Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 80

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82→Archive 85

Michael Taylor (demoniac)

Bad name for an article. Wikipedia should not pretend demonic possession is real by labeling people with a fantasy word superstitious simpletons use for them. (There may be more articles like that, but I could not find any.) What is the right name? Also, the article could probably use NPOVing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

He's famous for supposedly being possessed by demons. What else do you call it? If you insist, however, Michael Taylor (murderer) is available. - Sumanuil (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Hob. He’s primarily famous as a murderer, his excuse is secondary. Demoniac is a description used by a small minority of believers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
How about Michael Taylor (killer)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Hob Gadling and A Quest For Knowledge. Moving to Michael Taylor (murderer). This should be non-controversial so a full move discussion seems needlessly WP:BURO. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
This is highly inappropriate as I pointed out on the article talk page and was ignored. This man has been acquitted of the crime of murder. It is a WP:BLP violation for us to brand him as such. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
He is a murderer. He was acquitted on an insanity defense, which means he's not fully responsible for his crime, not that he didn't commit it. And a murder is distinguished from a killing by being unlawful: the killing of his wife was unlawful. Since there are no reliable sources contesting the claim that he unlawfully killed his wife, there's no grounds to call this a BLP violation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The only editor raising objections seems to have given up on supporting them. Unless there are other objections soon, I will remove the RM on the article talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure what gave you that idea. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Lab leakski

Different narrative; familiar situation. Sources seem fairly sceptical about this being from a "lab leak" yet after some recent editing Wikipedia has been in danger of over-egging it – not least listing this as a definite leak in the list article above (should this not be just confirmed incidents?). Probably could do with additional scrutiny. Alexbrn (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor above tried to use the claim from a single source [1] which states the lab leak theory is less likely than vaccine accidents, to conclude that the lab theory unlikely and challenge a series of other scientific papers which claim otherwise (for instance, [2], [3],[4], and [5]). A direct dispute of the aforementioned conclusion is made here [6]. The editor tried to push his own interpretation of the situation. --Kutu126b (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
All those papers are older than some newer sources we have. It's important our content about what the scientific position on this is not out-of-date. PLOS ONE is generally not a good source for anything. pmid:30348266, a 2018 review article, says: "Several possibilities have been suggested for the origin and re-emergence of the H1N1 virus, including possibilities of a laboratory accident or the virus deriving from a vaccine trial attempting to generate H1N1 vaccines". Wikipedia should not be amplifying this into a certainty, or near-certainty. You edit-warring and personalisation of the situation are noted, and unwelcome. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean "old"? So now you have chosen to attack scientific publications? The 1977 Russian flu took place more than 40 years ago and scientific consensus about the lab leak theory started to form since the 2000s. One paper in 2015 claimed that vaccine accidents may be more likely (which, again, received immediate dispute) does not change the scientific position as a whole. This is not how science works. You have tried to deny the saying from the abundant publications written by reputable scientists, either by calling them "dodgy claims", "old", "not a good source for anything" or even my personalization. I don't know what political agenda you have here, but this is not how science works. Kutu126b (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I did not write "old". If you continue your personal comments you risk being sanctioned. WP:FOC. We need to reflect the WP:BESTSOURCES giving the current scientific view. That would mean avoiding blogs, newspaper articles, letters, and out-of-date sources, and not presenting the situation as more certain that sources support. Alexbrn (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Im not sure why this was brought up here. Neither the subject, the1977 Russian flu, nor the theories of its origin (lab leak, vaccine accident, bioweapons accident) have anything to do with WP:fringe. Best i can see from the sources given is that no one knows for sure where the 1977 flu came from and that all the theories listed have some merit. If the question is what sources should we use or exclude, then the reliable sources noticeboard would be the appropriate place. If the question is wording, then im still not clear why its being brought up here. Bonewah (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
See WP:FRINGE#ALT which is a fair way to describe this and the other hypotheses about its origin, as there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus, though the lab leak hypotheses seems to be the closest thing to one. They're all presented with roughly equal weight in the "Virology" section of the article, with this one (being apparently the most popular) getting highlighted in the lede, which seems to be a pretty good distribution of weight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE#ALT covers claims which depart significantly from the mainstream views. If there isnt a clear mainstream view, then WP:FRINGE#ALT wont apply. WP:undue maybe, but not FRINGE. Bonewah (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Bonewah, There is no part of that sections which says or implies what you just claimed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
And the unqualified listing of this pandemic as being caused by a biosecurity incident, is certainly out-of-alignment with the mainstream sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, I absolutely agree, as I mentioned below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
MPants at workThe 'Fringe theories in a nutshell' section, the lede and the 'Identifying fringe theories' sections all say this. As to the article in question, id say the mainstream sources all say it was not a natural origin. As to what type of unnatural origin ( biosecurity incident, vaccine mishap, bioweapon mishap, etc) id say the sources ive read so far all say they are all possible, with no obvious mainstream view as predominant. As such, i would not describe it as unquestionably a 'biosecurity incident', unless 'biosecurity incident' means any non natural origin. Bonewah (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Bonewah, The "in a nutshell" hat note categorically does not say that, the lede very clearly qualifies that as being in "a very broad sense", and the alternative formulations is part of the "identifying" section, which also uses the "very broad sense" qualifier in it's introduction.
I'll note that this is not the first time you've blatantly misrepresented this policy, and state again: you'd do much better to ask for help interpreting our guidelines than to presume to lecture more experienced editors on what they say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Its possible for reasonable people to disagree. Maybe you would do better to take a look at your own behavior before telling other experienced editors what they should 'presume' to do. Bonewah (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Bonewah, You made multiple demonstrably false statements. That's not "disagreement". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Kutu126b, Alex is right to view articles in PLOS ONE with a skeptical eye. Their review and publication practices motivate them to accept low quality work, and they've had more than one controversy about it, even publishing a paper that appeared to contain an endorsement of creationism.
Your second source does not advance the lab leak hypothesis or ascribe it any weight among researchers; it merely mentions it. As such, Alex is definitely not disagreeing with it.
Also, your claim that Alex is relying on a single source is demonstrably false. You should stop making it.
Finally, I would note that I agree fully with Alex's characterization of the way you're approaching this. You're fighting a battle here, where you should be trying to find a point of agreement. We're diplomats, not warriors on WP.
Alexbrn, The way the main article present the situation as of This edit to 1977 Russian flu looks very close to perfect. I'm going to make one edit, however, which I think brings it closer to the best representation we can give it. As for the list article: if this isn't a clear example of that, as it most certainly isn't, then I agree with you that it clearly doesn't belong at the list.
I've watchlisted both pages. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
MPants at work 1) Regarding the behavior and language, what do you mean "the way you're approaching this" and "fighting a battle"? And what do you mean "your claim that Alex is relying on a single source is demonstrably false. You should stop making it." Be respectful to others, would you? Prove your words with justification and reason. I have never talked to you before and I urge you to stop playing the boss role here and telling me who is right and who is wrong. I remind you that Alex came to the Russian flu page directly calling some of the well-sourced content "dodgy claims". It was only after I pointed out on the talk page that he stopped deleting the content and changed his words to "dodgy sources". He is obviously not so familiar with the topic before making his initial edits. 2) Now if you want to simply discuss the content and the sources like an unbiased Wikipedia editor, I remind you that the scientific consensus on the origin of the 1977 Russian flu is that it is not a natural event, and the lab accident being the most probable. I never denied other origin possibilies, as I am the original author of this article and it was me who listed other possibilities in the article with reliable sources. Like User:Bonewah said above, I don't understand why Alex brought all this up here, as the disagreement is certainly not about "Fringe theories".Kutu126b (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Kutu126b, Thank you for proving my point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
MPants at work, no, thank you for showing not knowing how "proof" works. Disrespecting others who never talked to you in an ironical way does not make you prove anything. I'll stop this meaningless discussion. --Kutu126b (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine

"Shit-stirring" seems to be a fitting summary. In any case, the discussion seems to be ongoing at the article talk page so no need or use for this here, unless you intend on going to the WP:Cesspit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Science-Based Medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's an editor edit warring over a notability tag and removing multiple references there. More eyes would be appreciated, as they seem to be very combative about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, some not-great behaviour there. On the larger question I've had quite a good look and I suspect SBM is actually not notable per Wikipedia's criteria. Not that it really matters from this noticeboard's perspective; what matters is that it's an acknowledged RS for its niche. I think it's probably only a matter of time before the site gets fuller attention in secondary sources, but for now an article on it might not be appropriate. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, I strongly suspect it would survive an AfD. It's just so broadly cited by other reliable sources that the fact that no-one's done a write-up of the history of the site is not really that telling, from where I sit.
Plus there's the association with The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, Steven Novella, David Gorski, Harriet Hall, Wallace Sampson Mark Crislip and Kimball Atwood.
I mean, I get that not everything a notable person does is, itself notable, but at a certain point, the associations start to rub off a little. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia realpolitik means it probably would survive an WP:AFD. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Apparently applying skepticism to skepticism is a bad approach... I’ve taken a note of that. My initial attempts to address the issue with MPants were good natured, fact based, and comradely [7][8] they however did not seem willing to respond in kind. The proper response to a notability tag is either to get a consensus on the talk page or add in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources to the page itself *before* removing the tag. We can’t give Science-Based Medicine a free pass just because they do good work in the fringe theories/skepticism space. WP:GNG doesn’t get renegotiated just because we personally are fans of the blog, even if thats how some choose to treat AFD these days. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's plenty of bullshit there. this was, apparently the response Horse thinks was not "good natured, fact based and comradely". Also, the proper response to being reverted by two different editors is to start a discussion about it, not to revert again. As to the proper response to the tagging, allow me to quote from the template documentation: "The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group."
The "proper response" described above is apparently made up from whole cloth, as I can't find it anywhere. Ironic, really. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I opened a talk page discussion about it. I then merged it with yours because our editing windows overlapped and we created duplicate sections. Your edits were reverted because you restored a perennially unreliable source to the article, please don’t forget the context here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Also I’m confused, nothing about what you’re talking about now is relevant to this noticeboard. What are you doing? Are you just trying to drag me through the mud in the public forum you think will be most sympathetic to you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
If someone agrees with Mjolnir now, you can say it's not because he has a point but because we are sympathetic to him. This is a form of poisoning the well. But it's a bad idea to use such a trick in a place where lots of people know it. You should argue on the factual level rather than the personal one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Why is the reliability of Science-Based Medicine being discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard rather than the reliable sources noticeboard? Oh. Wait. It has. Multiple times. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Science-Based Medicine.
Why is the notability of Science-Based Medicine being discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard rather than at AfD? Oh. Wait. Nobody thinks it would be deleted at AfD but certain individuals still want to complain about it not being notable and to imply that AfD is biased.
Why are the things that a couple of editors said about each other being discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard rather than at the user's talk pages or WP:ANI? Oh. Wait. Nobody believes that there is anything sanctionable about the behavior but certain individuals still want to complain about other editors on a noticeboard that is supposed to be used for talking about fringe theories.
At the risk of having ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants dial up the aggression even further and tell me to fuck off another half dozen times, this really looks like a case of WP:OTHERPARENT. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
At the risk of having ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants...
If he did, it would be good advice, since you're not adding anything except shit-stirring here. --Calton | Talk 06:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pyramid power

