This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
In early 1630, representatives of Croatian nobility and Vlachs (Serbs) met in Vienna. Information from Statuta Valachorum article and source is: (Kašić, Dušan (1967). Srbi i pravoslavlje u Slavoniji i sjevernoj Hrvatskoj (in Serbian). Savez udruženja pravosl. sveštenstva SR Hrvatske.)
I have been looking for this information(1630, Vlachs (Serbs) met in Vienna) a long time and additional confirmation of this information do not exist. I searched in the Austrian(German language), Croatian, Serbian sources, also from sources of Croatian Serbs. None of them are mentioned in Vienna. Is this fringe information. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The Serbs appropriated the Vlach culture and tradition so much that, in one of the most recent books on this topic, the Habsburg document from 1630 entitled Statuta Valachorum is presented as Serbian.[1] Is this the underlying problem Mikola22? That'sThe thesis i quoted not a good source but trying to understand what the issues are. fiveby(zero) 16:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe that it is RS, as far as I can see Kasic was a historian [[2]] with PHD in Zagreb and extensive bibliography, maybe someone from Serbian wikipedians who know a bit more can give more information. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 20. November 2020 (UTC)
Near as I can tell the PhD is theology and the publisher is the Association of the United Orthodox Clergy of Yugoslavia. Please let give us some time to look. fiveby(zero) 17:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
After further reading it also says that he was a history professor at University of Theology until 1988. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 20. November 2020 (UTC)
@Fiveby: You went too wide. "In early 1630 Vlachs ie Serbs are met in Vienna". It is significant information before adoption of Statuta Valachorum law. I am interested in that meeting but none of the sources speak about that. Primary archival material also do not exist that is, I did not find that material. Mikola22 (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Well this maybe an RS, certainly he appears to be an academic, its also a bit too narrow and obscure a piece of information to make it easy to find unless its a subject you are interested in. I am not sure it fails Fringe or NPOV, it may well fail undue, but then it is also only one line.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe, but then it may not be all that directly related (hence why I say is may fail undue). I have to also say that as I doubt you have read every source every written about the Statuta Valachorum you opinion none mention it is not really all that valid.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I am from Croatia, in part of country where Statuta Valachorum had jurisdiction. I have been reading about Vlachs for about 10 years, and about this meeting about one year (since I came to Wikipedia). What is 100% true is that Serbs(historical records) are not been in Vienna but Vlachs could been there(but I doubt they were because it would have to be written somewhere). In any case I did not find that information anywhere and it is a very important piece of information because it is a time of Vlachs rebellion. Mikola22 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
This information is an alleged meeting of "representatives of Croatian nobility and Vlachs (Serbs) in Vienna". This is not ordinary information, this is information about meeting of leading peoples from that area (Vlachs and Croats). Mikola22 (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Mikola22, I don't see any reason to doubt that Kašić can be relied on. He seems fairly widely cited and to give a detailed account. I suspect a misreading of the source or just imprecise language. What could be accomplished at such a meeting?(see pp. 65-7) More plausible is that all the representatives were simply negotiating with the Habsburg court in Vienna at the same time. I assume you don't have access to Srbi i pravoslavlje u Slavoniji i sjevernoj Hrvatskoj, maybe WP:RX could help? fiveby(zero) 04:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Never mind, the source is obviously RS. I had to ask this question because I never heard of this information. Thanks to all. Mikola22 (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Maillard writes that Lucia's nephew, Father Salinho, who is a Salesian priest and lives in Portugal, reported that Sister Lucia had not only continued receiving visions of Fatima but she also confirmed the apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje. In some of these apparitions, the Virgin Mary spoke to Sister Lúcia of her continued work in Medjugorje.
Sister Emmanuel Maillard is so far the only author mentioning this. I cannot see this being discuss anywhere else or by any other author. Not even on the pages related directly to the Medjugorje phenomenon.
What I found about the author is only from her website, which gives following bio [3]:
Sister Emmanuel tells that after receiving her first calling to the Beatitudes Community in 1976, she received another calling – to serve Our Lady in Medjugorje. Sent by her community, she initiated the first branch of the community in Medjugorje in 1989. During the Balkan war in the 90s, Sister Emmanuel became known for her regular faxes about the situation in Herzegovina, always related to the mission of Our Lady. She has had an enormous impact on France, stimulating an extensive response to Medjugorje among French pilgrims, but her apostolate has broadened as her books have been translated into 22 languages and she has traveled widely to make Medjugorje known, particularly in the United States. Today, “Les Enfants de Medjugorje” and “Children of Medjugorje, Inc.” allow her to be connected everyday to thousands of people around the world, who are motivated by and spreading, the messages of Our Lady in their own humble way. Sister says that her greatest joy is to be part of a family formed by Our Lady, and being Her extended heart and hands for her children, especially those who do not yet know the love of God.
Thus, we learn she founded and heads the organisation called "Children of Medjugorje", dedicated to "spreading the (Our Lady of Medjugorje's) messages out" (paraphrasing).
Maillard wrote several books. However, I want the assessment on the reliability of this particular book, which was translated into English under the title "Medjugorje, the 90's - The Triumph of the Heart". Dražen Kutleša writes in his Serbo-Croatian language book titled "Ogledalo pravde" about her book: "Her book, Medjugorje gli anni '90, is sold in Italy with an attached tissue so the reader may wipe tears" (Serbo-Croatian: "Njezina knjiga Medjugorje gli anni ‘90, 1998, u Italiji se prodaje s priloženim rupčićem da čitatelj može brisati suze.", p. 283).
That put aside, I cannot find her book being used as a reference in any scientific paper [4]. Moreover, I cannot find any of her books being used as a reference anywhere [5].
The same author had a list of statements affirmative towards the alleged apparitions in Medjugorje, attributed to Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, which Cardinal Ratzinger assessed as "mere fabrications" (Ich kann dazu nur sagen, dass die dem Heiligen Vater und mir zugeschriebenenen Äusserungen über Medjugorje frei erfunden sind) (Ogledalo pravde, p. 283; Nacional (weekly)[6]).
Panbiogeography is a fringe theory that asserts that the distribution of all organisms can be explained by drawing lines or 'tracks' between their distributions, ignoring other mechanisms of dispersal other than vicariance. The article is currently a mess, treating the subject as a legitimate scientific discipline and not mentioning any criticism that the theory has received. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm concerned to have discovered an IP editor who makes edits to promote the idea that white people are not people. The editor does not seem to have been challenged about it so far, probably due to the small number of edits. Although some of the edits have been reverted, some have not. IP address being: 88.106.233.198
I don't think me warning this IP would be useful considering their obvious prejudice, but I would hope that others would agree this is unacceptable and this kind of fringe POV pushing does not belong on Wikipedia. It is blatant racism. Perhaps needs admin attention? I am not experienced with reporting things, but as it is a fringe idea this editor is promoting, this seemed like the place to bring it up. JohnmgKing (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
It would really be good to widen the comments on this talk page. Things are going in circles and the fringe view put about by the Ba'ath Party (the Arab world's answer to the National Socialists) has clearly been motivating the Syrian nationalist perspective, namely that no Kurd ever set foot in Syrian Kurdistan until "immigrants" from Turkey arrived to mess up the pure racial characteristics etc., a "problem" whose final solution was the Arab Belt (this article also needs help), an ethnic cleansing campaign with ramifications until the present. GPinkerton (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Laughably transparent misinformation. The algorithms already in place at google, twitter and facebook that control our lives are much more complex.
Conspiracy theories are no fun any longer. They should be like the stories of primitive peoples looking at the stars and inventing gods to explain how the world word works. The moral value of a tall tale or legend but with the opposite of the larger than life hero, the shadowy and elusive group of evil conspirators. Everyone has different tastes: Citizen Kane or Weekend at Bernie's, but do we have to politicize all forms of entertainment these days. And claiming some of the stuff coming out now fits in the genre just because it's not "mainstream" or based on "how easily the story falls apart" is ruining the industry. fiveby(zero) 17:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Still, the caravans were often looted. In the case of dispute, the joint Dubrovnik-Serbian courts held jurisdiction.[10] I do not know which source provide this information but there exist two sources, one is "Pejčić, Grozda (2006). Угоститељско туристичка школа - некад и сад 1938-2006...Catering and tourism school - then and now 1938-2006" and internet newspaper portal "Politika".
I can find neither the first nor the second source, also "joint Dubrovnik-Serbian courts" fact I can't find in Serbian, Croatian and English sources. Is this fringe information. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
He is one of the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, and he is a big name among German Corona deniers. His opinion is called "research" in our article, although hes not actually done any peer-reviewed work on the subject, and some editors seem to like it that way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Yikes, that was horrible: a tonne of bad sourcing and original research amplifying fringe views. I attempted a bit of cleanup but the push-back was instantaneous. Alexbrn (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Interesting that being a signatory of the G.B. Declaration is offered like a statement of proof that he must be wrong. Erictalk12:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Super. I've added something from Foreign Policy. Before, this was a really bad case of Wikipedia being used for fringe advocacy. Good job, Hob Gadling for catching it! Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
No, it is offered like a statement that tells people which corner of the intellectual world he is from. As opposed to creationists, astrologers, or multivitamin popes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a really shocking edit to this page. Bhakdi is not a fringe conspiracy theorist nut case. The loaded, barbed language used to describe him now is appalling. The article should be reverted, but the criticism of him should be included. Gd123lbp (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Follow the sources. I'd expect anybody who reverts to anything like what we had before, or who removes the RS that has since appeared, to be sanctioned. This page is getting over 1,000 views per day and Wikipedia simply cannot be used as a channel for COVID misinformation. You, Gd123lbp are one of the chief culprits here. Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Fiveby, especially as the article cited is not accessible online without a subscription. Though I'm busy with other things, I could, if people want, translate part of an article from the German pharmaceutical magazine Pharmazeutische Zeitung, "Meinungen am Rande des Mainstreams" ("Opinions from the Margin of the Mainstream" <or, as some might prefer, 'Mainstream Fringe'>), which includes a section on Bhakdi. I don't know the magazine; I found it via a cite in this article that was summarily expurgated as being "unreliable". According to our de article, the magazine was first published in 1822, and has been in continuous publication since 1856. It may be that two centuries of publishing history will be enough to satisfy the article owner's reliability standards.
per WP:BLPCATCategory names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. There should be some article text explaining why we can call him a conspiracy theorist and the sources need to be clear. It's not like he's a 5g guy or something like that. FP ...debunked but credentialed so-called experts minting conspiracy theories and undermining fact-based information. One prominent example is Sucharit Bhakdi...Meinung auch in den meisten Medien und staatlichen Stellen wenig Widerhall und beschränkt sich auf Youtube und Verschwörungsgruppen bzw.[11] I don't think are clear and direct enough to put "conspiracy theorist" in wikivoice. Regardless, the should be enough article text first to explain exactly why we can call him that. fiveby(zero) 14:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Don't know how the article could be more clear. He is a "prominent example" of a conspiracy theorist. How is that unclear? Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
He is a top scientist. The article does not call him a conspiracy theorist directly, it simply lumps him in with other people who are. Bhakdi does not have any theories about conspiracies, he makes scientific criticisms of other scientists (which is what all scientists do). I am astonished to see him listed alongside David Icke! Such a falsehood! Gd123lbp (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
And now we've drive-by IPs (socks?) who seem to prefer the crank version.[12] Could use eyes. Meanwhile, have requested page protection. Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Can't you see that saying "he is a spreader of misinformation" is an opinion? Clearly people of his point of view do not think that (such as the thousands of scientists in the great barrington declaration and others who cited him in many now deleted sources). If you are so insistent that he is a conspiracy theorist, then tell me who he thinks is conspiring to do what? He has criticised the science on it, which is normal scientific dispute. You have affixed all these labels to him because you've found an opinion piece that lumps him in with others that it doesn't like. Find other scientists who disagree with him, like I did and add it in (add it back in from what you deleted!) You need to stop being angry and start thinking objectively. Gd123lbp (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, I might add, I am quite suprised to hear the phrase "covid denier" I have never heard that before. That is the language of the religious zealot - like blasphemy. Gd123lbp (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I think you've fallen victim to some kind of pathological relativism in your thinking. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources and in Wikipedia terms (reasonably) that which is asserted but not disputed in reliable sources, is a fact. Would you also say "Holocaust denial - calling it that is just an opinion; it's a normal dispute among historians"? On the basis of your argument, you could. Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there any reason we should not move, copy, or excerpt this section to the article's talkpage? I think that would be a better place for it. I've been on wp for many years, and this is the first day I've ever heard of this noticeboard. Erictalk23:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Just link to this discussion from the article's Talk page. Now that we have widened consensus (the noticeboard worked!) discussion can continue back there. Alexbrn (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
is an opinion?
No, serveral fact checking websites (NGOs + especially public-service radio and television broadcasters), Universtities (!) and other experts debunked his thesis, so "spreader of misinformation" is quite correct.
Besides, he did not conduct any kind of "science". He was retired around 10 years ago. He does not have any experience in virology. There is no dispute among scientist, there is also no dispute among scientist in regards of flat earth therories. --Julius Senegal (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The article is currently promoting Sucharit Bhakdi's fringe viewpoints without any rebuttal, surely this isn't acceptable? FDW777 (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I am beginning to wonder if Wikipedia can currently withstand this kind of medical misinformation when there's such a swell of denial in wider editor corps (and unfortunately the topic somehow seems cross-contaminated with AP2 stuff). After this is all over there will be a post-mortem for sure (unintentionally grim choice of phrase). Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Something about an App which generates concentrations of quantum dots, which could possibly inspire and uplift users, but which mysteriously finds locations of disturbing events. Or something. Alexbrn (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
They've built a lot of woo-woo from the fact that their app uses the freely available Quantum RNG service provided from Australian National University. (If you use that site to decide where to order lunch, you can have a Quantum Meal. Collapse the taco/sandwich wave function!)
