is also Foulger, maybe a sockpuppet investigation is in order. Lennart97 (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deletion
I have nominated Plate theory (volcanism) for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plate theory (volcanism). Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Marquesas hotspot
Recent updating of this and other pages to reflect current geological thinking, i.e., that there are two competing theories to explain the region ("Plate" and "Plume"), has been purged, with explanation given earlier on this page. This explanation is based on the perceived numbers of people supporting the two hypotheses and the identities of those involved, which are irrelevant arguments. "SphericalSong" is accused of being a sockpuppet of Gillian Foulger, which is not correct. If I post something, I sign my name.
The purging of the revisions violates the statement at the top of this "fringe theory" page, i.e. "The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained." In any case the "Plate" hypothesis has moved beyond a fringe theory, and to present otherwise is to lag behind current geological thinking. The editings of the pages purged specifically revised them to present the two hypotheses in a neutral and balanced way–the original pages presented only one theory. It is now generally accepted that the Plume hypothesis cannot explain many so-called "hotspots", on strong geological grounds. –G Foulger.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfoulger (talk • contribs) 02:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- For context, see the Plate theory (volcanism) topic above. Gfoulger is likely Gillian Foulger, a professor of geophysics at Durham Univeristy, and the operator of "mantleplumes.org" a website dedicated to arguing against the existence of mantle plumes, a controversial but widely accepted concept in geophysics. Professor Foulger, can you confirm or deny any relationship with the account SphericalSong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? SphericalSong's edits were reverted because they did not conform to the neutral point of view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and those edits all violated WP:WEIGHT:
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all
. All those insertions basically stating 'One view is X, but due to problems with that Y explains it as...' are not acceptable on those grounds. Proposing new ideas is part of the scientific process, but they can't be argued for using Wikipedia. It is not for righting great wrongs. Conflict of interest (WP:COI) is also something that editors have to watch out for. Crossroads -talk- 06:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)- Wikipedia:Fringe theories is broader than traditional ideas of fringe theories:
in Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field
which "Plate Theory" comes under. As the chief advocate of "plate theory" you are not a neutral arbiter when it comes to the support of the theory amongst the wider academic community. From what I have read, mantle plumes are widely accepted and opposition to them comes from a vocal minority. The edits by SphericalSong attempted to present non-mantle plume theories as more prominent than they were. I do agree that many hotspot articles need expansion, but SphericalSong's edit were a poor foundation to base them on. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Fringe theories is broader than traditional ideas of fringe theories:
- Yes, and those edits all violated WP:WEIGHT:
There is some more editing along these points here. What concerns me is that from what I can see in the literature, the Society hotspot is not nearly as commonly contested as some other hotspots. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Europeans built the Egyptian pyramids - in the 19th century
Thanks to Jason Colavito.[1] Doug Weller talk 19:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Don't miss the first comment in the comment section from "Jim". Classic. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Power nap/coffee nap
Power nap ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) could use a review; some of the sources are dubious or could be updated. I have particular concerns about the "stimulant nap" section's sourcing, but (some) other sources are (maybe) legitimate but old (1990s medical stuff) GPinkerton (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oooh. The actual practice is super common in engineering circles, but I didn't know that there had been any studied done on it. Seeing Prevention Magazine and Oprah Magazine as sources does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the quality of the research. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- The claims might be true, but I think it should be reframed as 'a thing some people do', rather than 'a thing that is scientifically proven to work'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- would agree w/ above editor..a thing some people do--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- The claims might be true, but I think it should be reframed as 'a thing some people do', rather than 'a thing that is scientifically proven to work'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Spacedrives
- Vacuum to Antimatter-Rocket ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Icarus Interstellar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The former doesn't look notable at all. The latter survived AfD in 2014 thanks to a list of sources that superficially looks good but may suffer from reliability problems upon closer examination. "Engage! Warp Drive Could Become Reality with Quantum-Thruster Physics". No. No, it could not. XOR'easter (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Antimatter is one of the most expensive substances on Earth: about $62.5 trillion a gram. VARIES could solve this issue.... The lasers aboard VARIES would produce protons and antiprotons directly from the vacuum of space through the Schwinger pair production.
- PROBLEM SOLVED!
- jps (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yea, with no current technology even allowing to currently test the theoretically basis, —PaleoNeonate – 22:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- What?! You don't think they're going to be able to make a gamma-ray laser? Ye of little faith. jps (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Let's review the sources:
- What?! You don't think they're going to be able to make a gamma-ray laser? Ye of little faith. jps (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yea, with no current technology even allowing to currently test the theoretically basis, —PaleoNeonate – 22:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- [2]: 2 sentences, part of a large gallery. No consensus yet on the reliability of space.com.
- Primary source, a JBIS paper detailing the proposal by Richard Obousy. Obousy is also a co-founder of Icarus.
- [3]: Primary source to Icarus website, plus weird citation formatting.
- [4]: About antimatter and fusion technology, does not mention VARIES.
- [5] Supposedly republished from Discovery News, but the original is no longer available; might be a PR by Obousy. There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News for science topics.
- [6]: 2 paragraphs out of many proposals; probably not RS.
- [7]: This is the paper that first predicted Schwinger pair production. It was published in 1931, while the proposal was made in 2011.
- [8]: Blog.
AfD? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'd say so. The Fox News item definitely looks like PR written by Obousy himself; it doesn't have a byline at the top, but the text at the bottom (
Richard Obousy is co-founder and President of Icarus Interstellar Inc.