Can someone with more patience than me deal with the idiot currently trying to insert the usual bollocks into the Pyramid power article - I've used up my patience ration for today, and am about to lose my temper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I've given them a final warning. If they revert again I'll report at the relevant place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure (MAPCIS)

There are a lot of fringe claims of impact craters that tend to be ignored in the literature. I recently came across the Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure which appears to have gained almost no attention outside the authors conference abstracts, which are effectively self-published. As such I have nominated it for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure, maybe someone can find better sourcing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The author of the hypothesis, Danielone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has come to the AfD to attempt to stop the article getting deleted. Their original account Daniel Connelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which originally created the MAPCIS page was blocked by the arbitration committee in 2013, despite them having not made any edits since 2011. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
As it turns out, per a comment by Beeblebrox at the AfD, the block appears to have been to enforce a one account rule and Danielone2 is not in volation of an ArbCom block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Bohemian crater

As I was going through questionable impact crater proposals, I found the Bohemian crater article. The opening sentence of the article is hilarious

The Bohemian crater, also called Czech crater, is a working hypothesis that considers the Bohemian Massif as an approximately two billion year old potential impact crater of 260 kilometres (160 mi) diameter.[1] This is contrary to the mainstream geological theory of plate tectonics, which explains the Bohemian Massif as the result of collision of independent continental units, occurring more than 300 million years ago.

. As far as I can tell there is no coverage of this theory outside the main proponents conference abstracts, as such I have nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bohemian crater. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be part of a wallen garden, alongside Rajlich's hypothesis and Petr Rajlich, created by the user Srewter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back in 2017. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Rajlich's hypothesis is also mentioned in Shock metamorphism and the largely unsourced section on Geology in Cavitation. The Petr Rajlich article looks like a candidate for AfD. Paul H. (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed both references. Rajlich definitely fails WP:PROF, but he might pass the GNG in czech sources, but I can't find much, other than this article in Museologica Brunensia which briefly mentions him, there is also a brief interview with him from Czech Radio from 2007 about the "Bohemian crater", which mentions that the Czech magazine Tyden also ran a piece about the claim (I think this is it, but it's only the opening paragraphs.). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Another interview here, this time in Deník. Even though the claims are fringe, they appear to have attracted some popular attention in the Czech press. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Azuara impact structure and Rubielos de la Cérida impact structure

The Rubielos de la Cérida impact structure and Azuara impact structure, were both created and extensively edited by the similarly named SPAs Decubridor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Descubridor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the turn of the last decade, who I presume are the same person, and the articles have received little editing since. There appears to have been some controversy where they were removed from the Earth Impact Database in the early 2000s, with the main proponents complaining in self-published publications about "bias" on behalf of their opponents. I think they have received enough coverage that they pass the GNG, including the criticism in the highly cited (430 citations) 2010 paper The convincing identification of terrestrial meteorite impact structures: What works, what doesn't, and why, but the articles are currently profringe, as the seem to take the impact hypothesis as true when the claims are strongly disputed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Obvious predatory journal

How'd you deal with stuff like this? When the abstract contains "Regardless whether the “pandemic” itself is real or an illusion manufactured out of fear by vested interests"; I know to look no further. The editorial team seems to contain actual names, but the email addresses are cleverly (or not at all) fake ones (they're all gmail). The publisher is included here "Open Journal Systems" but not at User:JzG/Predatory/O. Should we just update the list here? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use obviously rubbish sources. If an editor questions that, there are various WIKRONYMS to produce, but that shouldn't be necessary, right? Alexbrn (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: Considering you know what, can never be too sure... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Fwiw it doesn't appear to be used anywhere on Wiki...BEACHIDICAE🌊 20:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The second sentence of the article does not inspire confidence: "It was headed by George W. Merck (see Error! Reference source not found.2018) ... " Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This isn't just a bad journal, it's a crazy person's blog pretending to be a journal. Compare the name of the author of that "paper" and the name of the editor in chief of the journal, then google for a bit of background. His PhD is in linguistics, and his website outlines his theory that all diseases, disorders and even deaths are caused by "disruption of biological messages by toxins."
This is batshit lunacy which managed to make its way into the ivory tower of academia, and might well play a role in that man's recent early retirement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I notice on the editorial board is one James Lyons-Weiler, who is written about here. Hey! Is this is a fringe COVID topic Wikipedia isn't covering?! Alexbrn (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know if predatoryjournals.com is being actively maintained? Their last announcement is from 2017. jps (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: Doesn't look like it. Yale Univ. lists a couple of ressources, including an apparently updated https://beallslist.net (says last updated a few months ago in March). This in Nature provides a link to Cabell's list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
More details about predatoryjournals.com in Beall's List. Paul H. (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
predatoryjournals.com was never maintained, it's simply a basic mirror of beall's original list. If you want something maintained, use https://beallslist.net/. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Added ijvtpr.com to WP:UPSD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Headbomb and RandomCanadian. I agree this journal, blog, or whatever appears to be sketchy. Especially saying whether Covid-19 is real or an illusion. It looks like this online publication traffics in conspiracy theory controversy. Also, I pressed on a "about the journal" link and one of my security programs blocked it with a message that says, "Attackers might be trying to steal your information..."
This would be information such as "passwords, messages, or credit cards." This might be a phishing site. So, it might be best to see if this publication is used as sourcing on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC: "joint WHO-China report" or "WHO-convened report?"

Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 has an ongoing RFC for how we should refer to the report authored by the WHO and based on a study conducted jointly with China. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Integral yoga

Is there anything worth keeping here? All in-parallel-universe... --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

How bout its spin-off Supermind (integral yoga)? jps (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
And then there is the (perhaps less problematic?) Intermediate zone. jps (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Pah! Nothing beats Doga! Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
True! But this is a bit where I'm somewhat concerned. I would much rather Wikipedia document with care and clarity the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo instead that of the yogi down the street with the Doga Yoga studio. There is a lot of academic work showing that Sri Aurobindo influenced a wide range of people/ideas/beliefs while Doga Yoga is just a new commodification of an already sprawling industry. The above articles, of course, smack of a ridiculous amount of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, so I'm not convinced they deserve preserving in present forms, but a summary of Sri Aurobindo's ideas would be useful and arguably within our remit. jps (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Anti-vax report published in The Hill

I'm concerned how this ref is/was being used:

I've trimmed back some of the information in a few of the articles after just quickly glancing at the ref vs article content. I'll be looking into this closer, but hope others could look as well.

I've not even looked to see what other references cover the same report. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's the direct report: --Hipal (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It's linked from https://www.counterhate.com/disinformationdozen , so the link is ok. --Hipal (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm concerned that it's being used with content that violates BLP, OR, and POV.
Thanks for all the references. They should help us figure out how to present encyclopedic information on the topic with proper weight and without original research. --Hipal (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like we now have consensus on how to get rid the V/OR. The POV issues seem to be moving along nicely. --Hipal (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Addressing the POV issues may be more difficult... --Hipal (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Quranic code

There is a fringe theory, accepted by very few Muslims, that the Quran contains miraculous patterns based on the number 19. It seems to me that this article has little excuse for existing, quite besides the lack of good sources and fan-craft. Zerotalk 04:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll raise you Bible code -Roxy . wooF 04:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I cut out all but one of the "examples". To the extent that these were cited at all, it was either to self-published material or it was classic WP:SYNTH based on citations to simple character counts. Both make the overwhelming mass WP:OR and highly WP:UNDUE. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, it's all back. Another article which is full of nonsense about a fringe theory is Ivan Panin. Zerotalk 12:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
At AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quran code (3rd nomination). Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I haven't seen an article like Ivan Panin in a long time. It was fun going through it with a machete. jps (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If you convert my name to numbers using their ordinal place in the alphabet, sum it up, then subtract the year I got my first pair of hammer pants, you get 69. Then, if you add the caliber of my favorite handgun and subtract the number of chambers in the cylinder, you get 420.
Which doesn't mean anything, but it does make me giggle sometimes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

AFD Sacha Stone

Editors may wish to weigh in on this AFD. I note that the nominator was a significant contributor to Integral yoga and that this AFD nom occurred shortly after I AFD'd on that article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sucharit Bhakdi, one year on

Remember him? Early in the pandemic there was some drama over how to treat his various statements about how the pandemic was a "false alarm" etc. Now, months later, there is an antivaxx angle (apparently the vaccines are "deadly" and will decimate the world population). Could probably usefully be watchlisted by fringe-aware editors Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

List of integral thinkers and supporters

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of integral thinkers and supporters

Comment, please!

jps (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Robert_Lanza#Request_For_Comment_Robert_Lanza

This RfC may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Operação Prato

Recent activity by IPs seeking to add fringe interpretations to the article. The latest IP adding text trying to connect a supposedly "strange incident with some fishermen" to the topic. The cited source seems to be discussing declassified Brazilian government documents being of interest to Brazilian UFOlogists back in 2010 [9]. It's probably WP:UNDUE, however because of language and access problems, I can't make heads or tails of what the source is saying. Those having familiarity with the language are invited to review. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding Special:Contributions/138.185.100.200 to audit-list, —PaleoNeonate – 01:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