More eyes needed there. An editor keeps edit warring in unverifiable and POV content, [13] in violation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:CATEGRS. The editor also attacked me on my talk page. [14]Guy Macon, I'm making sure you see this, as you've commented before on the matter of undue weight on speculations of homosexuality. Crossroads-talk-22:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
A few recent edits have sought to remove the well-sourced word "baseless" from the phrase "Bondi supported Trump's baseless claims that there was large-scale voter fraud...." These efforts have been rebuffed thus far, but more eyes might be a good idea. Neutralitytalk15:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The author of this section cites a few single researchers as evidence that somehow schizoid PD is linked to sexual activity. One was a researcher in the 1930s or 40s (Ronald Fairbairn), another is Harry Guntrip (1960s - 1970s). The most modern researcher cited is Salman Akhtar (1980s). All who practiced psychodynamic therapy and used observational studies (non-experimental) for their research. Moreover, I noticed source material for this section includes a clinical dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction by a M.A. student at Pepperdine. This is not a peer-reviewed journal article. Additionally, source material from this piece goes back to the 1930s and 40s and doesn't seem update-to-date at all.
No modern-day research on this has ever suggested that any sort of sexual behavior is at all linked to this condition. The current modern psychology handbook DSM-V makes no mention of sexual activity linked to this condition. The DSM-IV doesn't either. In fact, validity markers even identifying it as a disorder is so poor that there is serious debate among the psychology community about removing it in the next version of the DSM (see Hummelen, B., Pedersen, G., Wilberg, T., Karterud, S. (2015) "Poor Validity of the DSM-IV Schizoid Personality Disorder Construct as a Diagnostic Category"; J Pers Disord https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25248009/). For some reason, this information is not included on this page at all.
I'll note too that no Wikipedia article links sexual activity to any personality disorder. The reason they are called personality disorders are that they are linked to personality traits. Not sexual activity. There is a separate section in the DSM for sexual dysfunction or gender dysphoria.
Anyway, I've tried in vain to edit this section but it gets reinstated with a one-phrase rebuttal. No discussion is allowed. So trying to appeal to a third-party on this. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bol1966 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I've looked at the section and responded on the article talk page. I agree with you that the section is very poor quality and the sources used are essentially useless. Most of them were written in the 50s or 60s, and the field has changed substantially since then. I think it'd be better to just remove the whole Sexuality section than to leave it in its current state. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
It's a very popular book, theosophy itself includes various pseudoscientific doctrines. There currently already are mentions via L. Sprague de Camp, maybe a one-line summary of those in the lead would be better than only a label... —PaleoNeonate – 03:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm editing a lot of bland, economics-related Guyana articles, but Jonestown conspiracy theories is tagged for EVERYTHING and it just... makes me exhausted. It's practically a fringe fork! Does anyone have some advice for a newb? I was thinking at least cutting the External Links section for redundancies about the actual People's Temple, since that's sort of kindling the OR. And while it's interesting to see a sentence or two about what kinds of conspiracies came from the soviet side, the section just vomits facts without any context, making it read like it's not actually a conspiracy. And a conspiracy about newspaper headlines all reporting different things... That means Wikipedia's own RS must be a conspiracy too! See? I can't. Advice? Estheim (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:AfD? The piece looks cobbled together like a WP:POVFORK. The stuff in it that is verifiable could safely be re-merged into main articles if it's not there already. jps (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
My first time here, so hopefully this is the appropriate venue. Could we get some eyes on Titanic conspiracy theories? The article is currently assessed as B-class despite being tagged for presenting fringe theories with improper weight (a tag that, at a brief glance, looks extremely warranted). {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
A cursory look shows the content is mostly “alternative cause of sinking theories” (bulkheads, joints, coal fire, etc), and only the “switched ships“ theory is a genuine conspiracy theory. Also entire sections are cited to single non notable books. If the books content is not discussed in sources independent of the book, and is cited only to the book, it’s WP:UNDUE.- LuckyLouie (talk)
The law of attraction of fringe/pseudoscience. Davies was never so far out on the cosmology limb that he fell over into the dark side, but his Templeton Foundation funding and pussyfooting around the lack of empirical evidence for theology did win him monies. If he's willing to go out on a limb for physics, I have no doubt that he's willing to fall down a rabbit hole in oncology. jps (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Can be seen as something, according to Goop. And it seems I am a "logical positivist swindler", whatever that is supposed to mean. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps a hat note saying "not to be confused with Energy (physics) or Energy (psychological)??
It looks like we have us here on that page a gen-you-whine edit warrior, carrying on his little edit war with no air support. He has run out of ammunition and is now reduced to lobbing "I understand that Wikipedia should not be promoting fringe theories but this cult of skepticism is another thing entirely" grenades. Come on over to Talk:Energy (esotericism) and see the show! I will make popcorn. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it's too soon for that. These new accounts sometimes just go away on their own. VERY occasionally, they actually turn around and become productive. jps (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I've discussed this with another editor but I'm not really comfortable dealing with this myself.
The article I believe gives undue weight to conspiracy theories surrounding the bombing. The conspiracy being that Australian intelligence services were behind it.
The sources to support the theory are:
NSW Parliament hansard with comments from a politician arguing that a conspiracy exists. His claims are hard to verify. Some of the most outrageous include a claim that two Australian politicians told him that they had been told by scientists working for the the CSIRO that they had been asked to make fake bombs a few weeks prior. I have not found anything to substantiate those comments (such as statements from the people themselves) and I would think two senior politicians would have publicly repeated that if they were true.
The "Walsh Coronial Inquest into the Hilton Bombing", which as far as I can find was closed without a report produced due to the matter being declared criminal which meant the matter was handed to police. The article references this inquest at many points, but I have been unable to find a copy of the supposed report or a record of it so I can't verify any claims made.
Green Left Weekly, a far left newspaper of questionable reliability who don't get great reviews from Media Bias Fact-check. The story fits into their usual preconceived biases and nothing is verifiable.
I'm also not certain books should be used as sources here either. It's not exactly hard to write and publish a book. They don't require any review, let alone peer review, but the article leans on many books alleging conspiracy. I'm sure I can find books that say 9/11 was a conspiracy too.
The article is so heavily based on this that it probably needs a total rewrite. I would like some help with it as it's way outside my normal area.
Completely unfamiliar with the subject, but I agree that it is giving WP:UNDUE weight to the conspiracy version. The lede only mentions the possible security services' involvement and implies a coverup. It comes as a surprise then when you get to the first section of the article and find out someone confessed, was convicted and served time for it all. That being said, the whole article has WP:PROPORTION issues: the informant is given a biographical summary that is twice as long as the entire description of the bombing (which only appears in the lede). A rewrite would be a good thing just based on PROPORTION and coherent narrative alone, even were there not UNDUE/FRINGE problems. Agricolae (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree is problematic. Have moved the conspiracy section down so less dominant, and added templates to tag some of the issues. Needs a lot of work!BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
While he did participate to some public education projects that included interviews and public debate shows, he's also notable for saying that there is no point in giving an impression of legitimacy by accepting such...[1] —PaleoNeonate – 13:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The granularity with which Wikipedia is obsessed with minor back-and-forths on timescales of roughly ten years in the past is a real problem. Meanwhile, his disillusionment with Donald Trump gets nary a whisper: [31]. (Please do not go adding this, just interesting what Wikipedia articlespace is paying attention to, no?) We could do with an initiative to remove stale instances of WP:RECENTISM that are more obvious now that a decade has passed. jps (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I've done a lot of cleaning up at the article, but a pro-fringe user with an apparent COI (likely Jubb himself) has been adding more to the article, and I'd appreciate getting some more eyes on it. In addition, I'm unsure the degree to which the information there is appropriate for Wikipedia, particularly the information cited to his website (which has been down since 2017 or so).
VistaSunset wants to misuse that article as Intelligent design propaganda. I do not want to revert again because that would look as if I am a one-man-show. Maybe somebody could make it clear what WP:FRINGE means and that the whole science community disagrees. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I posted some concerns on the talk page. I didn't restore the mention of pseudoscience, but at least it no longer uses "theory of intelligent design" at current time. —PaleoNeonate – 05:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Due to persistent demonization and discrimination, many younger Serbs in Croatia have converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism in order to "become Croats", some changing their names to look more Croatian.
Information from aticle [32] and from this source [33], author is Thomas, Raju G.C. [34]
I have never heard or read in books or scientific papers in Croatian, Serbian or English this information (many younger Serbs in Croatia have converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism in order to "become Croats). In the footnote write this, (I obtained this information from some Serbs living in Zagreb who did not wish to reveal their identities.)
@Sadko: You have link my edit and good will to keep this fringe information as part of the "Anti-Serb sentiment" article, although this information is not confirmed anywhere. Therefore show me books and scientific papers which confirm this fact. It does not exist. Mikola22 (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's fringe exactly; I just think it has to be used carefully. It is anecdotal evidence reported by one author (who seems to have limited expertise on Yugoslavia, although the book is a proper academic one) at one specfic point in time (2003) so we can't build too much on it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The book only seem as properly equipped academic work, but it is actually utter fringe (most review described ti as "alternative view to the mainstream scholarship"), if nothing than for authors unlikely venture into subject he knows nothing or at best very little about (his insight into Balkan history is nonexistent, he reiterates only those arguments no serious researcher every takes into any consideration, such as longstanding hatred, inability to reconcile "European" Croats and "Asiatic" Serbs, and whats not) - author reiterates same old revisionist tropes about sequence of events that started the war, offering elaborate lies about supposed revival of Nazi-era symbols in Croatia, blaming in the process exclusively the republics that proclaimed independence from Yugoslavia, acquitting the Serbian leadership, the Yugoslav Army, and Milošević - all claims that have been meticulously deconstructed, analyzed and refuted by myriad of mainstream scholars on Yugoslav modern and contemporary history.--౪ Santa ౪99°22:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Santasa99: "supposed revival of Nazi-era symbols in Croatia" really? "Za dom spremni" is not a suppose revival, it is heavily disputed in Croatian political life, some even defending it as an "old Croatian salute" like former president Kitarovic. About the information it should stay in the article since those things happen and did happened a lot in the 90-is but the decision should be made by editors outside the Balkan areas and so far only editor @Bobfrombrockley: belongs to the description.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 13. December 2020
Any serious political figure who has tried to give some ludicrous explanation through a personal uninformed view of the “Za dom spremni” salute in any positive context has been strongly criticized by the entire (except the fringe) academic and most of the political establishment. The fact is, however, that salute has always been used by Croatian radical nationalists of fascist or Usatshe provenance, before, during and after 1990 independence - independence has not revived it, only these kinds of people has not being prosecuted for voicing it in public, which is normal thing for any normal country in democratic world.
In the meantime, some editors are trying to present the independence of Croatia, in particular (although views on Bosnian, Kosovan, Montenegrin independence, and break-up of Yugoslavia as a whole suffer from similar problems), as an attempt of re-nazification of the Croatian socio-political and constitutional-legal order. No, no symbols of Ustasha, nor state symbols of the NDH, were incorporated into the constitutional order or institutional-legal framework of the Republic of Croatia after the declaration of independence - everything else is just meaningless and malicious subterfuge.
Like I wrote before this decision should be made by a neutral editors outside Balkans, neglecting the fact that this things are happening is a POV pushing and I dont think that editors who have personal agenda regarding this matter should decide if this info should or not be removed, we have an opinion of one neutral editor here until then the info should not be removed or described as fringe ,because it is not User:Theonewithreason (talk) 13. December 2020
(Inserted post) • Yeah, sometimes the best option would be to have editor(s) from outside of the concerned area and scope to chip in their thoughts and view, however your suggestion is extreme and that certainly is not how this project works.--౪ Santa ౪99°00:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
these kinds of people has not being prosecuted for voicing it in public, which is normal thing for any normal country in democratic world Then Germany, where the analogous Heil HitlerSieg Heil is forbidden, must be an abnormal country... --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
You have gave us neat upside-down analogy - it's not Ustashe who spawned Nazi party and its ideology, Nazi-Germany and Hitler, it's the other way around; and in a way you confirm my fears that this kind of analogous victimology in Serbia, comparing Serb victimhood to Jewish and "Serbophobia" to antisemitism, that is real in real life, do exists in the project as well.--౪ Santa ౪99°13:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This is getting too complex and multifaceted for me. I do not understand what you are trying to say here. In what way is what I said connected to the existence of Serbophobia (or its victimology, or whatever) in Wikipedia? You even seem to suggest that I somehow claimed that the Nazi movement originated in Croatia. I do not know where you are coming from, where you are standing, or where you are going, only that you seem to read far too much into what people write. But Hitler and Pavelic both, as well as other dictators of the time, were actually inspired by Mussolini, regarding the authoritarianism as well as the xenophobia, anti-Communism, and the close alliance with the Vatican. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Your analogy is flawed - Nazi-Germany can't be compared with NDH, nor post-war Germany with modern-day Croatia. NDH regime was spawned by Nazi-Germany in a nation under occupation by Nazi-Germany, just like Nedić's Serbia, or Ukraine, Poland, annexed Austria, Hungary, Vichy's France; Germany is really a special case regarding its handling of its past, exception rather than a rule for the rest, and even German laws are under constant criticism as an excessive (by the way salute alone is more in line with "Sieg Heil" than "Heil Hitler").--౪ Santa ౪99°15:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Oops - "Sieg Heil" is what I meant, obviously. And yes, of course those two can be compared, and the comparison shows close similarity. Dictatorships ruled by mass-murdering bastards both - and Ustaše existed even before Hitler came to power. But this is drifting further and further away from the purpose of this page, namely alerting users with fringe-theory experience of articles with fringe theories in it, and further and further into FORUM territory. So, I won't answer your next digression, which I am pretty sure will follow. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
It's an extraordinary claim which needs WP:EXTRAORDINARY sources. If this truly happened, it would have been mentioned in the countless publications about the dissolution of Yugoslavia, but it's not reported anywhere else other than this one book.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
(1) The book is written by a University professor and it is published by an academic press.
(2) This doesn't exactly belong in the "fringe" category. Fringe would be if someone wrote that 10,000 or 700,000 people died at Jasenovac for example. This is anecdotal information based on the professor's own research/reporting. Therefore I think it is OK to use it and attribute it in-text to the author, which is what is done in cases where statements are problematic/challenged or biased.