, etc.) certainly reads like an author bio. XOR'easter (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum to Antimatter-Rocket. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Now, as for Icarus Interstellar... It reads like a PR, and at least some of the sources are primary or PR as well. Any comments? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- It passed AfD in 2014 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icarus Interstellar) based on a list of apparently in-universe sources (unconvincing keep for me). On the other hand, if this page subsists it'd be the right place to preserve mentions of some projects that could not remain as separate articles, perhaps... —PaleoNeonate – 00:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- 2014 was a while ago, and the old AfD basically took the source quality as given without digging into it. Revisiting that might be in order. Meanwhile, there's also Helical engine to consider. I'm doubtful that a tabloid flash-in-the-pan really amounts to notability. XOR'easter (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Half of Helical engine is currently a copyvio from a non-peer-reviewed "report" by the inventor. Oddly, Earwig doesn't seem to pick it up (and is running very slow today), but the paragraph beginning
The engine accelerates ions confined in a closed loop
is almost verbatim. I've reverted more on that page recently than I'm generally comfortable with (confrontational is not my favorite look); would anyone else want to investigate and hazard a judgment on whether it's even notable? XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)- I've gone and reverted ExoEditor's reversion of your deletion. Judging by the previous ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059#User:ExoEditor_and_User:Kepler-1229b ExoEditor seems to have major WP:CIR issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- They restored it again. Recommend RD1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, my stars — they added a student's homework report as a source, calling it a statement by the professor who taught the class. What can I say but WP:CIR? There also seems to be a systematic issue with taking only the credulous parts of sources, like omitting how the Popular Mechanics' story admits it
would likely violate the laws of the conservation of momentum
. When you've lost Popular Mechanics... XOR'easter (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, my stars — they added a student's homework report as a source, calling it a statement by the professor who taught the class. What can I say but WP:CIR? There also seems to be a systematic issue with taking only the credulous parts of sources, like omitting how the Popular Mechanics' story admits it
- They restored it again. Recommend RD1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've gone and reverted ExoEditor's reversion of your deletion. Judging by the previous ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059#User:ExoEditor_and_User:Kepler-1229b ExoEditor seems to have major WP:CIR issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Plandemic
- Plandemic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Previously on FTN: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 71#Plandemic
I recently tagged uncited, then deleted, claims that I considered undue and were apparently only sourced to the movie itself. Since it's contested I expressed my concerns at its talk page. More input welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- GWL is attempting to have this article have a GA review, so I thinks it's a bit of a WP:OWN situation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe a bit of that, but the article itself also has/had some terribly worded prose and not a few complete misrepresentations of sources. I cleaned up some, but I'm sure there are more. It could do with some more care in editorial control than User:Gerald Waldo Luis may have given it. It is certainly not GA quality. I would reject that nomination out-of-hand. jps (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- ජපස, are we here to talk GA, darling? But fringe-wise, PaleoNeonate, I don't think it is undue or a problem to cite the movie. First, it's just a small portion of it, which only completes what RSes don't cover that I think makes the article more comprehensive. And second, it is not a problem to be sourced to the movie as there are no interpretations or argumentations that must merit secondary sources. Out-of-hand, if you can improve the article to a better grammar height please so.
- Also Hemiauchenia, I don't think I violate WP:OWN, as I don't think I own the article and I'd favor a civil discussion. The paradox circle of collaboration. GeraldWL 14:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe a bit of that, but the article itself also has/had some terribly worded prose and not a few complete misrepresentations of sources. I cleaned up some, but I'm sure there are more. It could do with some more care in editorial control than User:Gerald Waldo Luis may have given it. It is certainly not GA quality. I would reject that nomination out-of-hand. jps (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
From your edits and wording, I don't think you are a "conspiracist", but I am also not keen on some of your editorial skills. It requires considerable care to get articles on topics like these exactly correct and I caught a number of fairly egregious mistakes that makes me wonder whether you have sufficiently understood the sources you are using. jps (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, this is yet another instance of a docudrama-cum-movie having its "plot" used to grant a free hit to fringe ideas (as with Vaxxed and Unplanned). As in those cases, WP:GEVAL is the relevant bit of NPOV, and is not negotiable: any fringe ideas must be relayed through the lens of mainstream, reputable sources. An article with NPOV problems is never going to make GA. Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Another magic pill that cures Covid-19
This one is called Coronil and was invented by Yoga Guru Ramdev.[9] See Ramdev#Claimed cure for COVID-19. I am starting to see the usual flood of SPAs sent here by OpIndia such as 157.36.207.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
--Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Atacama skeleton and NPOV
After having read this by a professional archaeologist, I took a look at the article. Am I right in thinking it needs an overhaul? Doug Weller talk 14:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Do you mean https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30025270/ ? The previous is likely usable per WP:PARITY with attribution. All this does is point at some facts about early development and that there was nothing extraordinary with this skeleton afterall, then there's an aspect about ethics that some other sources have also mentioned before... —PaleoNeonate – 02:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- There are a number of peer-review papers about the Atacama skeleton that are either open-access or have reprints available to general public online. According to Google Scholar, some of them are:
- 1. Bhattacharya, S., Li, J., Sockell, A., Kan, M.J., Bava, F.A., Chen, S.C., Ávila-Arcos, M.C., Ji, X., Smith, E., Asadi, N.B. and Lachman, R.S., 2018. Whole-genome sequencing of Atacama skeleton shows novel mutations linked with dysplasia. Genome research, 28(4), pp.423-431.
- 2. Nolan, G. and Butte, A., 2018. The Atacama skeleton. Genome research, 28(5), pp.607-608.