My concerns about the new proposal for a new WMF sister project.called Wikifacts

I posted this at RSN also, but I think it's of relevance here. Tell me off if I'm wrong. :-)meta:WikiFacts is described as "A Wiki of Facts, as part of or along with meta:Wikifunctions. WikiFacts will be a structured base for facts, and each fact will be given an id number. WikiFacts allows sharing knowledge on point, accurately and concisely. It allows verification and pointing out factual errors precisely, thus fighting misinformation. Demo website at: WikiSpore:WikiFacts_Spore." I'm told that by its proposer, User:Vis M, that it is meant " to extract information from books and simply list it under a topic. Fact-id was proposed to give focus to the facts than topic, and also to allow easy and precise citations." When I pointed out that facts can be in dispute, with the claim that the US election was stolen as an example, I was told that "qualifiers can be add to denote scientific facts, historical facts, general statements, strictness, consensus, estimates, opinions, etc. The main purpose is to breakdown articles into statements, and give focus to individual pieces of facts & statements than topic."

I think this runs against at least the spirit of WP:V and WP:RS. Not only because I think people should read the sources (although I admit I sometimes copy material from other articles without reading every source and I suspect this is very common) but because in many if not most cases context is vital and a plain fact/statement might simply be cherry-picked, eg avoiding the next sentence which says "But of course this is nonsense". I could say more but I'd prefer to see other people's views.

I'm not sure I'm happy with the WMF spending money on meta:Wikifunctions (actually named "Abstract Wikipedia" either - that looks like a done deal however.. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

might simply be cherry-picked, eg avoiding the next sentence which says "But of course this is nonsense" Cherry picking will be avoided, and each 'fact' piece will contain the "buts" for it. That was the main intend, to stress on the particular facts/subtopics in its entirety along with the cautions, instead of a full topic article. Anyway, it was just a proposal for people to join in. spirit of WP:V and WP:RS, this is what it aimed particularly, by adding citation for each of the subtopic and also allowing on-point discussion to correct the sense. The proposal is just to cut down things in to sub-topics for smartphone era. And it is just a proposal, to welcome inputs and modifications from others. The main purpose of the proposal was to fight fake information and fringe theories by allowing on-point corrections and disprovings, and it ironically got posted here!
"with the WMF spending money on meta:Wikifunctions" I don't know why you are worried about it. WMF collect money to give service to the people, and they are doing exactly what they should do. Wikifunctions would definitely have a significant impact on the humanity. I am only delighted whenever OpenAccess communities start new projects and only wish they spend more money on useful new projects like this. - Vis M (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)There are some cases where we can state a fact quite clearly. To follow your example There is no evidence that the 2020 United States Presidential General Election was significantly affected by any fraud, is a fact. I can see some sort of utility to collections of statements like that, especially given the number of mundane and obscure facts out there, the totality of which is nearly constantly being researched by someone.
But what about bleeding edge science? What about Compound X produced an average reduction in observable symptoms among laboratory mice of 50% when administered at a rate of 1mg per kg of body mass per day ? What happens when the study this was derived from falls victim to the replication crisis? Does the fact get updated? Or do we approach the writing of these facts by including every relevant detail, turning it into In a study involving 480 laboratory mice acquired from Acme Lab Supplies on January 20th, 2011 and bred through 12 generations, conducted by Researchers A, B, C and D between June 14th 2020 and March 12th 2021, with a control group of 120 mice and cohorts of 120 mice each receiving Compound X, Compound X1 and Compound X2, after being infected with Virus Y on June 3th 2020 and allowing the virus to incubate until the start of the study, at which point 90% (431) mice were displaying observable symptoms consistent with the disease and the remainder were expected to begin showing symptoms within a week, the observed effects on the Compound X cohort were a reduction in fever of 1.3 degrees (out of an average fever of 2.6 degrees) and an approximate halving of the delta of reduced food consumption, along with an approximate halving of the delta of decreased energy as measured by time spent on running wheels and distance traveled from preferred bed when pacing...
How, exactly, does one simply break down that fact the way the examples are broken down? There's going to be disagreement over how to do it. A lot of disagreement, and I guarantee each side of that debate will have valid points.
And then you have things like unanswerable questions. Is There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deity a fact? Philosophers generally consider it so, but what's to stop a deity from taking a physical form and proving its own existence to us? Who's to say we won't solve physics entirely at some point in the future and thus prove beyond any epistemologically reasonable doubt there there is no intelligent being directing any aspect of the universe?
What sort of notability requirements are there? I'm fairly sure that MjolnirPants' wife has a fondness for flavored sparkling water, isn't going to cut it, but what about the decorations I was awarded in the Army? What about the amount of pressure it takes to penetrate a human eardrum with an object whose contact area is 0.24 cm2? What about the average age of first mating of an African dung beetle?
And while I understand that the paradox of knowledge is not really a show stopper, it's something that's going to need to be accounted for. And the Gettier problem is going to be a bigger issue, by far, because it really questions the underlying process of determining what is a fact.
And then what happens when a fan of some fringe theory that's not quite pseudoscience shows up. Is it a fact that the hospitalization of three workers at the WIV prior to the Covid-19 outbreak evinces the lab leak theory? Is it a fact that loop quantum gravity has "advantages" over string theory in certain calculations?
I mean, honestly, I can see the utility to writers and researchers of having a database of cold, hard facts. But I'm not sure a wiki is the right way to do it. This seems like something that would be best left to trained professionals. Even then, some of the problems I mentioned will still be problems. As a wiki, I could see each of these problems becoming a deal-breaker.
And for the record, no, I would absolutely not ever cite such a wiki for a claim on this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
WikiFunctions looks like a Wolfram Alpha competitor, but, if history is any guide, it probably won't be able to compete. WikiFacts is something I cannot follow. Couldn't Wikidata do most of what Wikifacts is trying to do? jps (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikidata doesnt even have a comparable BLP, so god knows the nightmare this sort of 'fact' based bullshit would cause. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Given that wikis aren't WP:RS, this shouldn't affect Wikipedia directly, if policy is followed. Which it must be, if necessary by blacklisting the entire website. It is a shame that the WMF is wasting money on this nonsense, but Wikipedia surely isn't going to rewrite core policy to give preferential treatment to an internal 'source'? That would be a PR nightmare, and I can't think of any proposal more likely to piss off those who have worked on the project for years, trying to keep the endless stream of crap sources out of articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd much rather the WMF spend money on fixing actual problems which haven't been solved in nearly a year than proposing farcical projects. Is this April Fools or something? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    @RandomCanadian: "proposing farcial projects" are you referring to the WikiFunctions or WikiFacts? I guess technically WikiFunctions could still be called a proposal but as Doug Weller pointed out, it's almost a done deal now having received approval, whatever the wisdom of it. WikiFacts, AFAICT, no one from the WMF is involved in that proposal. Definitely I see no indication User:Vis M has any connection to the WMF other than what you and I have i.e. volunteers at one or more WMF projects. While it's fine to say you don't think the WMF should spend money on developing and hosting something like WikiFacts (or WikiFunctions), blaming the WMF for being open enough to allow proposals from random people like WikiFacts seems a little lame. I doubt much time or money is spent evaluating projects coming from random people which don't receive significant community support, or attract the eye of someone at the WMF who wants to push it and neither of these seems to have happened with WikiFacts which has been withdrawn by Vis M anyway. I'd hardly be surprised if no one from the WMF even knows of the proposal. Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Yup, I am just another wiki editor. I have no connection with WMF in anyway. - Vis M (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    I saw the WMF in the title and near the end of the OP, and also saw it referred to in some of the comments, and thought this was some WMF proposal. Doesn't change the criticism of the WMF, fwiw. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    (EC) I should add I don't disagree with the general point on the WMF's apparent poor record on fixing actual bugs or problems where no one disagrees there is a problem that needs to be fixed and any decent fix is unlikely to result in much community opposition. My favourite example is the CAPTCHA problem for users with limited vision, a problem which is ?15 years old now and still has no signs of any real resolution [10]. Other the fact as one commentator (sort of) pointed out the CAPTCHA itself hasn't advanced in longer (I think) meaning that it's now probably somewhat easy to bypass and since there are a lot of other shitty sites out there, maybe most people with limited vision already have a solution. But I also feel unreasonable criticism harms our attempts to get reasonable criticism taken seriously, and whatever problems the WMF has in fixing problems/bugs, it just seems silly to blame the WMF for WikiFacts. WikiFunctions is a different issue, but your comment suggested you were referring to some simple proposal whereas WikiFunctions seems to have been something developed over 8 years or so. So while I can see reasonable criticism of the WMF's decision to develop and accept it, it doesn't really fit with your original message. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin, still