By the way, I'm not necessarily against removing this information since there isn't confirmation elsewhere. I'd rather it was achieved through consensus though and not because a few editors on Balkan-related topics with the same POV decided it should be removed. Note that the lone non-Balkan editor here did not object to it being used. --Griboski (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I've had another look at the book, at its contributors and of some reviews of it. It is not my area at all, so don't feel comfortable being in any kind of aribeter role, but it seems to me that in relation to how the source should be used in the article: anecdotal evidence from one reasonably informed but not expert academic from one one moment two decades ago is not enough it itself to base a factual claim in our encyclopedic voice but rather would need attribution and qualification - and if nobody else has said this it might not be due anyway. In relation to whether the source is fringe: I don't think fringe is the right word. The editor and contributors are all academics and the book is published by a respectable academic press and must have gone through some kind of review process, but it is clear that it takes up a position which challenges much recieved wisdom and so is somewhat partisan: the overall argument is that the West is the main bad guy and on the ground all sides were as bad as each other. In scholarship, it is important that academic writing challenges orthodoxies, and this is different from being fringe as such. However, the contributors in most cases lack specific research expertise on Yugoslavia and seem to be writing about it in a quite dilettante-ish way, and many have reputations for being pretty partisan and controversial (e.g. the late media studies professor Edward S. Herman), so WP:DUE would generally require us to balance it with other perspectives. In short, this is more a due weight issue than a frigne theory issue, although it might not be worth the effort to balance and attribute something that is already pretty flimsy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, Bob, this is a proper, informed, and, if I may conclude, accurate explanation and description - it's not my intention to sound too insolent, but, I guess, if my own take from the above post, which is simpler and more categorical, prompted this well written elaboration, then, ... I must say, it worked :-) !?--౪ Santa ౪99°15:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please give this user discretionary sanctions notice? I have noticed a lot of apologias for conspiracy theories that may eventually require admin intervention.
@Littleolive oil: I see you just removed[36] the criticism that the site peddles pseudoscience, but in the source this organization is criticized for being "pseudowissenschaftlich". What's going on ? Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I translated the article. I feel the language I used which came from that translation was much more emphatic than pseudoscience. While we use the word pseudoscience and know what we mean readers may not. I think we tend to use a single word to red flag something but that is our own Wikipedia culture and may leave context unsaid. This is the translation." However, experts criticize both the self-designation as a research group as well as its working method and interpretation of the term propaganda. The terms "research" and "research group" arouse the expectation of finding scientific information on the website. However, the content on the website does not meet this requirement." Feel free to revert me but I'd suggest that a longer explanation and more emphatic explanation is what our readers need. To be honest I am so fed up with all of the conspiracy theories being pushed these days that I may not be neutral on this. ( All just my opinion of course.) Littleolive oil (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
One of many COVID-19 related articles which are a target for disinformation spreaders. ADE is one of the reasons falsely cited by the antivax crown why the vaccines are unsafe.[37] Eyes on this during the pandemic would probably be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
aka the BioNTech/Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. This article is another of many COVID-19 related articles which are a target for disinformation spreaders. The attack vector is seemingly to suppress safety information.[38] Eyes on this during the pandemic would probably be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Another traditional medicine article where there is confusion between intention and effective healing, in case anyone is interested to work on it. Examples: "to induce a profound state of healing", "or playing an instrument such as the didgeridoo or flute, and usually involve a mastery of advanced techniques to evoke the healing effects." There also is an explicit invitation to download a magazine article: "is available for free download from this link here", use of style-discouraged second person "you may find", etc. —PaleoNeonate – 15:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Xi Zezong(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was a historian of science who opined that an ancient Chinese astronomer discovered and described Ganymede using his bare eyes, without bothering to wait around until telescopes had been invented to make it perceptible from the Earth. This idea is mentioned at Jupiter and possibly elsewhere. 1.) is the article about him worth having? 2.) if so, shouldn't it treat his claims rather more sceptically? and 3.) if not, or even if so, should the claim be included in the Jupiter article? GPinkerton (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
China is responsible for many inventions we use today. Perhaps a legitimate question could be answered with out disparaging the country. Such comments smack of a Western centrism. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Littleolive oil, No they don't. Claims Ganymede is visible to naked eye is decidedly fringe; this isn't the ancient Chinese inventing the wheelbarrow or discovering the circulatory system, this is potentially closer the Hindu nationalists that have their schoolbooks claim the (flying) car was invented 6,000 years ago in "Vedic" India. GPinkerton (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes it is. I could care less for myself about answering the question asked here or about a fringe topic. Let me be clear. A question can be asked and answered whether fringe or not, with out disparaging an entire country. That's what is happening here. Just deal with the issue. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Littleolive oil, how? It's not disparaging an entire country to suggest one of its 20th century academics might have been wrong about something in its ancient past or may not constitute due weight in an astronomy article. GPinkerton (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
This is disparaging. " "my-country-invented-everything"-ism?" I apologize for taking this on, actually. There is much in Chinese history in every area, that is/was enlightened. If I've misunderstood the comment here I apologize. Sometimes I think we in the West can be a little or a lot arrogant about our place in the world and some days I find that frustrating. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Littleolive oil, please learn how to handle the logic of quantifiers. "The Chinese did not invent everything" is different from "The Chinese did not invent anything". The first may be hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, but it is obviously true. The second is obviously false, and it is a strawman. Chinese culture gave us a lot, but nationalist minds are vulnerable to the temptation of grabbing other people's merits and sticking them to people who happened to have been born at the same place as themselves. That is not specific to any nation, and I did not claim it was. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Littleolive oil I might agree with you if anyone above said, or implied, anything in particular about China or the Chinese people. Read through it again - I think that people are poking fun at this type of nationalism in general terms. Goodness knows it is prevalent in many places - I've seen tea towels on display in Edinburgh gift shops that would have you believe that Scots invented everything from fresh air to clean living. That these claims pertain to China is not central to anything people have been saying, nobody is disparaging the nation or its people. GirthSummit (blether)08:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I noticed two other articles, Galilean moons#Discovery and Ganymede (moon)#History that also mention the Chinese claim. The latter article cites a US source (an abstract by K. Brecher in the Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society that can be read on google scholar [39]). I have no idea whether Brecher is reliable or perhaps returned from Beijing with stars in his/her eyes after an exciting trip to what at the time (1981) was still somewhat of a "forbidden city" for Americans. If current RS say that such a naked-eye sighting of Ganymede was impossible (in other words, that Brecher was being gullible), then those two articles need to be changed to reflect that. NightHeron (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron, Littleolive oil, it turns out the Wikipedia articles were rather overstating the case. I have rewritten and slightly expanded both Xi and Gan's (the ancient astronomer) articles to take account of the sources, which relate that 1.) Xi did experiments to demonstrate at least two of the moons should be visible to the naked eye of someone with perfect vision at least sometimes and 2.) other people (admittedly after Gallileo) report seeing the Galilean moons without telescopes, again with ideal conditions and extraordinary eyesight. 3.) Xi did not claim "Gan saw Ganymede" as our text suggested, but rather that it is possible he saw a moon and that of the four Galilean moons Ganymede and Callisto were most visible and Ganymede the most likely candidate for Gan to have seen. GPinkerton (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron, 1981 was when Xi published. A report the following year in Nature, another paper the next year I can't access (Zhengzong, Y., Shiyang, J., & Xiangliang, H. "Experimental test for Jupiter’s satellites to the naked eye." Kexue Tongbao, vol. 28, No. 7, 1983, pp. 927–929).... and then nothing but a summary of these three papers' core conclusions in the Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures. I would say this needs to be attributed and we should be careful to phrase it as "may have observed" and "might be Ganymede, or could be Callisto". Furthermore, the original text is lost and the evidence comes from a 8th century AD text reporting on the now-lost 4th century BC text. GPinkerton (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a slow but on-going discussion at the talk page about whether the Bates Method can be described as "ineffective", whether the Bates method is intended to improve "Eyesight", or the "Refractive power of the eye", and what bearing that distinction has, if any, on how the word "ineffective" may be applied.
Two important points which I fully realized only recently. From June 2019 to February 2020, four established users removed "ineffective". Secondly, there is a known mechanism by which such a method might result in real, lasting improvement, even though the eye's refractive power would likely not change. This is in fact discussed in the Presbyopia article. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Belteshazzar has been trolling the talk-page for the Bates method article since March 2020 requesting "ineffective" to be removed or claiming there is evidence the bates method can cause improvements. I am going to file an WP:AE discussion about Belteshazzar but it will take about an hour to file because I need to get through all their disruptive edits since March. I will file that in the next few days. I believe this user should be banned. Two individual requests were already filed to ban this user on the admin noticeboard but those discussions were archived so the next place to go is an enforcement request. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
As a participant in the slow but on-going discussion, I supportPsychologist Guy's filing of an WP:AE discussion about Belteshazzar. He/she appears to me obsessed with effecting the removal of "ineffective" from the initial sentence of the article and impervious to all rational arguments to justify its retention. -- Jmc (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Support a report at AE seeking a block from that one article. Question: should Belteshazzar be blocked from the article talk page as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Support As it is written: "And I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, yet not dissolve doubts: now if thou canst not read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, then neither shalt thou be clothed with scarlet, and nor have a chain of gold about thy neck, and never shalt thou be the third ruler in the kingdom. Thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which know not, nor hear, nor see. For there have come forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of thy palace: and thou hast seen the part of the hand that wrote. And this is the writing that was written:
Now that someone who clearly understands this mechanism still supports "ineffective", I am dropping the stick. This is for the future if something changes and people want to make sure this doesn't happen again with some other subject. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
If you're talking about the edit you reverted here, you're wrong, as I explained here. I understand how someone could make that mistake, however, just as I understand how mistakes could have been made regarding this subject. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
An aerospace engineer whose patents, such as one claiming to "engineer the fabric of our reality at the most fundamental level", have got enthusiasts very excited [41], [42], [43]. No analysis or critique of claims, and lots of text cited only to technical papers and patent filings, which is usually a sign of WP:OR. Could use a review by someone familiar with the technology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I made a first cutting, but there's probably more that could be done. I have my doubts that Popular Mechanics is really all that stringent when it comes to fringe claims. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
What to do with skeptics that have been "skepticed"
I'm particularly talking about Mick West, who seems to be an expert on anything and is easily quoted on every fringe/paranormal article. For example in the Pentagon UFO videos article, he offers an explanation of the objects being birds, despite the instrumental showing dark for hot/white for cold, meaning the birds would be colder than the water . I'm well aware due to WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT we shouldn't give paranormal subjects undue weight, but how easily should skeptic voices be introduced in an article? This guy's explinations are often so basic. In the case of the famous GIMBAL video, in an article on VICE he's quoted as "He believes GIMBAL to be a plane as well, lit by the infrared flare of the engine and locked in place by a trick of the gimbal mounted camera viewing it." (basically saying due to rotation of the camera, what pilots are seeing are the flare effect of the exhaust of a plane). I'm finding it really hard to believe the two pilots would react that way as if they never saw this effect before (or they're maliciously acting), and the Pentagon would say these are "unidentified aerial phenomena" (whatever that means), just because, and this guy just knows, despite not being an expert in aviation (his Wiki article doesn't even list any education). What I'm getting at is, should any claim made by any skeptic be included, just because they're a skeptic? Loganmac (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:PARITY is relevant. In the case of the Pentagon UFO videos, the sources which say, "THESE VIDEOS ARE UFOS" are properly countervailed by skeptics because, well, no one else gives a damn. Excluding the skeptic opinion in these situations under the argument that the authors lack credentials would only make sense if the sources upon which they were commenting were written by credentialed experts. The education of Tom DeLonge is a proper basis of comparison. jps (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a blogger named "SkepticEd", and there are sentences that end with "skeptic" and sentences that start with "Ed.", as in "edited". Other than that, Google will not tell me what "skepticed" means. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
It was a dumb term I made up to mean when skeptics themselves get contradicted by other sources, specially when the skeptic isn't academically educated in the specific field.--Loganmac (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
We aren't required to include non-notable simple errors. If we have several very reliable source saying someone was born in 1861, and one source says 1871, we don't need to include the incorrect one. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs04:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Apparently a healer, but I can only find evidence that he's a musician. I believe this is a case of fringe theories because it seems the only reason we're calling him a healer is because he plays music at 432 Hz. Would appreciate a second pair of eyes from someone more knowledgeable and with more time. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!15:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I can have both. I didn't say there's absolutely irrefutable evidence that proves it is true and I didn't say there's no evidence whatsoever that it's true. That is a black and white fallacy. There's evidence but it is up for debate, and scholars are currently debating it.Editshmedt (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Here is a 2020 paper concluding in favour of the United Monarchy published in an issue of the Bulletin for the American Schools of Oriental Research. I understand it is easy for amateurs to make these errors, but I advise that you consult the literature before making black and white statements that appear to conform to a priori belief systems.Editshmedt (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The article you cite "Between the Highland Polity and Philistia: The United Monarchy and the Resettlement of the Shephelah in the Iron Age IIA, with a Special Focus on Tel ʿEton and Khirbet Qeiyafa" doesn't argue for the existence of a United Monarchy. It argues that a Judahite "polity" colonized the eastern Shephelah which is not the same thing. — [[User:ImTheIP (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)]]
Hey. I recommend you do not quote ImTheIP as he does not understand the literature, nor does it appear as if he has read the paper. The paper concludes "Slightly later, however, toward the middle of the 10th century B.C.E., the picture changed. The highland polity— apparently the biblical United Monarchy—was growing stronger, seemingly forming alliances with the Canaanite settlements of the Shephelah, and this enabled it to get a firmer foothold in this region."Editshmedt (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
As my former colleague, E. P. Sanders, an eminent professor of New Testament studies at nearby Duke University, used to say, “The burden of proof belongs with whoever is making a claim.” That is, if Price wants to argue that Jesus did not exist, then he bears the burden of proof for his argument. If I want to argue that he did exist, then I do. Fair enough.
— Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.