- 3. Halcrow, S.E., Killgrove, K., Schug, G.R., Knapp, M., Huffer, D., Arriaza, B., Jungers, W. and Gunter, J., 2018. On engagement with anthropology: A critical evaluation of skeletal and developmental abnormalities in the Atacama preterm baby and issues of forensic and bioarchaeological research ethics. Response to Bhattacharya et al.“Whole-genome sequencing of Atacama skeleton shows novel mutations linked with dysplasia” in Genome Research, 2018, 28: 423–431. International journal of paleopathology, 22, pp.97-100. Also, linked in papers of Dr. Gwen Robbins Schug and open access at the publishers.
- 4. May, T. and Nakano-Okuno, M., 2019. How the Atacama Skeleton Might Advance Discussion of Responsible Conduct of Research Responsibilities. Human biology, 91(1), pp.5-8.
- 5. Snoddy, A.M.E., Beaumont, J., Buckley, H.R., Colombo, A., Halcrow, S.E., Kinaston, R.L. and Vlok, M., 2020. Sensationalism and speaking to the public: scientific rigour and interdisciplinary collaborations in palaeopathology. International journal of paleopathology, 28, pp.88-91. Also, linked in papers of Dr. Anne Marie Sohler Snoddy Paul H. (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Do you mean https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30025270/ ? The previous is likely usable per WP:PARITY with attribution. All this does is point at some facts about early development and that there was nothing extraordinary with this skeleton afterall, then there's an aspect about ethics that some other sources have also mentioned before... —PaleoNeonate – 02:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Gunnar Kaiser
Another person who has own ideas about COVID-19. Somebody said on the Talk page that the article seems fringe-friendly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Ritual abuse
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritual child abuse.
It looks to me like there is a QAnon infestation going on. YMMV.
jps (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- One of the tragedies of QAnon is that anyone describing actual, reality-based child abuse issues now sound like crazy racist nut-bags. We should try our best to resist that temptation.
- This article is really a list that probably fails LISTN, and I don't doubt that some of it is exaggerated, but it doesn't seem particularly QAnon-y. ApLundell (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- As we're discussing at the AfD, the bulk of the article was authored by non-QAnon peeps and instead some WikiEd students, but I stumbled upon the article because of a disambig creation at Ritual Abuse. The person who effected that change is firmly in the camp of "cults do human sacrifices" swirl according to their userpage. jps (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Definitely a sensitive topic deserving scrutiny, —PaleoNeonate – 02:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- There are a number of topics that don't really belong in that article, such as Circumcision, FGM, Swaddling, Dowry and Bride price, and Food taboos. On the other hand, I read in national news yesterday repeated allegations of Pizzagate. This stuff is not going to go away for some time. I saw somewhere that QAnon uses both an internal version of Gnosticism and rapture prophecy (a coming storm or great awakening). --Whiteguru (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Definitely a sensitive topic deserving scrutiny, —PaleoNeonate – 02:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- As we're discussing at the AfD, the bulk of the article was authored by non-QAnon peeps and instead some WikiEd students, but I stumbled upon the article because of a disambig creation at Ritual Abuse. The person who effected that change is firmly in the camp of "cults do human sacrifices" swirl according to their userpage. jps (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Devra Davis
This article about Devra Davis grossly misrepresents the subject as if she were somebody who mainly operates within mainstream epidemiology. She's actually best known for her fringe work as an anti-5G activist with The Environmental Health Trust, an organization that she founded. The article has a "controversies" section, which is always a sign that a promoter is seeking to white-wash a person's reputation, but this section oddly omits the most glaring controversy which is that she has been strongly criticized by mainstream publishers like Science Based Medicine for talking nonsense about Radio Frequency systems. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've begun a clean-up of this article. Review is welcome. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Whole-food plant-based diet
This article was previously called whole food. It has now been changed to Whole-food plant-based diet which is inaccurate. The article also states that a plant based diet reverses cardiovascular diseases. As of 2021 research is being done on this topic but there is currently no robust clinical evidence that supports this view. The consensus is that a plant-based diet can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease not reverse it.
The same content was added to the plant-based diet article which I removed [10]. See talk page. So we now have two plant based diet articles which is problematic. I suggest the whole-food plant-based diet article should be removed or reverted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Whole Food Plant based diet is an oxymoron and misleading. The title alone suggests you eat the entire plant. I suggest this article be redirected to Plant based diet. As for the claims of this diet reversing cardiovascular disease, I suggest removing same until independent reliable secondary sources are found. Citing studies from 1998 that have never been replicated is misleading. As far as cardiovascular disease is concerned, WP:BASIC sets the requirements. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. "Reversing cardiovascular disease" is such a claim. This is in the realm of WP:MEDRS, clearly. If there's no "robust clinical evidence that supports this views", well then it should be considered whether this is an inappropriate POVFORK of Dieting#Low-fat. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Advanced Aerospace Vehicle
- Advanced Aerospace Vehicle ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Seems to be an obvious POV fork of Unidentified flying object to me. Thoughts? What is the best way forward for this? AFD? Redirect? - MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_Aerospace_Vehicle. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery 1
- Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article seems to be an ad space for colleges that sell that thing, sometimes containing a list of the n best providers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've trimmed a bit a removed the eligibility requirements (what other kind of article about a degree has that?); but in it's current state the article would fail WP:NOTDICTIONARY... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- What is homeopathic surgery? You just touch the skin with the knife and then the body knows how to fix itself? Did the knife had to perform the actual surgery before, or is it sufficient to have the knife in the same room as a knife that did? The sources don't explain that. --mfb (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I hope most of us are familiar with this instructional video about homeopathic A&E. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Seems like there is a lot of homeopathic hospital stuff we need to start weeding. I'll begin a list:
- Nehru Homeopathic Medical College ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- MD (Homeopathy) in India ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Yudhvir Singh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jugal Kishore (physician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Central Council of Homeopathy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
jps (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- See also Category:Homeopathic hospitals and Category:Homeopathic colleges. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
These articles are about people and organizations relating to homeopathy. The information seems factual and somewhat well sourced. What is the problem? The fringe theory is homeopathy itself, attention should be on its article. If there is a problem here it is rather notability. Rollo (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes things to look for are notability, the quality of the sources and undue promotional content, WP:ABOUTSELF abuse, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 06:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- To be honest, I would question the notability of any bachelors level degree program. But perhaps they are considered more impressive in South Asia. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-k-v7i-QeI - MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Some are. Bachelor of Engineering is certainly notable. Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery says "...In countries that follow the tradition of continental Europe or the system in the United States, the equivalent medical degree is awarded as Doctor of Medicine (MD)". Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery? Not so much. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Other titles that you poor, uneducated sods might want to buy, all for less than 150 Indian Rupee (1.47 Pounds sterling, 2.06 United States Dollars):
- Cherios Astro Numerology & Your Star
- 2012 Universal Doom Or New Age?