Still the fake COVID-19 treatment du jour, now also embraced by antivax types as the alternative THEY don't want you to know about.[11] Recent interest/campaigning in social media (e.g.) seems to be resulting in an uptick of attention to content here, and all the following would benefit from the eyes of fringe-savvy editors:

Alexbrn (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have spread to COVID-19 pandemic in Goa. Brunton (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
To set the record the record straight, no one is saying on all these pages that ivermectin treats Covid. The discussion is about the fact that certain countries use it anyway in spite of WHO recommendations. Please refrain from casting aspersions on editors who don't agree with you. Can't say about others, but I was happy to get vaccinated against Covid some time ago. Alaexis¿question? 09:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
More

Also, add to this list:

These gentlemen are two of the most prominent advocates of the drug as a COVID treatment. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Update

A call to arms has gone out on twitter[12] and sure enough the Pierre Kory article got a good going over by new accounts (I have since tidied). This twitter brigading is becoming a real issue. If there's an admin watching this page might be worth semi'ing. BTW, does anybody know what tool was used to make that screenshot? Looks useful. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Bernarr Macfadden‎

Samuel Enderby has been removing criticisms on the Bernarr Macfadden article and adding Macfadden's own fasting book as a source in the lead [13], in this diff he also removed 3 reliable sources. This is obviously a false balance and appears to be white-washing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu (book) debunked

See [14], [15] and [16]. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, this appears to be a substantial critique. The issue with previous critiques is that they were bad faith attacks by right-wing pundits as part of the Australain history wars. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Joan Roughgarden, sexual selection, and gender in animals

Comments are needed at Talk:Gender#Yes, Roughgarden's views are fringe. Thank you. Crossroads -talk- 21:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation or censorship: science reporting and social media Joint online event with the group Challenging Pseudoscience, at the Royal Institution

6:30 on the 22nd, free. Registration is now open and will close at 17:00 on Tuesday 22 June 2021.[17]. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Quantized inertia

The horror! A new user found out that Wikipedia is biased against this concept!