I have searched Faust 2020 for the word United and lo and behold, its only substantive use is a rather unwarranted mention on p. 115, with no rationale for why it were the United Monarchy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
So you skipped the whole body of the paper and are surprised you didn't find a rationale? Comical. This isn't worth addressing. Since the paper concludes in favour of the United Monarchy, it's not fringe. Here's another paper, a 2018 paper from the journal Radiocarbon by Faust and Sapir, arguing in favour of the United Monarchy. Here's a 2010 paper] by Amihai Mazar in favour of the United Monarchy.Editshmedt (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not your mom, read the paper. I've now noted three papers in favour of the United Monarchy. In addition, this systematic review from 2016 says that the whole field is actually roughly divided between scholars who do and do not accept the United Monarchy, the former represented by Amihai Mazar, the latter being represented by Israel Finkelstein. It also notes that Baruch Halpern, another archaeologist, is in favour of the United Monarchy.Editshmedt (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
So... he has no smoking gun? Guessed so! It was after all a discussion about evidence, not about guessiology. I wasn't interested in how many accept it and how many reject it, but whether objective evidence for it exists or not. It's like asking an Anthroposophist the simple question: is Rudolf Steiner's terrible force of destruction the nuclear force? If they answer by yes or no, they will be excommunicated. If you're a Waldorf school teacher and answer it simply, it might be the end of your career. Answering such question in plain speak would be their gravest mistake. It's like in that book by Thomas Szasz wherein speaking plainly was mankind's second sin. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Tgeorg, it’s hard to enjoy debunking you after I’ve been doing it for so long. After being shown three papers that provide plenty of evidence, you conclude there’s no evidence because I’m not going to waste my time walking you through the papers like a toddler when you could read them yourself. I also find it frightening how badly you misunderstand the way archaeology works. Archaeology isn’t based off of “smoking guns” but instead dozens of reports published across a variety of sites over several decades in order to draw conclusions. And that’s exactly what the 2020 paper in BASOR offers. But I’m sure all these professional archaeologists are completely deluded and would be stumped if they just had the privilege to talking with the brilliant Tgeorg who has refuted decades of their work by ... not reading it.Editshmedt (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
This is what you stated:
I think you're finally starting to get it. It is impossible for Finkelstein to convince every scholar in three years. Which means Herzog made it up. Once you become a big boy, you'll learn that academics aren't perfect representatives of pure honesty and are actually kind of polemical. The fact that out of literally hundreds of reports published in the last 20 years, all you have is a 1999 media article by one of Finkelstein's colleagues to suggest that there's a majority, is comical. As I noted earlier, you are ignorant of the literature. This is further confirmed by the fact that you're now citing YouTube videos.Editshmedt (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
So there are only two possibilities left: either Herzog lied through his teeth, or you lie through your teeth. The mentioned YouTube video is this:
Quoting myself. So, basically, the claim that Finkelstein's camp is two to three times bigger than Dever's would be unreliable because Finkelstein has stated it on YouTube.
in order to set the record straight I am presenting two lists of scholars who came out in print in favor or against my system half Mazar on both sides looking can you explain this looking looking at the dream team on my side I can looking at the dream team on my side which includes half Mazar I can only hope to always be able to stand similarly alone and one more very meaningful note on this issue all the factions are from right to left all the factions are from right to left incidentally Dever himself has recently started his long cold voyage of defection in fact with Mazar halfway down and Dever defecting that additional chronology has gone down
Already responded to all of this on the talk page. Dever has said in print that Finkelstein is in the minority, Finkelstein has said in print that he is in the minority in response to Dever, Faust & Hatz (2014) said that Herzog’s chronology is vastly out of the mainstream (==fringe), and the response to Herzog in the same Magazine in the same year said he’s in the minority. You also don’t address a word of my last response. No point talking to someone who changes the topic every time they get straightly refuted and/or wilfully refuses to address counterargument.Editshmedt (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, the reply to Herzog states that minimalists are a minority; Dever (discussing Finkelstein) stated in print that the minimalists are a minority; both these claims are wrong, since minimalists essentially won their dispute against maximalists. Shanks's idea that minimalists would be anti-Israel and antisemitic has been proven bunk.
Can you find me a source that unequivocally states that David ruled over the entirety of Samaria? If you can'ta, then I don't think you have a leg to stand on. ImTheIP (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I don’t know enough about the subject to resolve your dispute, but it would be helpful if you both took a break from arguing with each other, and gave others a chance to look into it. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
No worries, this discussion can be closed since I demonstrated that it isn’t fringe and I sufficiently answered Tgeorg. Despite the fact that the literature at length places Finkelstein in the minority, Tgeorg now thinks he’s in the majority because of his misunderstanding of minimalism/maximalism. Tgeorg thinks that the maximalists losing is the same as the minimalists winning, which is a black and white fallacy. In reality, the maximaliets lost and the minimalists are in the minority, and thus Finkelstein is in the minority. The majority position is scholars who have an inbetween position. I kindly ask someone else to read the 2020 BASOR paper because I am tired and do not feel like correcting yet another error that Tgeorg made, something about table 1 being incompatible with a united monarchy (???).Editshmedt (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this dispute belongs on this page - perhaps take it to some dispute resolution forum. Editshmedt, the BASOR paper doesn't seem to be interested in the United Kingdom of Israel - it's not mentioned in the abstract.Achar Sva
According to the current version of the article, Intelligent design is opposed by "many in the scientific community". That is certainly true: "everybody except a few religious fanatics" is indeed "many", but that word is a very bad way of putting it. I cited several relevant "WP:" pages, but was reverted anyway. This looks to me like a case of WP:IDHT on the part of User:Supt. of Printing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Some of the “Career and research” section looks a bit fringey to me, specifically “He came to see cancer as being ultimately an electronic problem at the molecular level”, and the following sentence. There’s no reference (there was one attached to the second sentence but it was to a web page sourced to the Wikipedia article) so I’m not sure what the context for these is. Perhaps someone who knows more than I do about the subject matter could have a look? The “Statement on scientific discovery“ section might also be of interest to people here. Brunton (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of this story. In 1978, Outside magazine reported that during the 1960s the CIA secretly placed plutonium-powered surveillance devices on the top Nanda Devi [7,816 m (25,643 ft)] and Nanda Kot [6,861 m (22,510 ft)] without the knowledge of the Indian government. One device was apparently lost over the mountainside during a storm and the other was reportedly disassembled. There are plenty of allegations published about this, but the only government documentation I can find referencing it is a copy of the article and a letter asking the CIA to investigate the report: [44]. Per one mountaineering article: "The CIA planned to intercept radio telemetry signals between the Chinese missiles and ground control. A transceiver, powered by a plutonium battery pack, would beam information to a CIA listening station, where data analysis would reveal the range, speed and payload of the Chinese missile. Reflecting the era’s unbridled enthusiasm for atomic power, the transceiver was powered by a System for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP) turning radioactive heat into electricity. The Nanda Devi SNAP, designated Model “19C,” hid seven plutonium rods totaling 1,900 grams of alloyed plutonium—Pu-238 (half-life of 87 years) and Pu-239 (half-life of 24,400 years). The unit, expected to run the four-part Nanda Devi sensor for two years, was a round microwave oven-sized metal bin with five radiating fins. Towering above was a six-foot long antenna."[45]
This is well beyond my area of expertise. Is it even possibly to carry the parts and build a mini-nuclear reactor on top of a mountain like this? Thanks! - Location (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you need a reactor as such, I think the principle would be more like smoke alarms and those always-on emergency lights: the heat produced by the unstable material decaying is what powers the device, rather than electricity from a proper nuclear fission reactor. Just a guess. GPinkerton (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
An atomic battery is not actually a "mini-reactor". They can be quite portable. Some were even small enough to be implanted to power pacemakers. If I'm doing the math right, the ones you describe would only have about ten times the fuel compared to the kind they implanted in heart patients. So the technology claim isn't too outlandish. ApLundell (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
My problem is with the source, not the science. A book written by a mountaineer and someone from the Heritage Foundation isn't a great source. O3000 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I invite other editors to read and participate at the relevant talk page(s), but like the previous thread this is not going anywhere at the moment. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tgeorgescu (talk·contribs) claims in this talk page here that the word "United Monarchy" (see Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)) may not include the northern Kingdom of Israel (otherwise just generally called 'Samaria'). However, the definition of the word "United Monarchy", as universal in scholarship, in addition to the linked Wikipedia page (copious with reliable sources), is "the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah united under one monarch". Consequently, this is fringe. It is on this basis that he denies the dozens of reliable sources affirming the United Monarchy in scholarship, simply by dismissing them all because they don't use the word "Samaria".Editshmedt (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Wdford and ImTheIP literally never said "United Monarchy can be defined without the Kingdom of Israel". Both of them have abandoned the discussion long ago, as they are unwilling to support your WP:FRINGE propositions. William Dever outright defines the 'united monarchy' here: "The best evidence for the extension of Judahite rule into the north in the tenth century (the biblical notion of a united monarchy) is probably the four-entryway gates and casemate city walls at Hazor and Megiddo, which all agree are nearly identical to the same constructions in Gezer VIII." (Dever, Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah, SBL Press, 2017, pg. 349). So Dever defines a "united monarchy" as Judahite state ruling the north. This is fringe.Editshmedt (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Another sweep of errors and misrepresentations. Please stop trying, this conversation is over. Finkelstein's position relies on discredited assumptions, not doubt, no matter how hard you want it to be otherwise.Editshmedt (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I.e. their POV is that Israel Finkelstein is WP:FRINGE. As I told them, the claim Finkelstein is fringe loses the game by default.
Their argument: Dever said something about Finkelstein, and what Dever says is WP:THETRUTH. While the reality is that both gentlemen cannot be trusted to speak truthfully of each other, due to a long-standing feud. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Only wishful thinking will read what I said above as saying that Finkelstein is fringe. Tgeorg's additional theory that two scholars writing responses to each other makes them liars against each others positions is just wishful thinking and yet another fringe opinion.Editshmedt (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Finkelstein & Silberman defining "United Monarchy" as composed of Israel and Judah: "His program was to expand to the north of Judah, to the territories where Israelites were still living a century after the fall of the kingdom of Israel, and to realize the dream of a glorious united monarchy: a large and powerful state of all Israelites worshiping one God in one Temple in one capitalJerusalem --and ruled by one king of Davidic lineage." (Bible Unearthed, pp. 69-70). "So Josiah embarked on establishing a united monarchy that would link Judah with the territories of the former northern kingdom through the royal institutions, military forces, and single-minded devotion to Jerusalem that are so central to the biblical narrative of David" (Bible Unearthed, pg. 144). In the following quote, Finkelstein & Silberman say that the United Monarchy ceases to exist when Judah and Israel are no longer politically united: "The northerners then gathered tp proclaim for themselves a monarch and chose Jeroboam, son of Nebat, who had served in the court of Solomon. The united monarchy of David and Solomon was completely shattered. Two independent states were created: Judah, which was ruled by the Davidic dynasty from Jerusalem, with its territory limited to the southern part of the central hill country; and Israel, which controlled vast territories in the north" (pg. 151). This is WP:FRINGE.Editshmedt (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
You have convinced no other editors of anything you've said. Your only relevant edit on the page, a removal of my 1,000 character edit, was reverted on the basis that it misrepresented Wiki policy (i.e. WP:FRANKKIE). None of these excuses excuse the fact that your opinion is WP:FRINGE, as I have shown from the literature.Editshmedt (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Your line is Dever c.s. stomped over Finkelstein c.s. because... so say Dever c.s. I can assure you that such victory exists only in Dever's imagination. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
May I suggest that you both take a short break, and stop arguing with each other... it is obvious that neither of you will convince the other. Give others a chance to read what has been written, and form an opinion. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been wanting something similar for a while. Tgeorg now hates Dever, apparently, for refuting Finkelstein in a way that has convinced other scholars.Editshmedt (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Complex adaptive systems and "Universal Darwinism"
The subject itself is subject to some rather fuzzy argumentation. The first sentence on the complex adaptive systems page was sourced to a working paper, so I removed that. Also, none of the text supports the claim that this is "universal Darwinism" so I removed the subheading. jps (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
If I understand the editor is trying to push a humanist view of the history of language development. It's not my field and without doing some research I can't immediately assess how mainstream it is. However, it appears unrealistic for the evolution of language to not also have been related to biology or evolutionary psychology, at least earlier stages (compare our abilities and symbolic reasoning to the communication of other animals)... —PaleoNeonate – 15:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
No, these are no fringe theories. It is quite correct, and the sources are legitimate. I haven't had a look at the Charles Darwin article yet, but it will have to be historically correct. The nature versus nurture debate is very real, and a very important point in evolutionary theory, whether in humanities or in biology. What I can do is add a footnote everywhere necessary. This is only to improve Wikipedia and yes, someone with expertise on the issue will be needed. As regards anti-Darwinism, take a look a this paper. Calling Western philosophical tradition a fringe theory is not the best start. As regards the CAS page, is the problem now again that the main editor has an economic interest in the matter? The changes were fully agreed upon beforehand. Weidorje (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this. When I see the word "Darwinism" I immediately think "Creationist" although you've shown no sign at all of being one. My second thoughts are always that "Darwinism" and "theory of evolution" aren't identical. It's a much more limited term at least in my experience. Doug Wellertalk 17:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC) @Weidorje:Doug Wellertalk17:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the rest, but the revert at objections to evolution was absolutely right. I agree with PaleoNeonate that the editor appears to be "trying to push a humanist view" of language development and that this is one-sided. That material, for one thing, was being given seriously WP:UNDUE prominence - the nature-nurture debate regarding humans is hardly an objection to evolution as a whole, so it in fact may be WP:SYNTH. We can see the POV in such wording as "fierce criticism", "profoundly contested", and "pointing out". Regarding the line "Social Darwinism was banished from the humanities at the end of World War II, but has more recently returned to challenge the humanistic paradigm.", if the source is really equating Social Darwinism with modern cultural evolution theories (which have nothing do with the 19th century theories by that name), or even with evolutionary psychology, then it is WP:UNDUE or fringe. Even if the editor is not a creationist, if they are pushing a "only humanities scholars are correct" POV, in contradiction to the vast scientific literature on human biology and culture, that is not going to fly. Crossroads-talk-23:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
It cannot be, considering the (unfortunate) study of language deprivation cases and what we know from neurology. Some brain structures and the related infant brain development (in stages related to high level abilities) are relevant. It's indeed commonly agreed that the demarcation between what is innate (or potential) and what is acquired through learning is a challenge to establish, but also that both are important, and that part of the learning must happen early enough during development... —PaleoNeonate – 08:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
We need to note here - who's got a pen and paper? - that people are arguing against my edits because of their own persuasion. I've answered User:Crossroads's request here. As you see, my edits are legit. However, what I've read here so far is:
"Naturally, the editor has showed up to Steven Pinker to argue that language is all nurture. [33] We're definitely going to have to keep an eye out for that sort of thing." —OUCH! I didn't argue anything like that. I only made an update concerning the evidentiality of Pinker's theory.