- Astrology and Wealth
- Comprehensive Vaastu: The Unique Pocket Book on Vaastu/Feng Shui & Pyramid Power
- The TRUTH is out there! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Germ theory denialism
Obsolete theory or pseudoscience? At the moment, Terrain theory is a redirect to Germ theory denialism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have more time to put on it right now and hopefully other fringe and med-savvy editors can help, but I left a comment at the redirect's talk page if it can be useful, as I noticed it was recreated a few times with another optic, and there was a comment from 2020 there... —PaleoNeonate – 21:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_74#Terrain_theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Patrick Holford
Wakefield fanboi and multivitamin salesman. Some stuff seems to be unsourced, according to a recent Talk page contribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Northwestern European people et al
Back in July there was a major discussion surrounding articles created by Peipsi-Pihkva about supposed "Pan-ethnic groups" such as Northwestern European people, which appear to have massive WP:SYNTH issues, see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_73#Northwestern_European_people for a refresher. The discussion ultimately ended up with no action. Should these articles be taken to AfD? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Omnibus AfD it. I would have, but it seemed too much work at the time. jps (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've AfD'd Northwestern European people, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern European people. If that is successful I'll omnibus the rest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have now nominated Northwestern European Americans, Northwestern European Australians and Northwestern European Canadians for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern European Canadians. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern European people. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- SunDawn has spared me the effort of nominating Eastern European people for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European people. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern European people. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have now nominated Northwestern European Americans, Northwestern European Australians and Northwestern European Canadians for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern European Canadians. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've AfD'd Northwestern European people, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern European people. If that is successful I'll omnibus the rest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Nur ibn Mujahid
An editor attempted to ascribe an ethnicity (Somali) to a historical figure based on a single source touching on the existence of "oral traditions" linking the figure to Somalis (this is presented as a footnote in the original source) [11]. The vast majority of reliable sources do not attach an ethnicity to this figure and only discuss him as a Muslim leader who had taken part in a war between Muslims and Christians in the region [12]. I have removed the additions from the article's lede and left a mention of this in the article's body [13], but seeking more opinions on whether the additions should be discarded completely as a fringe theory. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Kzl55 I have replaced the source in question with a biographic encyclopedic one and provided a link under it for verification [14]. You are right it was in the foot note and i didn't take notice of it .However it's not a fringe theory. The one i provided now is not and it's a reliable biographic description of him based on two other sources based on manuscripts.
- I explained it much further , if you are interested: [15]
- Also please notify me the next time around.
- Cheers
- Ragnimo (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is still undue, the only reliable citations presented is a footnote and a single sentence mention. Exceptional claims on Wikipedia require exceptional evidence. Please also see WP:RSUW "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". Please be patient and await further contributions from the community. Also please indent your comments in the future, you've been advised on this previously. --Kzl55 (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The source i replace it with is reliable and not a mere mention but an actual biographic entry about him. Namely from [1] and this has been refrenced by other texts and the dictionary reviewed by other journals [16] &[17] suffice to say it should fit Wiki standards.
And there is no other source you can mention to contest this either or that state otherwise. So the rule of minority POV or exceptional claim do not really apply here. As for being patient and awaiting fruther contributions, you should have had notified me about beginning this discussion , it was only after i made correction edit that i saw that you had opened this Noticeboard through looking at your contrib, so notify people as the rules "If you begin a discussion of another user on a common notice board, it is expected that you will notify the subject user by posting a message on their talk page (and/or through off-wiki email, if the subject has chosen to enable that function). There are two sides to most stories, and good faith requires the assumption that the subject of the complaint may have a valuable perspective to contribute." WP:NOTIFY. As i had advised you earlier.
Cheers.
Ragnimo (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Please stay on topic and keep your comments brief. In terms of your additions, as explained above they describe viewpoints held by a small minority of reliable sources, you've cited a single footnote as well as a single sentence mention, and so would not normally be included in Wikipedia article "regardless of whether it is true or not" per WP:RSUW. The vast majority of reliable sources do not comment on the individual's ethnicity. There is no point of turning this into a forum, I suggest we wait for opinions from other editors on whether the addition is undue or not. Lastly, use of indentation is a behavioural guideline that all editors are expected to follow, please adhere to it otherwise your comments will clutter talk page discussions. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ The Encyclopaedia Africana Dictionary of African Biography (Vol. 1) by Harvel Sabastian page 118-199 The Dictionary of African Biography (Vol. 1)" Harvel sebastian
Please adress my points and keep your comments on the contention itself, without having to repeat yourself.