Both article and Talk page have been pretty lively the last few months. The term has been mentioned on FTN three years ago: [18] --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Now at AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
It looks likely that the AfD is getting attention from the inventor's social-media followers. XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a shitshow. But his tweets are hilarious. Conspiracy theories about Wikipedia, and has even the classic appeal to Jimbo Wales. Tercer (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Those are pretty amusing, but my favorite one is IMO, the question of our time is "What is real?".
Like, whoah, man, what is real, anyways? Is, like, my hand real? Deep stuff. I wonder why nobody has thought of this before, man. Hey, don't bogart the joint, dude, puff puff pass. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The AfD has been closed as delete. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

DISC assessment

DISC assessment is a proprietary form of psychometric testing developed in the 1950s. I fear that the article has become advertorial in tone. All of the critical information has been moved into a "Criticism" section. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

In December, the C stood for Conscientiousness in the lede. Now it is Compliance. That looks like a profound change to me. The article sometimes used/uses one, sometimes the other.
And lots of stuff about that Merrick Rosenberg chap was added since then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I was slightly happier with this version from over a year ago. Since then most of the content seems to be advertorial in tone. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, I tend to view most pre-1980 (or at least anything prior to the evidence-based revolution that resulted in the DSM-III) ideas in psychology and psychiatry with a lot of skepticism. I'm glad that we have some of the criticisms in there, but at the very least the lede needs to acknowledge that it has never been accepted by any serious organizations and has no scientific evidence to support it. In general, psychiatry tends to be poorly covered in Wikipedia, but this is more a function of society than anything specific to Wikipedia itself. Psychiatry tends to attract a lot of fringe whackadoodles, including occasionally some editors who are in denial about their own diagnoses, as well as a famous psychiatry-denying religious group whose propaganda used to be included in many Wikipedia articles, sometimes deliberately and sometimes in ways that deserve their own plaque in the CIR Hall of Fame. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree, an up-top mention that it's pre-evidence based and hasn't been subjected to modern rigors is the least that should be changed. The Criticisms section is giving me a WP:REDFLAG through the use of a lot of red links, which gives the mistaken implication that there are few notable criticisms. But this all seems pretty typical for a pop-psychology article, how do we typically handle these issues? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Lab Leak Again

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And at the main COVID-19 article. Alexbrn (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
And now Drastic Team, which I've boldly redirected for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Sources were: an op-ed post on Washington Post (with a consent warning), a press-release for a Ridley book via The Telegraph, a CNET post that's misleading and only usable for computer tech news, a dubious conservative TV channel. —PaleoNeonate – 09:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: I've also found this (obviously not in the proposed page) which makes a passing mention without naming the group: "Nonetheless, some aggressive proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis interpreted the letter as supporting their ideas. For instance, a neuroscientist belonging to a group that claims to independently investigate COVID-19 [...]" - of course, when the group in question claims to be "an independent team of scientists, analysts and sleuths who have come together to investigate the origins of Covid-19."; and also claims that "many of its members opt to remain anonymous to protect themselves from possible reprisals" [I'm not going to link to their site, for obvious reasons], we're faced with the blatant and obvious conspiracy theory that "The scientific establishment (peer-reviewed journals, universities) are trying to suppress the Truth about [flat Earth theory];" and that "[Professional astronomers] have a clear conflict of interest." (fill in the metaphor with "lab leak theory" and "Professional virologists", and you get the picture). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, you're probably right that they're also thinking of that propaganda network... I agree that it's not enough to have a standalone article still, especially for the lack of a direct mention (and even brief mentions might not be enough for GNG perhaps)... As usual if it's only a question of TOOSOON, RS with coverage will eventually explode about it, —PaleoNeonate – 20:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
CNET? Oh, right, the malware distributor. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Some discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#How_we_discuss_and_explain_COVID_origins StrayBolt (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
No mention of DRASTIC at COVID-19 misinformation. If someone wants to add info on it, please do so. otherwise I am going to nominate the redirect for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that any of the sources used in the previous DRASTIC article are good enough for the misinformation article. No objection about draftifying or nominating for deletion if someone doesn't find/add more, —PaleoNeonate – 20:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Closing a browser tab: Rogers, Adam (2021-05-28). "The Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory Is a Tale of Weaponized Uncertainty". Wired. Retrieved 2021-05-28.. XOR'easter (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Link to the actually disputed use of the source. The discussion at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#Contested new material related specifically to this article by this author for this purpose (notably, the quoted reference to the lab leak as "in essence, a conspiracy theory"). Gorski articles in SBM are quoted multiple other locations in the article where the use of the citation hasn't been disputed. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Viser, Matt; Abutaleb, Yasmeen (2021-06-05). "Trump and his allies try to rewrite, distort history of pandemic while casting Fauci as public enemy No. 1". Washington Post. Retrieved 2021-06-06. Still, there has been no new evidence on the lab leak theory and the existing evidence is entirely circumstantial, meaning no one can actually answer the question of whether there was a lab leak or whether the virus occurred naturally. But many Republicans have rushed to claim anyway that they were right all along. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ling, Justin (2021-06-15). "The Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Hold Up". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2021-06-15. Noteworthy for evaluating the "Bioscience Resource Project" and finding the same problems we noticed at WP:RSN bloody months ago. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Oscar love curse

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar love curse, which concerns a supposed superstition. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that the list of supposed victims of this 'curse' consists mostly of living individuals, and given that it fails to cite any source whatsoever for said individuals inclusion on said list I've started a discussion at WP:BLPN [20] Regardless of whether it is 'fringe' or not, it appears to violate basic WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Behavior modification facility – violates WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS?