" the editor appears to be "trying to push a humanist view" of language development and that this is one-sided." —Who's being one-sided? The reader is interested to know whether Pinker's theory has any support in research, and how it's currently viewed by professionals. I'm a skeptic, that's all. Weidorje (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I think your stridency comes across a bit like agenda-editing, Weidorje. In our last conversation some months back about CAS we were able to come to a decent compromise by accommodating a more ground-up approach to your interests in content inclusion. While I cannot speak for User:Snowded, I think your contribution to the CAS article was fine for the most part, but it strayed a bit into WP:OR and perhaps even WP:UNDUE territory. jps (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure, nobody's perfect. The current structure and wording seem fine to me. The evolutionary view is overwhelming in WP, so it's a good thing we also have an expert on humanities research. The evolutionists are over-zealous with getting their opinion through due to their disputes with creationists. This leads one to an illusion of being an overall defender of truth. Now the balance needs to be pushed a little towards a neutral position where evolutionary arguments are valid IFF they're based on hard evidence. Otherwise they're just opinions among others. jps and everyone, please make sure you've seen this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Language_Instinct#Reception,_rejectionWeidorje (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
So, this seems a bit like WP:RGW here. I'm completely unclear what you mean by "evolutionary view" or "evolutionists". In general, evopsych, for example, is a marginalized and criticized perspective on human behavior, but it is not an "evolutionary view" inasmuch as most experts in evolution (biologists) identify it as motivated claptrap. jps (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I am likewise puzzled by what "evolutionary view" and "evolutionists" are meant to mean here. Plenty of people who understand biological evolution deeply will call evopsych anything from unsubstantiated to pseudoscientific. Likewise, biologists like Mayr and Lewontin have criticized the idea that there are "memes" analogous to genes [52][53]. Just because somebody somewhere made a metaphor that competition between businesses was "Darwinian" doesn't mean that there is a single, unified "evolutionary view" of finance.
Moreover, the notion of a supposed "evolutionary view" held by "evolutionists" seems tangential to the question of whether this edit to Steven Pinker was a good one. One can be an evolutionary biologist and also think that Pinker's particular hypotheses about language lack empirical support. (My experience of biologists is that they tend to get miffed when somebody insists that a hypothesis must be true simply because it is based on evolution. After all, the job of biology research is to decide between competing hypotheses, all of which are grounded in evolution.) The sources in the edit look reliable and the brief text seems to be an accurate summary, so the only question would be whether including it there is due weight. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Addendum: it's worth noting that the brief material added to Steven Pinker wasn't about completely spurning the "nature" side of the whole "nature/nurture" deal. Pullum and Scholz (2002), for example, points out that humans can do human language while frogs can't, so obviously biology comes into it at some level — a point so plain they call it a "platitude". Their beef is much more specific. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
To be very clear, Weidorje, we don't edit on the basis of what we personally think to be the WP:TRUTH. WP:NPOV requires that viewpoints be presented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. When it comes to nature/nurture, there is almost always disagreement among experts, so starting with an approach of "this side is correct" is agenda editing. Even when it comes to academic publishers, some positions are fringe if they are held by exceedingly few of the relevant experts. Here you say, "there has to be room somewhere else for the other type of anti-Darwinism and anti-evolutionism." That deeply concerns me regarding WP:DUE. Evolution as a whole, not speaking of the debates about how it applies to humans, is well-established. Some in the humanities argue that all of science (not just evolution) is deeply suspect. [54] "Anti-evolutionism" is fringe and no scientist takes it even remotely seriously; most humanities scholars also reasonably do not deny science. When it comes to how to apply evolution to humans, there is a lot more debate, but editing non-neutrally in such a way to suggest "nurture-only" is not in accord with science.Regarding how evolution applies to human behavior, this book provides an excellent overview of the different schools of thought. Generally, evolutionary psychology falls under "Alternative theoretical formulations" on the spectrum described at WP:FRINGE (although on some topics there isn't a single mainstream perspective to compare it to; we just have to give the various POVs). More evidence that it is not fringe is its inclusion in psychology textbooks, [55] this book [56] receiving an award from the American Sociological Association (!), and that it is taken seriously by universities and journals (e.g. [57]). Indeed, by far the strongest evidence that it is not fringe is its presence in academia and its publishers and the fact that researchers in many fields engage with it, as can be seen simply by checking Google Scholar. That said, to be clear, its approach is disputed and I myself am not a particular fan of it in many cases. Whether specifically Pinker and Chomsky's ideas are current or outdated or somewhere in between (as I suspect) regarding the development of language will have to be determined via an unbiased check of recent reviews and books.Every topic is going to be different in terms of the current state of the nature-nurture debate, and there is disagreement even between the evolutionary approaches (as the overview book I mentioned earlier shows). In many cases a nurture-only approach is fringe. In other cases, as with cultural evolution, the approach taken is both "nurture" and "evolutionary". What I've seen suggests to me that Weidorje is not at all familiar with the nuances I've tried to explain above and just wants to argue against "evolution", which they seem to use as a sort of catch-all. Competing perspectives have to be presented in accord with NPOV. I think we need to be clear and united that adding or updating with well-sourced perspectives (using recent reviews and books) to round out various topics if needed is fine so long as WP:DUE is followed, but cherry-picking sources and focusing on trying to disprove "evolutionism", however defined, is not going to be allowed. Crossroads-talk-21:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
See also my reply to Weidorje here where I question their angle on the sources. Also, I find it odd that the editor casts aspersions earlier in this discussion here by saying, "is the problem now again that the main editor has an economic interest in the matter?" Crossroads-talk-22:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
So, I've clearly upset the ants' nest. I'm getting questions I've already answered, and people are "agreeing" with each other with quite contradictory arguments. There's no point to continue this confused debate because it's become shouting over others. Two points you're wrong at. First, evolution as a concept is much older than you realise, and it's not Darwin's theory as such. As I said before, you're not being specific enough, but you're ignoring this vital point. I think the reason might be because you are actually pushing an ideological opinion, and there's support for my suspicion in your own comments. This is not what I expected. Second, please don't lecture me about the greatness of "evolution" – you're not winning any points by doing it. I'm still not one from the Flat earth society (hmm... how did evolution create sphericity of the earth btw?). All that matters is whether each term and claim in the encyclopedia is correct. Try to stay focused, ok? Weidorje (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, then let's keep things simple. So far we have three different contexts for your concerns: complex adaptive systems, Charles Darwin, and The Language Instinct. These are somewhat disparate topics, if you ask me, and it seems that you have established your own thread of "evolution" as what connects them. While, except in the case of Charles Darwin, I don't see these subjects as having much of anything to do with "evolutionary views". I note that many of the sources you are using in The Language Instinct and Complex Adaptive Systems do not reference "evolution" at all. What sources are you using to make these judgements and posit these connections? The concern I have here is that this is original research on your part. jps (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
No. I'm not against evolution, and I didn't claim the topics are necessarily related. It's just a matter of fanatics attacking my legitimate edits (or reasonable people getting too excited). You guys are telling me what my worldview is, but I told you I'm a skeptic, that's all. I think a lot of things are BS, but thatt's not exactly what I write. I'm going to write about objections to evolution/anti-Darwinism within science and the history thereof because it's a valid and interesting topic. I don't have a problem. You have a problem if you want to hide that topic. I'm not pushing any view, but politely asking you how to proceed as concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution. I write about it because I have some expertise on it. It's not ideological, just another topic, and it's not the same as my other edits, don't confuse them. E.g. what actually happened regarding the book Language Instinct was that the innatist approach of Pinker and Chomsky was replaced by a version of memetics (i.e. a more Darwinian approach). I'm saying it because it's what happened, that's all. I'm not arguing it was replaced by religion or post-structuralism. You're confused and wrong. I'm just making an update. I think some people who want to replace religion with science have adopted Darwin as their new Santa Claus. Thanks, but I'm not interested in having any part of the debate (I'll stand for science, but only up to a reasonable point, staying away from the unknown). Weidorje (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
A problem is that your objectives are not clear, just as were the edits at some of those articles. But since you mention things in relation to the general history of pre-Darwinian evolutionary thought and universal Darwinism, perhaps history of evolutionary thought and Universal Darwinism would be more relevant editing targets? Other than apparent original research or synthesis, a main issue with the objections to evolution edits was that the new material was not very related to the article that focuses on the history of objection to biological evolution... —PaleoNeonate – 13:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Rather than attack me for asking what is going on here, perhaps you can offer some clarifications of your "expertise" and "skepticism". Your argument that there are "some people" who are adopting Darwin as Santa is rather remarkable. I have yet to see a reliable source which indicates that any such person exists. Do you have one that shows that in those terms? jps (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I mean, when you say things like:
hmm... how did evolution create sphericity of the earth btw?
It becomes difficult to tell if you're being sarcastic or are just very, very confused. No one conflates the shape of Earth with evolution. That's comparing apples with airplanes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite19:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I should dearly ask them whether biology isn't actually a soft science. Studying blue tits and dung beetles does not seem so hard to me. Precious time and money should be spent on civilisation, education and the classics. More progress – less evolution. That is my motto. Weidorje (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Let us not forget string theory and alien life which never fail to interest the fringe audiences. Man is truly reaching for the stars with little accomplishment. But if we spent a mere 2 percent of the World's GDP on solving the great mysteries of the universe, we would be sending astronomers to outer space today. Weidorje (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I should dearly ask them whether biology isn't actually a soft science.
Yiiiiiiikes. Yeah, if you are uncertain that biology is a hard science, you really need to brush up on your science. You've apparently bought into the mindset that only your preferred science fields are worthy of study, which brings us right back to WP:RGW territory. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite20:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Satanic Pizzagate
Just saw something about evidence that US judges are being blackmailed due to videos (yes they have the evidence, so they do) of murdering and raping kids are being used to blackmail them to find against Donny.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
In the article exist this information: "According to the DAI, "baptized Serbia", known erroneously in historiography as Raška (Latin: Rascia), included the "inhabited cities" (kastra oikoumena) of Destinikon, Tzernabouskeï, Megyretous, Dresneïk, Lesnik and Salines, while the "small land" (chorion) of Bosna, part of Serbia, had the cities of Katera and Desnik. The other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija, and the "land" of Duklja..
Bold information does not exist in DAI (De Administrando Imperio), also sources which say that "according to the DAI the other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included and Duklja" do not exist. Historian John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. in same source and page say that "Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja" also other sources speak about that, historian Predrag Komatina: ("The article discusses the issue of ethnic identity of the Diocletians referred to by the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in his work De administrando imperio. Of all the tribes of the southern part of the eastern Adriatic coast, only for them the emperor fails to point out that they belonged to the Serbs")[58] or historian Relja Novaković ("Constantine VII in DAI does not provide a sufficient basis for a reliable conclusion about the origin of the Slavic inhabitants of Duklja".). The conclusions made by these historians concern another article ie Duklja article.
It is not. There are opposite views on the matter (which is often the case) and we should respect RS and there is absolutely nothing "fringe" here. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)13:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I can now state with some certainty that the DAI says nothing like "Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities" about Diocleia/Duklja (or the others). The emperor Constantine VII has the following to say on the topic of Diocleia, as set down in the 2nd edition of the text prepared by Gyula Moravcsik and translated by Romilly Jenkins:
The emperor Diocletian was much enamoured of the country of Dalmatia, and so he brought folk with their families from Rome and settled them in this same country of Dalmatia, and they were called 'Romani', and this title attaches to them to this day. Now this emperor Diocletian founded the city of Spalato and built therein a a palace beyond the power of any tongue or pen to describe, and remains of its ancient luxury are still preserved to-day, though the long lapse of time has played havoc with them. Moreover, the city of Diocleia, now occupied by the Diocletians, was built by the same emperor Diocletian, for which reason those of that territory have come to be called by the name of 'Diocletians'. The territory possessed by these Romani used to extend as far as the river Danube, and once on a time ... (p. 123) [the emperor then describes the fabled early relations between the Avars and Romans] ... Since the reign of Heraclius, emperor of the Romans, as will be related in the narrative concerning the Croats and Serbs, the whole of Dalmatia and the nations about it, such as Croats, Serbs, Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians and Arentani, who are also called Pagani *** [a part of the text is missing here] But when the Roman empire, through the sloth and inexperience of those who then governed it and especially in the time of Michael from Amorion, the Lisper, had declined to the verge of total extinction, the inhabitants of the cities of Dalmatia became independent, subject neither to the emperor of the Romans nor to anybody else, and, what is more, the nations of those parts, the Croats and Serbs and Zachlumites, Terbuniotes and Kanalites and Diocletians and the Pagani, shook off the reigns of the empire of the Romans and became self-governing and independent, subject to none. Princes, as they say, these nations had none, but only 'zupans', elders, as is the rule in other Slavonic regions. Moreover, the majority of these Slavs were not even baptized. ... (p. 125) [the foundation and subsequent ruin of the city and palace of Splalatum is described. (p. 137)]
The country of Diocleia was also previously possessed by the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian translated from Rome, as has been said in the story about the Croats, and was under the emperor of the Romans. But this country also was enslaved by the Avars and made desolate, and repopulated in the time of Heraclius the emperor, just as were Croatia and Serbia and the country of the Zachlumi and Terbounia and the country of Kanali. Diocleia gets its name from the city in this country that the emperor Diocletian founded, but now it is a deserted city, though still called Diocleia. In the country of Diocleia are the large inhabited cities of Gradetai, Nougrade, Lontodokla. (pp. 163–165)
At no point does the 10th-century emperor suggest that Diocleia/Duklja was inhabited by Serbs or that the Diocletianoi were Serbs or Serbian. Since Croats and Serbs and "Diocletians" all appear as separate items in a list, there is no reason to suppose any of these groups was considered to be part of any other by the author of the text, who calls all of them "Slavs" and "Slavonic regions" collectively. If the Greek original is needed I can supply that too. Prima facie, Mikola22 is probably correct that this is a fringe view. GPinkerton (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
About that fringe theory that COVID-19 vaccines contain microchips with 5G technology designed to track our every movement
One or more True Believers have been editing this one this week. Complete with a badly photoshopped "uncensored" image of The Face. Worth putting on your watchlist, not because the vandalism is coming super fast, but because it's particularly embarrassing when it's allowed to stand. ApLundell (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Watchlisted. I like how the anon IP guy says, I am a NASA scientist who worked on the Mars Global Surveyor mission. And his uncle works for Nintendo! XOR'easter (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
See [60] by User:Bornetjbo. It was originally sourced to a right-wing anti-semitic publication The Social Crediter.[61]. I reverted and it was reinserted with new sources.[62], a New York Daily News article behind a pay wall, and a speech in the Congressional Records. Kent G. Budge reverted. Bornetjbo hasn't reinstated their edit but added this external link [63] which is an article ending with "Out of the disaster on Oahu a revisionist myth emerged that has been masquerading as "history" ever since. In its most extreme form it invites us to stand on our heads and look at everything upside down. It asks us to believe that on December 7, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt attacked Japan at Pearl Harbor. As we approach the fifty-fifth anniversary of that unforgettable Sunday, surely the time has come to lay this flagrant idea to rest." That seems ok. My sources script suggests that one of the ELs is unreliable, the one with something by Anthony Kubek.