Again as i stated it's not even a minority view point if (A) it's not contested by other sources and (B) other sources don't offer a different viewpoint about his background. And (C) it's from a mainstream encyclopedic dictionary production about African biographies that have been reviewed as credible by African academic journals and is used a refrence text
Wether other sources make mentions of it or not has nothing to say for if this a minority POV or not.
Ragnimo (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- You are attempting to add text based on very limited support in reliable sources, this goes against content guidelines as explained above. The vast majority of sources do not comment on ethnicity of this figure. Article content not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight by inclusion per WP:FRINGE. Inclusion would also breach neutrality guidelines as Wikipedia articles should cover "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views". As stated above, we are going in circles, this is a noticeboard and not a forum, I suggest we wait for input from other editors. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Again as i stated it's not even a minority view point if (A) it's not contested by other sources and (B) other sources don't offer a different viewpoint about his background.
- I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. If one scholar claims Person A is Ethnicity B, and no one else has bothered to speculate on the topic, that means... we just take it as fact? That's the very definition of a minority viewpoint: the majority has not speculated on their ethnicity, while one has.
- Also, if the source is
mainstream encyclopedic dictionary production about African biographies
, that violates WP:RS. We do not cite other encyclopedias, only direct sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Bite. First of all it is a direct source, because the view is less so encyclopedic more so a collection of other scholars contributions, that write in biographies of historical people. The one about Nur Ibn Mujahid being Merahen Darood is from that of anthropologist Harvel Sebastian [18], from Dictionary of African historical biography (Vol. 1)
Also it doesn't mean we should take it as a blatant fact but include it and state the scholar in question who holds that view?
In any case can we include it in the body instead of the leed that there exist a tradition about it because there is another source besides from that one scholar claiming that traditions existence [19] & Which i previously added before it being removed by KzI55 on the grounds that it was in a footnote.
Both Kurt Wendt and Ethiopian/Somali studies authority Enrico Cerulli was refrenced for that by Harvel Sebastian. I could look for another source by Enrico Cerulli which is most likely in Italian if that helps. Ragnimo (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- You are recycling the same argument. The additions you are trying to insert are supported by a limited number of sources, by your own admission a single in-passing mention in one source and a footnote. This is a glaring example of a minority viewpoint and Wikipedia guidelines are clear on this issue as explained above by THTFY and myself. Why is this so hard for you to accept? --Kzl55 (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
irst of all it is a direct source, because the view is less so encyclopedic more so a collection of other scholars contributions, that write in biographies of historical people.
- No. That is flatly wrong. It is not a direct cite. If you want to cite someone, cite the original work where the statement was made, not an encyclopedia or dictionary.
Also it doesn't mean we should take it as a blatant fact but include it and state the scholar in question who holds that view?
- No. At best you could say it's this scholar's opinion, but then you're giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint.
- Right now, you do not have enough reliable sources to include this claim of ethnicity. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, it if other sources or scholars don't discuss it, it's probably undue for Wikipedia. If the one who supports the view is very notable in the field, it could be mentioned with attribution. Since it's being contested by multiple editors, it's probably best to leave it out and move-on until better sources are available... —PaleoNeonate – 14:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response back was busy all keeping vandals and socks in check.
Bite No. That is flatly wrong. It is not a direct cite. If you want to cite someone, cite the original work where the statement was made, not an encyclopedia or dictionary. It is original work, its written by Harvel Sebastian himself. And his attribution is on the page. But OK.
If the one who supports the view is very notable in the field, it could be mentioned with attribution.
I will find the original source of Enrico Cerulli in Italian, and perhaps look to see if there is another source for this and i will come back to this noticeboard or alert you on the talk page.
Cheers Ragnimo (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Socionics
As happens from time to time, SPAs have been showing up to socionics and causing trouble. Crossroads -talk- 06:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Update: the article has been semiprotected for 6 months for rampant sockpuppetry. Thank goodness! People may still show up on the talk page, but this helps. Crossroads -talk- 05:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Frances Cress Welsing and Afrocentrism
User:Africologist has raised issues at Talk:Afrocentrism and has made major changes in Welsing's article that I think should be discussed first. At Talk:Frances Cress Welsing they argue that she is not an Afrocentrist. I'm on a semi-break right now until I get my study back in order so no time for this discussion. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you User:Doug Weller for raising this issue. However, to be clear, I have not made any major changes on the Welsing page. I simply removed the mislabeling as an Afrocentrist and moved one sentence (unedited) to its proper section. Africologist (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- This[20] sure looks like a major change. And you are edit warring over it.[21][22][23] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also, instead of just distguishing Afrocentrism and Afrocentricity by external properties such as "unacademic social movement" and "theoretical paradigm", you could tell us the differences regarding content, if any. Reading your contributions, it sounds as if Afrocentricity is just a word for Afrocentrism at a university, unless if it has been criticized - then it is Afrocentrism.
- Do both see African influence in China and Mesoamerica? It not, which of them does? Can Asante be used as a source for such a distinguation? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
How would reading my contributions make it sound like "Afrocentricity is just a word for Afrocentrism at universities"? I fail to see how writing "they are not the same" reads as "they are the same in this context". They are simply not the same. Afrocentricity is a very specific idea in the field of Africana Studies (and it's various nomenclature: Black Studies, Pan-African Studies, African American Studies, Africology, etc.) Afrocentrism is a word that is used as a sort of catch-all term used by non-academics as well as academics who are not in Black studies fields and understand the difference. Therefore, among some academics who don't specialize (and non-academic alike) they will lump Afrocentricity in with Afrocentrism. For further clarity, I need to know what do you mean by difference in content. Do you mean the difference in the texts written on Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism? Africologist (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Asante may be used as a source to distinguish. However, to your earlier comment about understanding the properties of the two. I think that is the issue. One must understand the inherent difference between the two. I believe you still view them as similar things. Afrocentrism could/has encompass views on history, but there's no methodological framework in which it exists. It's just a collection of scholarly and (largely) unscholarly ideas mangled together by circumstance of confusion. However, Afrocentricity is not at all a set of ideas about history. So Afrocentricity wouldn't "see African influence in China and Mesoamerica". Afrocentricity is simply a theoretical paradigm "based on the idea that African people should re-assert a sense of agency" (Asante, Afrocentric Idea). It is also a paradigm that seeks the establishment of cultural plurality and not cultural hierarchy; so it does not adhere to supremacism. It is simply meant for the academic to write and describe the world while keeping centered the perspective of African people (in acknowledgement of the reality that there are a plurality of cultural perspectives and all are not the same). Blaut ("Eight Eurocentric Historians"), De Sousa Santos ("Epistemologies of the South"), and other European scholars, as well as some Asian scholars (Said, "Orientalism") have written about the way the European world has asserted their view of world-phenomena as universal and other cultural perspectives as "fringe" or marginal. Afrocentricity is simply the same critique that wishes to establish the African perspective in a non-hierarchical way. That is much different from some of the ideas espoused by people who have been placed under the label of Afrocentrism. Afrocentrists (those who are trained in the academy under the paradigm of Afrocentricity) are flexible scholars who utilize a range of scientific information from interests in other academic fields in order to create scholarship that both center African perspectives and provides unbiased scientific evidence. Would you like a list of articles/books? Africologist (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is not helpful. If I ask an ornithologist how to tell a common gull and a ring-billed gull apart, I will hear about the color and size of the bill and other external properties, and I will be shown example pictures. I will not just hear that "they are different", "one is specific, the other is a catch-all term", "one must understand the difference", or other empty phrases that will not help me find out which of those two I am looking at when I see one. I guess this is just another case of natural scientists and social scientists talking different languages, so forget I said anything. EOD for me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, terms are what they are when the relevant epistemic community says what they are. I think the point is pretty straightforward that there may be a more dominant term "afrocentricity" that represents a coherent and non-fringe school of thought and that there may be some who have confused its usage. Whether this is true or not is well beyond the research I've done into these areas, thus my request below. jps (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would definitely like a list of articles/books. jps (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- I respect that User:Hob Gadling. The specific language between (and within) the social and natural sciences do tend to cause miscommunication. It is not my intention to confuse. But I did state and describe the difference. You did not just read "they are different", I described how. Simply, Afrocentrism is an amalgam of tropes about people who either claim or are perceived to be African-centered or Afrocentric while Afrocentricity is a theoretical paradigm that in its simplest forms states that it centers the agency of African people. But it is not really as simple as comparing a common gull and a ring billed gull. These are abstract and theoretical things. They aren't even like listing the difference between Communism and Socialism because both communism and socialism are based on two theoretical paradigms that one can describe the differences between the two based on their tenets: no such thing as private property (communism), individuals can own property but the production of primary wealth is communally owned (socialism). Afrocentrism is not an intellectual theory, it has no tenets. It is, again, an amalgam of tropes. Think of Afrocentrism like the Japanese term Otaku, or Nerd, or Geek. These are terms used by academics and non-academics alike but there's no strict or acknowledged theoretical foundation for these that lists specifically what it means to be considered one of those terms. Whereas Afrocentricity has a theoretical foundation. There are tenets: all things may be questioned except the standpoint of African agency, pluralism without hierarchy, emancipatory scholarship, lexical refinement, etc. Another thing to note is that the two terms have been so confused with each other that both academics who praise Afrocentricity and those who critique it have used the term Afrocentrism out of either their own confusion, politics in creating straw-man arguments, or because of the greater popularity of the term Afrocentrism in public imagination. Africologist (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- jps Thank you for your wit in framing the issue simplistically. I'm a bit of a verbose individual. A list of books: "The Afrocentric Manifesto" by Molefi Kete Asante; "Demise of the Inhuman: Afrocentricity, Modernism, and Postmodernism" by Ana Monteiro-Ferreira; "The Afrocentric Paradigm" by Ama Mazama. These three would assist anyone greatly in understanding this topic. Africologist (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- I respect that User:Hob Gadling. The specific language between (and within) the social and natural sciences do tend to cause miscommunication. It is not my intention to confuse. But I did state and describe the difference. You did not just read "they are different", I described how. Simply, Afrocentrism is an amalgam of tropes about people who either claim or are perceived to be African-centered or Afrocentric while Afrocentricity is a theoretical paradigm that in its simplest forms states that it centers the agency of African people. But it is not really as simple as comparing a common gull and a ring billed gull. These are abstract and theoretical things. They aren't even like listing the difference between Communism and Socialism because both communism and socialism are based on two theoretical paradigms that one can describe the differences between the two based on their tenets: no such thing as private property (communism), individuals can own property but the production of primary wealth is communally owned (socialism). Afrocentrism is not an intellectual theory, it has no tenets. It is, again, an amalgam of tropes. Think of Afrocentrism like the Japanese term Otaku, or Nerd, or Geek. These are terms used by academics and non-academics alike but there's no strict or acknowledged theoretical foundation for these that lists specifically what it means to be considered one of those terms. Whereas Afrocentricity has a theoretical foundation. There are tenets: all things may be questioned except the standpoint of African agency, pluralism without hierarchy, emancipatory scholarship, lexical refinement, etc. Another thing to note is that the two terms have been so confused with each other that both academics who praise Afrocentricity and those who critique it have used the term Afrocentrism out of either their own confusion, politics in creating straw-man arguments, or because of the greater popularity of the term Afrocentrism in public imagination. Africologist (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Afrocentricity
I am becoming more and more convinced that a new page called Afrocentricity should be made which can probably effectively deal with some of these WP:FRINGE disambiguation issues. User:Africologist is rightly identifying that there are two strands here: the fringe strand which is currently (perhaps overly) developed at Afrocentrism and the academic strand (centered around three scholars at Temple University) which does not yet have a home at Wikipedia. I am a little worried that all the scholars are at one institution as walled gardens can exist in some departments, as we all know. But for right now I'm not seeing many sources that critique this particular group as a cohesive unit that is making the argument that they are part-and-parcel to the fringe ideologies under the afrocentrism umbrella. If anyone knows of such, feel free to identify it.