Am I wrong or does the original edit include copyvio?
Most of the edit is a direct quote, identified as a direct quote, which should be O.K. The rest appears to be a loose paraphrase of the sources, which should also be O.K. Or would be if the sources were reliable, which they are not. With the exception, ironically, of the Butow historical essay, which does not actually say what the title suggests it says. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the sourcing for this article does need to be reviewed. Per the talk page for the article, are there reliable sources that discuss Richard Sorge in relation to this? - Location (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This has been a redirect to A Course in Miracles since 2012 but a new editor has copied mainly unsourced material from de.wiki - reverted once but reinstated it. Got to get back to watching the mini-insurrection in Washington now. Doug Wellertalk20:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes when you see an all-one-word-in-caps username, it's worth adding .com to the end to see where it goes.
Did Charles Tart somehow establish scientific proof of psychic powers? Could use review by someone familiar with statistical analysis. - LuckyLouie (talk)
@LuckyLouie: The guy who removed the Randi stuff from remote viewing does have a point of sorts. The WP:BURDEN is on the party who wants to include the information. And the same applies to that editor's addition to Charles Tart; the sources need examining for reliability. Nature is a good source but the editor may be misrepresenting it. That guy is clearly a new editor; I suggest treating this as an education opportunity and draw him into non-combative discussion on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
This finding wipes out probably at least half the testimonies against Remote Viewing listed here. I look forward to debunking the next goalpost provided. This doesn't suggest abundant receptivity... Anyway, I made a minor change to the wording of the Tart paragraph in question. It's still dependent on the editor's summary of Marks' findings and Tart's experiment being faithful though. JoelleJay (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually nope, the content being introduced to the Charles Tart page (a challenge to Marks' findings) appears wholly sourced to some remote viewing blog, so I removed it. JoelleJay (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Is a book by Con Coughlin a fringe source? I think yes, given the many debunked ideas he is trying to spread, including that torture works as a method of finding the truth and that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you referring to Coughlin, Con (2005). Saddam: His Rise and Fall. Harper Perennial. ISBN978-0060505431.? Looks to me like the book has been published by Harper Perennial, a HarperCollins imprint dedicated to Enduring classics, fiction and non-fiction reprints from Harper and a vibrant line of paperback originals including new voices, boundary-pushing works, contemporary fiction, and intelligent nonfiction, which has also published To Kill a Mockingbird, Brave New World, Their Eyes Were Watching God, A People’s History of the United States; Barbara Kingsolver, Ann Patchett, Louise Erdrich, and Michael Chabon; John Brockman, Chad Kultgen, Yannick Murphy, Willy Vlautin, and Blake Butler[1]. It has been cited by serious publications. Apparently also a New York Times bestseller. It's as good as it gets, really.--JBchrch (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a bit uncharitable to compare this book with Chariots of the Gods, but I see your point. Saucysalsa30 is not challenging the reliability of the source in general, though, he is challenging the coverage of a specific quote.--JBchrch (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC) EDIT: let me also add that WP:SOURCE considers that works published by "respected publishing houses" can be considered reliable. Cheers.--JBchrch (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The comparison may not be one-to-one but it demonstrates a clear point. Coughlin's book is riddled with a number refuted claims, conspiracy theories, old wives' tales, and the author's own embarrassing conjecture and fringe theory, aka crap. The particular quote/fringe theory in question is part of this. WP:SOURCE also states: "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There evidently is not fact checking done on this book (as evidenced by the inclusion of disproven political claims on high-profile matters like Iraqi involvement in 9/11), neither by the author nor the publisher, and pertinent to this discussion, not on Coughlin's off-hand statement. Further, neither Coughlin nor Harper have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This isn't a smear on Harper, as few if any publishers engage in or have the resources for fact-checking on big ticket items nevermind random offhand statements. It isn't the job of publishing houses anyways. That a book is published is an absolute minimal bar not an end-be-all, and does not mean that all or even any of the content within is accurate or substantiated and gives authors lots of freedom to add their own bizarre and unique personal touches. The particular content in question is a prime example of this. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hob Gadling Yes, you are correct, the source as a whole is a mix of fringe theory and common/substantiated info, but rather the question should be focused on if the specific content being used is a fringe theory. Coughlin claims that this (still to this day unproven to exist) pamphlet that calls people dirt directed Iraqi policymaking, which is very exceptional. This claim is entirely unique to Coughlin and he does nothing to substantiate it. No other work has ever claimed this very exceptional statement, rather pointing to a complex set of political, social, religious, diplomatic, and other reasons for Iraqi policy making. I provided a more detailed response in the linked Talk page, but essentially a unique and unsubstantiated conjecture by the author himself that precisely fits the definition of a fringe theory ("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.") and violates various WP:RS and WP:FTN policy such as REDFLAG, CONTEXTMATTERS is shockingly poor-quality content to include. It's not even a fringe theory with any fans or backers or academic experts either (such as Flat Earth "theory"), purely Coughlin's offhand conjecture.
Basically, the point is the question should be regarding Coughlin's claim being a fringe theory, rather than the book as a whole which is a different matter altogether. It appears from their response, JBchrch may have been thrown off by this wording and may have been thinking you were asking if the book fits generic 'reliability' criteria. Thanks. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Saucysalsa30. I have read your post here and your post over at Talk:Ba'athism. While I do respect your knowledge and analysis, my opinion is that the book by Con Coughlin qualifies as a reliable source. Accordingly, if we want to delete the quote about Three Whom God Should Not Have Created being analogous to Mein Kampf, or or add a contradictory statement, we need another reliable source to do so. I do not agree that the policies you mention are ground enough, and I think your debunking of Con Coughlin's book on its own is original research. If you disagree, I think the guys and gals over at WP:NORN would be happy to weigh in. I propose to move the discussion over there if you agree.--JBchrch (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks JBchrch, but it's clear we're speaking on two different things. You're speaking on if Coughlin's book fits generic reliability criteria as a book, which almost every book does as there's practically no bar and which no one is arguing. But that's not what we're discussing. What the discussion is actually about is regarding the specific claim. As demonstrated on the Talk page, it is an original and unique fringe theory that somehow an alleged pamphlet calling people dirt dictated Iraqi policymaking with no substantiation or backing and contradicts all other research, academia, documents, facts, etc and the only person to ever make it is Coughlin in that book. There is no original research at hand (unless we mean Coughlin's unique and original one-liner). I also did provide reliable sourcing to refute the advocacy of including said fringe theory, which completely invalidates this accusation of original research. It was also demonstrated how it violates WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. For example, I provided a highly-acclaimed book on the war that goes into excruciating detail of Iraqi policymaking which contains no mention of the alleged pamphlet, nevermind having any effect on Iraqi policymaking. Further, the very idea that a random person calling people dirt somehow dictate's a whole government's and nation's policymaking is an absurd thing claim in the first place, and as already demonstrated, has no substantiation or anything to back it up as expected.
To clarify, no one is debunking Coughlin's book as a whole, but rather an egregious personal conjecture statement being included in a Wiki article that accounts to exceptional fringe theory. There is no original research involved either, as already demonstrated. While it's unfortunate Hob Gadling misworded their question, you're still addressing a different matter and are jumping to a conclusion that has been refuted. Can you explain why you think that someone's personal one-liner fringe conspiracy theory with no explanation or substantiation and violates various Wikipedia policies is good to include, but when it is contradicted by all other available works on the matter of Iraqi policymaking and foreign policy and wars this is now alleged to be original research? If this question cannot be answered, then we can pen this down as a misunderstanding of the situation and relevant criteria.
Another thing to bear in mind is this had already been discussed at length on the Talk page of a now-deleted article covering all these bases, by users at least tangentially familiar with the topics at hand, including Hob Gadling. Furthermore, it's just one of a few issues over at the Talk page being discussed, not the only one. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Could you please stop pinging me? It is annoying. I read everything on this page anyway, and in addition to my watchlist, I regularly follow the pages I have edited recently. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, the article has a "Transgender portrayal" section at the end. The section does not exhaust all sources that discuss the trans coverage mentioned in reliable sources. (There are additional links on the talk page.) This subtopic has been contentious in the past few years, including the past couple of days. The section has been blanked with the argument that the content is WP:FRINGE, which is not the first time this has been cited. Can editors who are familiar with WP:FRINGE comment here about whether or not it is applicable to this section, whether in part or in whole? Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)14:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I can see no way that WP:FRINGE would be applicable to that section. Discussing how a film or a novel's portrayal of a minority group fares in retrospect is not a fringe topic. For comparison, consider the Disney film Song of the South (1946). This movie was controversial from its release onward, and there is now a difference of opinion between Disney management who want to bury it as an embarrassment and others who think it has educational value as a time capsule of racism. None of that is WP:FRINGE. The assertion that the decision will be made by thawing out the cryogenically frozen head of Walt Disney, that would be WP:FRINGE. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and it looks like the IP editor who keeps blanking the section has violated 3RR, but I lack the coffee to file a report. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Technically, WP:FRINGE does not just cover pseudoscience. It's entirely possible for there to be reliable, but fringe film critics.
Using WP:FRINGE in this context strikes me as being completely asinine. It would be fringe if, for example, a critic claimed that transgender people had magic powers or something. But in this context it is simply film criticism and I see no basis for claiming that the cited criticism is an abrogation of WP:MAINSTREAM criticism, for example. jps (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It would probably help if the Ace Ventura article first established (with sources) that people actually consider the character in question to BE “trans” (as opposed to being a male who underwent surgery in an overly-elaborate scheme to hide his identity). I’m not saying the viewpoint that this character is/isn’t trans is correct, I am just saying that this viewpoint isn’t properly established in the article. It is merely presented as a given. The point being ... once it is established that there are those who consider the character to be Trans, then the criticism of the movie for being trans-phobic has more context. Blueboar (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This is splitting hairs that aren't even there. The definition of transgender is simply someone whose gender expression is different from that which was assigned at birth. There is no exception made for people who do this as part of overly-elaborate schemes. jps (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Did the character actually express a gender? (I honestly don’t know, while this thread got me to read the WP article, I have not seen the movie). Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
For that matter, a character doesn't have to be trans in order for jokes at their expense to be transphobic, just like a straight character can get "mistaken for gay" for a comedy bit that relies upon homophobic stereotypes. XOR'easter (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
That’s true... but I still think the section would be better if it first established the context behind the accusations. Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
A primer on transphobia might be useful, but this section is really just referencing media criticism and it's probably not necessary to go into significant detail on the page about the movie. jps (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up question: How would you apply WP:UNDUE to the matter? Is a section with three paragraphs too little, sufficient, or too much? For what it is worth, it is possible to write even more from additional sources (not to mention having more of a context-establishing primer). In addition, I had expanded other parts of the article so the film has coverage in general, but it does not have too much more. Another consideration is to have a spin-off article at Lois Einhorn (to discuss the character and the transphobic reaction), with the main article having a one-paragraph summary section. Thoughts? Pinging those involved so far: XOR'easter, ApLundell, ජපස, Blueboar. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)17:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
QAnon supporters apparently don't like being called out on this page. Maybe I could get a couple others to put this on their watchlists, or should I request WP:PP? Thanks! - Location (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Since the disruption persists since early December (and even before IRT "alleged"), and that it recently is daily by IP hoppers, a semi-protection request is likely to be granted. —PaleoNeonate – 00:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
JP Sears, AwakenWithJP, and promotion of conspiracy theories
Some of you may recall YouTuber JP Sears from viral videos about gluten intolerance, spirituality, and so on. Nowadays Sears uses his platform to push conspiracy theories related to, among other things, Covid-19, as outlined in this November 2020 article from McGill University science communicator Jonathan Jarry:
Jarry, Jonathan. 2020. "The Clown Prince of Wellness". McGill University, Office of Science and Society. November 19, 2020. Online. Last accessed January 12, 2021.
None of this is mentioned on his English Wikipedia entry, which read like a promotional piece until I edited it today. I'll go ahead and add this, but this could use more eyes and sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
See my remarks on the article's talk page. One of the citations directly contradicts the claim I deleted; the other fails to sustain it.
What I deleted was therefore a short uncited claim - although it purported to be supported by references. (Initially I also deleted the references, failing to note that they applied also to earlier claims).
Alexbrn has repeatedly restored the text in question, without fixing the conflict between the text and its reference (adding a new citation that doesn't help, but makes the task of responding more onerous).
I would welcome any action that would resolve the conflict between the text and the citations; either fix the text, or find citations that support the claim. The claim itself is controversial, and absolutely needs citations that would enable a user to verify it. Removal of uncited text is encouraged on Wikipedia. I would argue that this is even more important when the text is cited, but the citations do not support the text (because that is misleading - adding citations implies that the citations support the text).
But the claim is not "controversial" (unless you want to balance antivaxxers against scientists). It's antivax misinformation, which you are reflecting with your personal views about "rushed" trials etc. From the sources:
Gorski: "ADE has been observed in animal models of coronavirus vaccines in the past, for example, against SARS, but thus far not observed in humans in trials of vaccines directed against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 ... Given the number of subjects thus far vaccinated, if ADE were a problem we’d expect to have seen it by now."[1]
Teoh: "CLAIM: COVID-19 vaccines will cause more severe disease through antibody-dependent enhancement. VERDICT: Unsupported."[2]
These sources verify the text that " Anti-vaccination activists cite ADE as a reason to avoid vaccination against COVID-19, but such claims are not supported by evidence", which you removed[69]. There is no evidence of ADE from the COVID vaccines so the claims of the anti-vaxxers that they "will cause more severe disease" are bogus. Wikipedia needs to be clear about that per WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I tried to help here. I suspect this conflict may be more over a difference of style than of substance, but I've been wrong about such things in the past. jps (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I have not seen these claims of the anti-vaxxers that they "will cause more severe disease". Since you are synthesising an utterance not found in your sources, we need to see these anti-vaxxer claims in context, to determine whether those sources criticise ani-vaxxers in the same way that you do. Absence of evidence, at such an early stage, is not evidence of absence.