I note that an article on afrocentricity was deleted 15 years ago as a neologism: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrocentricity. That may have been the correct WP:TOOSOON argument at the time, but the sources may be steadily indicating that it may be time to create a separate article. Should we start a draft? jps (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you and would be happy to assist in its creation. As you may know (but for the sake of clarity) there are people who critique them individually and apply Afrocentrism to them erroneously but even those arguments are over ten years old now. More people both outside and associated with the field are becoming more clear as to the difference. Africologist (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- We will be working a bit on Draft:Afrocentricity to see if we can't get a better article that focuses more on the Black Studies academic approach championed by Molefi K. Asante along with his colleagues and students and does not overly WP:WEIGHT the academic-adjacent WP:FRINGE claims of the likes of Louis Farrakhan and others. Note that there is a fairly good starting section at Molefi K. Asante#Afrocentricity. jps (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The Mahabharata Secret
And its sequel, The Mahabharata Quest: The Alexander Secret. Too long, too pov, especially the leads. I think I brought it here a couple of years ago and several editors improved it, but the leads concern me. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Lab leak theory again
It's a different virus, but a "new" user is insisting on a controversy section which feeds into the COVID lab leak conspiracy theories, using familiar dodgy sources (e.g. Yuri Deigin's). More eyes needed. Probably this article should be protected like others which have been under attack. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Gympie Pyramid
This one I did work on today quite a bit as it major changes had been made. It could still use some work but needs eyes. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Aye, like this one. I see a six and a seven that need some spelling out. If I spot anything more seriously troubling, I'll let you know, thanks for the tip! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Interesting article on QAnon
"QAnon cultivates interesting bedfellows. It's one of the things I've found most horribly fascinating about it. It's a conspiracy theory that represents the perfect apex of every exploitative cult tactic that con artists and snake-oil salespeople have used over the years—an inevitable evolutionary endpoint of the art on preying on peoples' desires. " -- QAnon has some weird overlaps with MMA, WWE, and Wellness Influencer Culture
I found the linked MIT Technology Review article[24] to be especially insightful. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery 2
- IPs edit warring to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery.
- In honor of the subject matter, I have suggested that they be homeopathic deletions. :)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery.
- Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- There's already a request at RFPP, IIRC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- The disruption continued after the report at RFPP.
- Please don't merge sections that I chose to post separately. They cover completely different aspects. One is about Homoeopathic Surgery, the other is IPs edit warring to overturn a valid deletion discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- A Homeopathic administrator has Homeopathically semi protected the Homeopathic redirect, so the Homeopathic problem is Homeopathically solved. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Here is a page about homeopathic treatment for "a fishbone in their throat, or a splinter under the nail, or sliver in some other place"[25]
- "What remedy fits such a case?"
- "If the traumatic lesion produces spontaneous intense pain and the part is lacerated or crushed, whether a penetrating wound by puncture, by a sharp instrument, scalpel, or splinter, give then Hypericum perforatum at the 200th or even better at the XM. This marvelous remedy is particularly indicated for puncture at the end of the fingers, followed by wallerian degeneration, often with dreadful neuritis, ascending from finger to arm, from foot to thigh. This is a condition which is difficult to control allopathically, but one dose of Hypericum XM will restore order in a few days spectacularly. Remember that this remedy is a fine preventive of tetanus."
- "Finally, the hypersensitivity to touch in cases of splinters less acute than dscribed above, brings to mind a lesser known remedy, yet a remarkable one, Cicuta virosa, the famous hemlock taken so courageously by Socrates and used by the Athenians to put the death certain criminals. We use medically four types of hemlock, all belonging to the Umbelliferae..."
--Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thermobalancing therapy
- Thermobalancing therapy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This article could use some eyes from those with more time than I currently have - the creator's been blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and I'm rather skeptical of any article about a medical treatment that cites sources such as "Energy of man’s body cures enlarged prostate" from the Times of India blog. Spicy (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- The current sources appear to be primary and a few press releases, so I'm not sure it meets notability requirements. There are some efficacy claims that appear to not be made from independent WP:MEDRS. —PaleoNeonate – 23:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe WP:G5 applies? It's been slightly edited by a few other editors though, —PaleoNeonate – 23:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Grey alien
It seems that someone has been too fanciful in ascribing descriptions of aliens to H.G.Wells, and somebody has compared them with the originals and found them lacking. Anybody interested? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Gordon S. Haight, was a rather big deal in the world of English Lit. scholarship. A new editor has been arguing that Haight has got his interpretation of Welles work all wrong. Or (more likely) that Haight has been misused. Currently, Haight is being used to cite this sentence:
In the 1893 article "Man of the Year Million", science fiction author H. G. Wells envisioned the possibility of humanity transformed into a race of grey-skinned beings who were perhaps one meter tall, with big heads and large, oval-shaped pitch-black eyes.