Not only anti-vaxxers, but "reasonable" people, have concerns about ADE and COVID vaccines, according to your source. To imply that these concerns are specific to a fringe community is a distortion.
Regarding NPOV: adopting a sceptical posture can be as much a violation of NPOV as its converse. This is why it's necessary to cite, and why it's bad form to insert an utterance in the page that is neither a quote nor a paraphrase of anything in the cited references.
Regarding differences of style: you could say, I suppose, that it is the "style" of the material that I object to. But Alexbrn seems to be particularly keen to include references to "anti-vaccination activists" that do not appear in his sources. To my mind, that is using WP as a platform for a polemic. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Since you are synthesising an utterance not found in your sources <- If you look at the source,[70] this is in fact a verbatim quotation ("CLAIM - COVID-19 vaccines will cause more severe disease through antibody-dependent enhancement"). The needle on my AGF-o-meter is beginning to twitch.
As to the (what you term) "reasonable" people raising this concern, in the Gorski piece they are Wolfgang Wodarg and M Yeadon. Of Wodarg Gorski says "COVID-19 is not his first rodeo when it comes to bad science and denying severity of a pandemic" and of Yeadon "If you don’t believe that Yeadon is a COVID-19 denialist and conspiracy theorist, a quick perusal of his Twitter feed will disabuse you of that notion". Gorski concludes "Same as it ever was. Cranks gonna crank, and quacks gonna quack". So maybe you'd be happier if we replaced "anti-vaccination acitivists" with some combinations of "cranks, quacks, conspiracy theorists and COVID-deniers". Oh, and inevitably, Joseph Mercola is aboard the ADE "concerns" train too. Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I would not be happier if you made that replacement, because obviously it's even screechier. If I find screechy utterances on WP, that causes me to think the responsible editor may have allowed his feelings to get the better of him. If nobody has questioned the screechy utterance on the talk page, that causes me to doubt the reliability of the article.
Yes, it's clear that the citations were taken from an ultra-sceptical journal. I would be more inclined to trust debunking work, if it's done by someone who isn't a professional debunker.
The fact that someone's concerns are shared by various kooks, doesn't make that someone also a kook. That is fallacious reasoning.
That "replacement" talk was very obviously not a serious suggestion. Its point was that we are here toning down the actual reliable sources. Removing what they say altogether would be unreasonable.
I find the demand someone who isn't a professional debunker especially amusing. Usually, we frown on quoting amateurs, not on quoting professionals. SBM is written by medical professionals pointing out what the evidence says, and only people who disagree with their pro-science stance would call it an "ultra-sceptical journal". Surprise: Wikipedia also has a pro-science stance. Did anybody already point you to WP:FRINGE? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I didn't demand that; but carry on, chortle away.
I'm familiar with WP:FRINGE. I did not "just get off the boat" - I've been editing WP for 15 years. BTW, did anybody already point you to WP:CIVIL?
I am a "scientist", in the sense that I favour scientific methods and explanations. But that doesn't cloud my eyes to the fact that scientists (people whose job is science) can be just as obsessive, narrow-minded and plain kooky as anyone else. A journal that only publishes debunking articles is one with an axe to grind. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL, eh? Never heard of that one. Must be new.
A journal that only publishes debunking articles is one with an axe to grind And it is exactly the same axe that is ground by WP:FRINGE. Does that mean that, although know of WP:FRINGE, you disagree with it? If no, I don't know why you have a problem with SBM. If yes, well, a guideline is stronger than you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm taking this noticeboard off my watchlist; for me, this discussion is over. Please mention me if you contribute to the discussion, and I'll come along and see what you said.
I do not agree that the article is implying that the only possible way to have a concern about COVID-19 vaccines and ADE is to be an antivaxxer. In fact, that article goes on at some length as to why and how ADE might occur in a variety of contexts. It just happens that it has not been observed in humans for COVID-19 vaccines. jps (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
(Indeed, in my understanding ADE was a huge concern because of previous ADE/vaccine problems, and is a reason why the vaccines have been designed the way they have, to target the spike protein. A "reasonable" person might have considered that, and seen that in the hundreds of thousands of people in trials, ADE has not been a problem. What we have here, in contrast, is the anti-vaxxers who have glommed onto ADE as a reason to avoid the vaccine, and amplified that message through social media. This is the point the sources are making). Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I removed two links to unreliable PROFRINGE sources, "The Truth About False Memories" which is anything but, and "Survivors Celebrate the End of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation", but the dissolution of the organization is still sourced to the Survivors article because I could not find a source for that which is not written by quacks (or their fans) celebrating the end of an enemy of their quackery.
Compact between US government and "Galactic Federation"
Revealed today not by some random quack, but the highly accomplished co-founder of the Israeli Space Program. I detail this breaking story here: Talk:Israel_Space_Agency#What_is_going_on_with_Chaim_Eshed?(!) (with a courtesy note here). I acknowledge that this post is a bit FORUMy, since as far as the project goes, there is nothing to really do at this time. Still, I just wanted to bring this unusual story to the attention of FTN regulars. Happy Saturday! El_C19:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, courtesy note already removed as FORUMy. I suppose that's fair enough. I've probably overstepped there... And here... Anyway, thanks again for indulging me. El_C19:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I can only say for now that it seems like a strategic time to sell conspiracy theory books, considering the current culture, radicalization and need to dismiss reality (and the claims in the post sound familiar). Page 35 of (Barkun, Michael (2003). A culture of conspiracy – Apocalyptic visions in contemporary America. University of California Press. ISBN0-520-23805-2.) hits the spot with the Dean quote... And well, let's wait for sources that'll appear if it gains some notability. If aliens read this: hello. —PaleoNeonate – 03:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Heh, for sure: ~alien wave~ Indeed, well said. I, too, find it noteworthy how Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy has never been more relevant. Anyway, certainly, a financial motive was my first instinct. But Eshed is 80-years-old now, and from my own cursory understanding of the Israeli book market, domestic sales of the book are unlikely to turn into a windfall for him. But I suppose the end goal could be to become a multimillionaire off of the international conspiracy circuit, like say, David Icke. But is that something which is worth tarnishing one's legacy over? I doubt he is undergoing serious economic privations (though who knows), since his military rank alone (brigadier-general) bestows upon him a rather decent pension. Ditto, I'm sure, for being the former head of the Israel Space Agency. So, I am a bit puzzled by his motivation. I queried a Hebrew Wikipedia editor who is prominent in the Israeli space industry (I noticed in passing him saying that he has known Eshed for decades) if he could shed some light on the topic. Because, I have long known about Chaim Eshed's many accomplishments, so I was a bit floored today to learn that this constitutes his version of reality now. El_C05:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Aliens walk among us. Trump was on the verge of revealing this, but ended up thinking better of it. I was also on the verge of revealing this, along with Spain's treaty with the mountain trolls and the secret smurf population in Togo, but I also thought better of it.
There is a "Galactic Federation." These aliens wish for their existence to remain secret, for now, because "humanity is not ready." So, Chaim Eshed thinks humanity is ready? Apparently, the aliens were wrong in thinking that Chaim Eshed was ready. Once again, conspiracies are shown not to work - there is always a blabbermouth. SCNR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
If aliens want to keep their existence secret and Eshed threatens to reveal that, wouldn't the aliens just kill him? So many questions. --mfb (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
El_C, do you know if the Galactic Federation is interested in how Wikipedia writes about them? Is there any risk that they would block Wiki in their, well, territories, if we were to disoblige them? Some major entities are very sensitive, as we know (<cough>China<cough>), and this is beyond major. Maybe the WMF ought to try to set up a meeting with representatives? Bishonen | tålk10:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC).
How quickly conspiracy Saturday turns into comic relief Sunday! Anyway, intergalactic liaison — I like that. A couple of notes. I made a mistake about Eshed being the head of the Israel Space Agency. He was actually the head of the Ministry of Defense entity (from 1983 to 2011) which is tasked with maintaining Israel's space industry, overall. Judging solely from the respective Wikipedia articles, its annual budget does, however, appear to greatly exceed that of the ISA (needless to say, this is not an area with which I am too familiar). At any rate, Eshed does seem to have been instrumental in the Israeli air and space field since the sixties. And his clearance level must have been off the charts, seeing as he was a brigadier-general in the super-hush-hush Unit 81 — so put on your tinfoil hats, everyone! Eshed has also been the recipient of three Israel Defense Prizes, all for ground-breaking work the nature of which remains classified to this day. Finally, a quick note on 7 Days. Despite (or perhaps because) of it being the most popular publication put to print in the country (I, myself, have read hundreds of em over the years, though not so much recently), it always seem to contrast somewhat awkwardly with the Yedioth Ahronoth/Ynet brand. Almost as if to say: serious journalism on the day-by-day, but letting loose with the more yellowish 7 Days on Saturdays. So, while 7 Days, to its credit, has had some major history-setting scoops over the years, it is also equally infamous for its many (at times, spectacular) blunders. Note that I have not read the full aforementioned Eshed interview (grr...paywall), so what I have described has been mostly gleaned from other sources which discuss the interview. Apparently, he also speaks about travelling to a black hole, and more — speaking of which, I've always dreamed of eating spaghetti while being spaghettified... Delicious!El_C21:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
If we don't have the sources we don't have to worry about it. End of Wikipedia story. But do we really believe that of all the planets in the entire universe we are the only living beings....hmmmm. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Of course we don't, Olive. Well, I know I don't. That's a whole nother story than believing "aliens walk among us". Bishonen | tålk22:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC).
Hah! Right! Thus opening statement, "If we don't have the sources we don't have to worry about it." Mind you, if they do walk among us we may have to worry about it, but that's another story altogether. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Can we collect some more sources here? The article I read (through some backchannels -- maybe try resource exchange, El_C (talk·contribs)) makes me think that there is possibly something close to a WP:FRINGEBLP here worth documenting. jps (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
As I note on the talk page of the ISA, the Hebrew Wikipedia editor I reached out to who is a prominent figure in the Israeli space industry and who has known Eshed for decades, has gotten back to me and he seems to be as puzzled as the rest of us. So, unfortunately, no answers from that avenue. El_C01:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The Galactic Federation is now the #7 trend on Twitter. So, expect more English-speaking media organizations to cover this story. For them, it's a nice break from stories on the election, COVID-19 and Christmas...you know, those last 5 minutes of the news cast where they report odd ball stories. LizRead!Talk!04:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Littleolive is right that other life somewhere in the universe is statistically probable. As Bishonen reminded us, it's really different here. These supposedly managed to detect us and travel light years with incredible technology (implausible in the context of the Fermi paradox), but cannot help with the pandemic, energy crisis or climate change and somehow apparently need our help to understand physics and the universe. There's also mixed claim of intervention (have prevented nuclear wars) and non-intervention (we're never ready, of course). When they tell Trump to not disclose them, he obliges, but they cannot educate him about how the planet is heating up. Moreover, all the articles who mention the book are basically WP:PRESSRELEASEs about that very book... —PaleoNeonate – 10:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
It's life, Jim, but not as we know it. With the technology those aliens have, humans would probably have destroyed each other in paranuclear wars - the aliens instead came to visit us! They are wusses. As Mfb said, they did not even kill Eshed, as we would expect from a powerful human in that situation. Maybe because they are illegal aliens and their kids are in detention. And Trump keeps mum because he sold them real estate that does not belong to him, probably Greenland, and does not want them to talk to anybody who could wise them up. It all makes sense if you force it to. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate, this is a bit off topic, but I think it's important to distinguish life from intelligent life. With earth as our only frame of reference, the latter seems to only constitute a tiny sliver of the overall duration of biological evolution as has been recorded thus far. Of course, there's no way to tell how rare either life or intelligent life are, as far as a galactic sample is concerned. But the point also is that sentience may not be a given in the course of biological evolutions (i.e. no sentient dinosaurs and so on). El_C19:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Indeed... so I've been wondering, if it becomes mainstream enough, if the article should be on the book or the author. —PaleoNeonate – 00:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Isaac Ben-Israel's impression there really helps to put it in perspective so I added a little more from the IT source. In relation to my previous comment, a BLP is probably appropriate and the subject likely meets notability requirements, afterall... —PaleoNeonate – 06:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I’m a little dismayed by the emphasis of the article text on: “Following the story, NBC News reported "The White House and Israeli officials did not immediately respond to NBC News' request for comment.“ As if non-immediate response is suspicious. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
More different user says, "Obviously, nothing in any field of science is ever considered a fact by scientists, even things as universally accepted as gravity." jps (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I've tried to get them to engage on the Talk pages, but they don't understand policy and guidelines and won't read warnings on their user Talk page, so I'm out of options. Since they are only interested in edit warring in content about aliens, it seems a case of WP:NOTHERE or possibly WP:COMPETENCE. Either way, an admin is needed to review the situation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Just noting for the record that I have closed both AE complaints with indefinite blocks having been issued to both editors (as a normal admin action). I'd also like to convey my pleasure that we now have a Haim Eshed biography available here at en! El_C18:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I exported parts of the lead of death panels to the body of the Political positions of Sarah Palin article.[75] It was promptly removed by the User:Bonewah who said it "Too loaded with editorializing. You cant prove or disprove an idiom and in any event".[76] What the editor appears to be saying is that it unclear whether Palin was wrong about death panels in the ACA, and that the fact-checkers who said it was false are themselves wrong. Is Bonewah right? Is it a violation of NPOV to say that Palin's death panels claims are false? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Its an idiom, not a factual claim. It would be like trying to prove or disprove someone saying 'Ford trucks are shit'. Further, my core problem with Snooganssnoogans edit is that this is an article about Sarah Palin's positions, not other people's opinions of her positions. Is there room for other's reactions to what Palin says? Sure. But its inappropriate to spend more words covering what other people said than what she said herself. Bonewah (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
No, it wasn't just an opinion statement. At the time, the claim was advanced as a fact and believed by many to be one. Regurgitating a politician's statements without context or evaluation is the job of a PR flunky, not an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This seems more like a conversation for talk page than here. To what extent we should include others views on the subject's political positions is a fair question, but it has nothing to do with Fringe theories. Bonewah (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Standing opposed to the ACA is a political position, and a brief reference to the comments she gave attempting to support her opposition is warranted. I don't think we always need to provide a counter-argument to every politician's position or rhetoric, however, there was substantial controversy that also warrants a brief reference to it, including the comments of those who reject it as false. Then point the reader to death panels for more/detailed information. - Location (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
It's unfortunately always difficult to find decent independent reviews when it's still only at the PR stage (and it's often debated if articles belong on WP at that stage)... —PaleoNeonate – 21:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked around for WP:FRIND sources that might possibly used for a WP:BIO and found a number of passing mentions such as [77] but no independent works such a profile or in-depth feature story that we'd need to source a decent biography, per the second paragraph of WP:FRINGEBLP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we stub it? I just looked at it again and considering it's mostly unsourced it may be the solution (if not AfD?). The difference between the initial 2006 article (around the time of obituary) and the current one are minimal... —PaleoNeonate – 04:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The content was obviously inappropriate so was removed, but I also put a mention of the popular Graham book in the history/timeline section that is up for review. —PaleoNeonate – 20:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Perineum sunning
Today, browsing Google News, I came across an article on "perineum sunning" and was amused to learn that it is (or was) a fad practice going viral on social media. Since I don't follow social media sites (Wikipedia talk pages are the closest I get), I checked Wikipedia for the topic — and got nothing, not even any articles mentioning it. This surprised me because when I Googled it I saw quite a lot of coverage. Therefore, I started perineum sunning, trying to be mindful of WP:FRINGE.
The sources are decent but could be better for WP:MEDRS purposes. There sure wasn't anything on Google Scholar about it.
I noticed that the sources are all from months when it is winter in the Northern hemisphere and summer in the South. "Rolling Stone" and "Allure" are American, "The Conversation" is British. Do they do that in winter?
Wow. This was a meme that I saw some years ago that shitposters were making to make fun of Goop-y types. Just like Flat Earth, it turned into a real thing. Poe's Law never ceases to amaze me. jps (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Ivermectin is the latest "miracle cure" being proposed for COVID-19, and these pages are running > 10,000 views/day. The NIH has recently issue guidelines that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against its use. Nevertheless, there is an increasing editorial push across multiple articles to boost it unduly. A quick way to get uo-to-speed quickly on the context is probably this news piece on MedPage Today. All of these articles could probably benefit from additional eyes from fringe-savvy editors. Alexbrn (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
"Five prominent anti-vaccine organizations that have been known to spread misleading information about the coronavirus received more than $850,000 in loans from the federal Paycheck Protection Program, raising questions about why the government is giving money to groups actively opposing its agenda and seeking to undermine public health during a critical period." Source: MSN News. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
An objective criterion exists for deciding if such material is suitable for inclusion: has it been referred to by multiple reliable sources? In this case No. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC).
I didn't have much time to look at it other than fixing a typo, but agree that it's mostly redundant with the pseudoscience template, where anything relevant could possibly be merged... On the other hand, the fringe template may have a wider scope and include things like conspiracy theories, that currently are specialized in other templates like antisemitism where relevant, etc. So there may be merit to the idea but it'd need some work if so... —PaleoNeonate – 21:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Currently at AfD. There seem to be fringe concerns which I am not in a position to evaluate for several reasons. Mangoe (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
My guess is that it is likely to survive. My reading is that it represents a certain kind of academic position with a decided whiff of "benighted western science" woo-leaning. There is also the typical conflation of all indigenous peoples into a single perspective. As I said before, I just don't have the resources at present to deal with this thing, but I have to think that there are a lot of anthro types who roll their eyes at this. Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Need more eyes and comments about possible fringe archaeology at Iruña-Veleia
Talk:Iruña-Veleia needs responses. It's about claims and counterclaims that inscriptions found in a Roman town in Spain "contain the oldest known texts written in the Basque language as well as, allegedly, the oldest representation of the crucifixion of Jesus found to date". Doug Wellertalk07:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Mmthomson is probably Miguel Thomson, someone who is known for writing about the topic. The fact that the guys responsible were convicted of fraud means that there is no reason to take the claims seriously. Mmthomson clearly has no other purpose on Wikipedia other than to push discredited archaeology, and cannot be reasoned with, and it may be worth persuing some kind of sanctions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
No problem to say that I’m Miguel Thomson and I never wanted to hide my identity, as you can see in my signature. But we don’t know who are you. I should say that there has been no definitive conviction of archaeologist Eliseo Gil. He has appealed the first verdict, and the second verdict by the court of appeal is pending. Therefore, he could perfectly be acquitted (or not). But legally, at this moment he is an innocent person. With regard to “discredited archaeology”, look who signs this article, in favor of the scientific study of Iruña-Veleia’s graffiti and of their authenticity or possible authenticity, published in several Spanish and Basque media outlets (https://www.noticiasdenavarra.com/opinion/tribunas/2020/08/31/ciencia-sentencia-caso-iruna-veleia/1074320.html; English translation:https://www.amaata.com/2020/09/science-and-court-ruling-on-iruna.html ): Edward Harris, one of the world’s most prestigious archaeologists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Harris_(archaeologist), Noé Villaverde Vega, awarded with the National Prize of Archaeology https://elpais.com/diario/2002/06/13/cultura/1023919202_850215.html; Antonio Rodríguez Colmenero, epigraphist and Professor Emeritus of Ancient History at the University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Luis Silgo, a well-known Spanish epigraphist and archaeologist, among other scholars from four countries. This article is cited in the current English Wikipedia article on Iruña-Veleia. With regard to “pursuing some kinds of actions”, you should explain which actions and why. Should actions against all who signed the article cited above also be pursued? With regard to your opinion that I “cannot be reasoned with”, could you explain why? If you don’t agree with the proposed changes, you should provide your arguments, and not attack the person who proposed them without giving any reason. Mmthomson (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, you need to be aware of the Conflict Of Interest policies WP:COI in regards to Iruña-Veleia. Wikipedia's community convention is that articles are to be edited by people with no association to the topic to ensure neutral and reliable information. Perhaps, if there are any changes you'd like to see made, you might be able to post on the talk page of the article and let neutral editors evaluated them and decide whether they are appropriate. You definitely have a serious conflict of interest in this matter. Paul H. (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no conflict of interest to declare. I don’t benefit at all from the fact that the graffiti are authentic or false. I’m a scientist, and I have had knowledge of the subject first through the media and subsequently through Internet resources and by reading scholarly articles and books related to the subject. And having knowledge of a subject is not a COI, but rather is a requirement for anyone who wants to make contributions to a Wikipedia article. With regard to posting “changes on the talk page of the article and let neutral editors evaluated them and decide whether they are appropriate”, this is precisely what I’m doing and what I have done: I propose them in the Talk page, before introducing them in the article after discussions with the editors and others. There are several changes that I have introduced in the article, and the editors have approved them and are still there without objections. Therefore I’m currently a contributor to the article, and the editors have considered that my contributions were reliable and relevant. By contrast, there have been radical changes made by others that were not announced nor discussed at all and have been objected by several people, as you can see in the Talk page. And the section that I’m proposing now, which is about the scholarly controversy, was in the article for more than three years without any objections, and was suddenly removed in June last year, in my opinion without an adequate justification. The reintroduction of such a section, with a modified text, in which opinions from both sides of the controversy, all of them referenced, are included, has been discussed in the talk page with Doug Weller, who has not opposed to it. Such controversy is mentioned in the introduction of the article and is reflected in articles in the Spanish and French Wikipedias.
You say “you definitely have a serious conflict of interest in this matter” without giving any explanation for your opinion. Could you please explain why you say that? Mmthomson (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
{{[re|Mmthomson}} I've been busy. I an not concerned by the coi issue by I am by some of your sources. Acadmic.edu is not a publisher, and sources need to be reliably published. Your citations need to show exactly where and when they were published, although you can link to Academic.edu if the paper has been added there. Then there's the website [[78]] - "The origin of the Basque Lanuage" - which says "This website aims to be a meeting point for those interested in the origins of Basque, Iberian and Paleo-European languages. To this end, we are incorporating the work, articles and news of researchers related to the topic. The proposals presented here (etymological, opinions…) belong to each author and the Association does not have to agree with them." Perhaps ok as an external link, but I don't see material on it as being reliably published. In fact to back up " a number of scholars in the fields of archaeology, epigraphy, ancient history, linguistics, and Egyptology, from Spain, France, Germany, and Bermudas, have made public their views favorable to the authenticity of the Iruña-Veleia’s findings through reports, articles, books, and conference presentations [13,17-28]." you have 13 sources but it isn't at all clear from what you've put at the article talk page which of them match our criteria at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Published conference proceedings are usually ok as are any reliably published books. Doug Wellertalk 14:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC) ping failed, repinging @Mmthomson:Doug Wellertalk16:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
{{[re|Doug Weller}}There are published conference proceedings and three published books on the subject. As I understand, it would be OK to cite them as references for the section on the scholarly controversy. I see that newspaper reports and articles are being currently referenced, and therefore I should assume that they also would be reliable references. Additionally, in the “Bibliography” section, there is the report by “Iglesias, Hector (2009), ‘Les inscriptions de Veleia-Iruña’”. I should understand that a reference to this report can be made. Finally, in the “External links” section, there is a link to “Official reports on the controversial findings”. These are the reports by the Scientific Advisory Committee which were posted by Alava’s Provincial Government (DFA), which is a part in the court litigation. None of these reports, nor peer-reviewed scholarly articles by their authors on the subject of the reports, have been published. In my opinion, in accordance with the neutral point of view, in the “external links”, a link to all scholarly reports on the subject (not only those posted by the DFA), which can be found at this web page https://fontaneda.net/veleia/Pagina/v900.html, would be appropriate and citable.Mmthomson (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked at this and it's clear that there's no WP:CONSENSUS for the changes Mmthomson proposes and that their (apparent COI) advocacy at the article seems overwhelming. This particular topic was the sole purpose of editing since day one... @Mmthomson: since you have already made your suggestions and proposed the sources, repetition and huge posts are unlikely to be useful and may eventually be considered disruptive (and maybe even not here for the encyclopedia). I suggest to slow down and wait, maybe some uninvolved editors will eventually see some merit in them, article talk pages remain in the archives. If you have more sources, post them at the talk page for review, but please try to keep the posts short and concise... —PaleoNeonate – 17:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
My last comment was posted responding to Doug Weller’s comment about sources. It has 494 words, excluding links, which is not very large. The rest is the proposed new text and references in response to his comments. Doug Weller created a new section under title “Proposed new text”, and the discussion is ongoing, I think that in a civilized way, and I try to respond to everything that has been requested. Please let the discussion continue until a reasonable consensus is reached, which doesn’t mean unanimity or vote by majority, but consensus based on reason.
I don’t understand why COI is mentioned. Doug Weller said that “I am not concerned by the coi issue but I am by some of your sources”. I have tried to address to the best of my ability his concerns about sources, and I’m waiting for his response.
With regard to SPA, this what Wikipedia says: "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." I have not edited other Wikipedia’s entries that I have read because I haven’t seen big errors or omissions, but I see them in the current article after last June’s edits. My view is that the issue is controversial, but this view is not personal: it is already mentioned in the current article and also in the Spanish and French Wikipedias. What I’m trying to do is to contribute neutrally by briefly explaining this controversy and providing references for interested readers.
With regard to consensus: there was a consensus on the article and the section on the scholarly controversy, which remained unobjected for more than three years. But the section was removed in June, based on a newspaper’s untrue information, with changes being objected by several readers. Please read what Wikipedia says about consensus: “Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached.” According to this, there was a consensus on the pre-June text, but not on June’s edits. And “Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation.”… “The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution”. Following this, what I’m trying to do is to to collaborate trying to reach a reasonable consensual solution on the article, which currently contains several of my contributions which have also been accepted by consensus. Mmthomson (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Some statements in comments above appear to be within the category of reprehensible actions described here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Here are some statements in the Wikipedia’s “No personal attacks” page that may apply: “speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing.” “Personal attacks are disruptive. On article talk pages they tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together.” “Every person who edits an article is part of the same larger community—we are all Wikipedians.” “Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.” “As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.” More statements in the same line at other pages: “An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions; “One of our core Wikipedia guidelines that facilitates this is assume good faith.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required
I’m a Wikipedia editor, a Wikipedian, as defined above. I don’t know who is accusing me of editing an article having a COI, but I can say that I have no COI whatsoever in the Iruña-Veleia subject. This is accusing without evidence and making personal attacks, which is unacceptable under Wikipedia’s rules. I hope that this is not repeated. Arguments should be directed at content, not at people. And these arguments should be placed in the Talk Page of the Iruña-Veleia article, so that everyone can read and respond to them. We are trying to reach a consensus on the text in a collaborative, civilized, reasonable, Wikipedian fashion, and anyone can contribute to this task. The only issue remaining to be solved in the current discussion is about sources. I don’t think that it will be difficult to reach an agreement on it.Mmthomson (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I admit not having read all of the above but I saw the part about WP:PA. My intent was not to attack but to point out (from the evidence of your edit history) that more of the same is unlikely to help in relation to improving that article. —PaleoNeonate – 01:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
We have to look at the point where we are now. It’s evident that progress has been made and further progress should not be curtailed. There is no discussion that the scholarly controversy is real, as it is already mentioned in the article, and currently the only concerns are about sources, and I have tried to address those concerns in my last comment. But, again, the discussion belongs to the Talk Page of Iruña-Veleia’s article. Mmthomson (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
An editor is adding a lot of fringe material to this article, claiming this mission really happened and found an alien ship on the moon. Sources are instagram and a blog/personal website. They've been reverted twice but have re-added the material. More eyes would be much appreciated. Squeakachu (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The only references outside the UFO bubble that I've turned up so far are the two rather superficial news stories from 2014 already in the article. Maybe this could be mentioned somewhere for completeness' sake, but it's hard to see why it needs an article. XOR'easter (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I imagine as it will likely be another in a long line of 'Stories the Daily Mail has made up' it will get very little coverage in reliable sources. Unlike Gawker however, the DM can easily afford any sort of financial sanction against them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
As the nominator, I don't see why that would happen as that is not an argument I made, but I do always welcome the input of this noticeboard. Crossroads-talk-06:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