[1]- Someone with access needs to check out the full text of the cited journal [26] to see if this description can indeed be ascribed to Haight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- @LuckyLouie: Psst, you do know Sci-Hub exists, right? You can check that yourself if you want to. Volteer1 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Didn't know about Sci-Hub, thanks! So upon review, Haight's description of Welles description of future humanity includes a number of features similar to the modern conception of grey aliens, but does not include grey skin. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- @LuckyLouie: Psst, you do know Sci-Hub exists, right? You can check that yourself if you want to. Volteer1 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Please LuckyLouie, you have been following the Grey Alien talk page, so you cannot have missed Well's description of future man's eyes as "large, lustrous, beautiful, soulful"[2], whereas Wikipedia states "large, oval-shaped pitch-black eyes."[3] You are correct that neither Well's nor Haight mentions grey skin nor the height of future man. So either Wikipedia has made a false attribution or Haight is in grave error.
- But there is something I don't understand LuckyLouie. I cannot find Haight’s 1958 journal article on Sci-Hub. If you say the article is there (as you imply you have found it there) and that I am mistaken, then perhaps you will be kind enough to either to provide a screenshot of the relevant passage(s) in Haight, or provide the direct quotes of what Haight has to say (ETA: better yet, provide a link to Haight's 1958 article). Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, Wikipedia has an incorrect reference – the correct reference is:
- Haight, G. S. (1958) H. G. Wells's "The Man of the Year Million". Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Mar., 1958), pp. 323-326.
- And if I may be so bold may I suggest that editors, when searching for source reference material, if they notice Wikipedia’s reference is incorrect, then they correct it for us all, so that we minions out here have an easier time of it?
- (And if Haight was, as Hob Gradling claims, “a rather big deal in the world of English Lit. scholarship”, then what might he be doing with “Wells’s”?)Tesldact Smih (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- One can however access the first page of Haight’s article here[27]. Frustrating, yes, but does that beginning look anything like a man about to describe grey aliens in Wikipedia’s terms?
- ETA: And I am sorry, but I just don't get the point of this argument anyway. Wikipedia states something that Wells did not say. It does not matter who is in error, Haight or Wikipedia, the statement is false either way. The question is, what is the correct protocol to remove the sentence as demonstrably false? Tesldact Smih (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK. See my comments on Talk page [28] and [29] - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- ETA: And I am sorry, but I just don't get the point of this argument anyway. Wikipedia states something that Wells did not say. It does not matter who is in error, Haight or Wikipedia, the statement is false either way. The question is, what is the correct protocol to remove the sentence as demonstrably false? Tesldact Smih (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Haight, Gordon (1958). "Nineteenth-Century Fiction, vol. 12, no. 4". Nineteenth-Century Fiction. JSTOR: University of California Press. 12 (4): 324. JSTOR 3044429.
- ^ Wells, H. G. (1893) The Man of the Year Million. Tuapeka Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 4079, 28 February 1894, Page 5. Retrieved from https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TT18940228.2.30, 07 Mar 2021.
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_alien
Lyme disease bioweapon conspiracy theory
- Lyme disease ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- WP:RSN § Lyme disease GAO investigation
Review of recent changes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 16:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- The section in Lyme disease about Chris Smith's conspiracy theory should not be there. Instead, it should be in the Smith article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
PragerU and climate change denialism
- PragerU ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Previously at FTN for the same reason: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 67#PragerU
- A current related AE case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Noteduck
There are open recent threads at the article's talk page about properly covering the topic and various proposed sources to assess. Since it's a perennial issue I thought a notification would be a good idea, —PaleoNeonate – 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Is there an indication that the coverage is too sparse to be reasonable? I see
sixthree instances of criticism of PragerU's coverage of climate change already in the article. Is there something more needed? The discussion is too roundabout for me to follow completely. jps (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)- I can see only three instances with three sources: in "History[20][21]", "Content[32]" and "Reception[32]". Actually, I would delete the History one: "In August 2018, PragerU criticized YouTube for adding fact-checks to its videos which present misinformation about climate change.[20][21]", firstly because "criticize" is bad writing, and secondly because of WP:MANDY: of course PU will complain when people make it public that PU is spreading misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. Only three. The thing about this outfit is that they spread misinformation on a lot of topics, so it's hard to know which ones deserve the most attention. Practically every video they've made has criticism. jps (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think the WP:MANDY passage could be rephrased to be interesting. PragerU has been complaining that their YouTube reach has been ratcheted down, but they don't have access to the private algorithms to prove this. Instead, they focus on the things they can identify the platform has done. The complaints about the platform they rely upon are of some interest to the reader. jps (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- That particular sentence, at least when I commented about it on the talk page a few weeks ago, was formulated to suggest unwarranted censorship, rather than being a result of misinformation and violating the site's policies. Some other editors also tried to improve the coverage recently since and may need guidance or support at the talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 07:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Is there an indication that the coverage is too sparse to be reasonable? I see
- Sources [[30]], [[31]], [[32]], [[33]]. There are more.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Help cleaning Human overpopulation full of fringe/POV or original research
Hi all! So, an editor who was POV pushing rather extreme interpretations of population dynamics was recently blocked. The worst offending content on most pages they edited, tends to get cleaned up during the course of normal editing. However, @Nsae Comp: and I were having a really hard time cleaning up/reviewing the content on Human overpopulation and we could use some help. The topic is well discussed in the scholarly literature, but the way the page has been maintained for the last few years -- it has become a confusing mix of legitimate opinions about the topic, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It would be helpful -- if anyone is interested-- to get some additional attention on the page, Sadads (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Antipsychotic
Hi, this is about [34]. Was my revert correct? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)