The article Behavior modification facility seems problematic, as it lends considerable credence to the work of behavior modification facilities, even though they are, as far as I can tell, widely criticized as being abusive and not using evidence-based methods. See for example this BBC News story[21] on the facilities. I would appreciate if someone with medical or related expertise could take a look at the article. I also wonder to what extent WP:MEDRS applies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

In my (limited) understanding from looking at some of this in the past, this is a field with some legitimate aspects - for example it's probably a legitimate & caring thing to modify the behaviour of somebody with a neurological condition that leads them compulsively to want to gouge their own eyes out. But around, and on top of, this there is a whole boat-load of fringe stuff yes. So it makes for a difficult topic to deal with broadly, as sources must be chosen carefully for whatever claims are being considered. Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Another WP:PROFRINGE lab leak essay

Highlights include:

  • An opening premise of "As shown by Jon Stewart", with the link to Jon Stewart showing as a "Generally unreliable source" for those wise enough to have Headbomb's handy script installed)
  • Some pseudo-mathematics "proving" the "lab leak" is likely
  • A criticism of Wikipedia for "relying heavily on scientists and their publications to provide information on COVID-19"
  • A suggestion that rather than following the WP:PAGs, WP:COMMONSENSE is used. Hmmm, why does this remind me of something?
  • And more!

One to savour this. But, on a more serious note, should this really have a WP: space link? Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

No, we definitely should not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This is like the poster child for WP:NOCOMMON. Certainly does not belong. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
It needs to cite Betteridge’s Law. Brunton (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm tempted to give it (the redirect) the RFD treatment or even the CSD treatment by pointing to the similarity between that and "LABLEAKLIKELY"... In either case, this certainly supports the proposal for the topic ban of the author... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
RFD'd. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Well that was quick! Agreed, if this is what passes for a well-sourced argument around here, we've got bigger problems...--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternative medicine in a nutshell

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Question at village pump

For those who have two cents left to spend. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

List of top Covid myths

here. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Naftalan oil

I am expecting some pushback regarding this edit:[22]

Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Croatian source for for claims about the medical effects of bathing in high-naphthalene-content crude oil. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Jeremy Griffith

Someone posted concerns about fringe POV in January. More eye may be needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I've looked and I haven't found much critical analysis of his ideas, probably because they are not even wrong. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Interesting review of one of his books in the Sidney Morning Herald, which is quite critical in some aspects. Probably worth incoporating into the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Steve Kirsch video attacking Covid vaccinations

This video[23] is circulating on Twitter via the usual crazies. (And some are crazy, eg"If factcheckers say it's a hoax, it's true" and claiming I'm a paid deep state agent). The website itself is a respectable source I think. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

trialsitenews also keeps coming up as a "source" for the ivermectin-cures-covid types. It is most certainly not a respectable source. Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
If more sources cover it, this seems like an opinion that could be mentioned at the author's article; on the other hand, not an expert in this and likely lacks access to the necessary information for a decent analysis, also obviously not MEDRS and this particular article is only an op-ed... —PaleoNeonate – 14:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I noticed the ivermectin thing today also. I can't find any sources commenting on trailsite or on Kirsch. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Stigmata

I think this one belongs on some watchlists. Should "a psychoanalytic study of stigmatic Therese Neumann" be quoted? Is leprosy a relevant explanation for St. Francis' stigmata? Did Padre Pio really report that his stigmata were gone after his death? I think the last one is a mistranslation, but I don't know the answer to the first two. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Quantum Psychology

Quantum Psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article describes a book about a fringe-sounding topic without any sourced critical commentary of the book. It has been tagged for notability since December 2019. Some of the other articles related to Robert Anton Wilson, such as Eight-circuit model of consciousness, also lack this information. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for more involvement/input regarding fringe >> Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Amhara people on NPOV noticeboard

There is a discussion about Amhara people NPOV which possibly contains fringe, venue for discusssion [[24]], your input is welcome. Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Essays that promote pseudoscience or conspiracy theories

See Wikipedia talk:Advocacy#Is it OK use Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, as long as you do so in an essay in userspace? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Linking WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP#NOT for completeness, —PaleoNeonate – 09:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Ironically, the most pertinent essay on this whole thing was WP:Randy's enablers which got deleted (well, merged then vaporized) because it seemed a bit much. The original text can be seen in this diff. My take is that it not possible to get a user-space essay deleted unless it's downright obscene/offensive. So don't bother with it. Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
That sounds almost like a dare. In fact, if the sun were over the yardarm....Hyperion35 (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The Game Changers

This article is a bit of a mess. A vegan on the talk-page wants to include a rebuttal to the criticisms of the documentary, I don't oppose that but I think it is false balance to put it in the lead. See the talk-page discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I started pecking at this but it's so depressingly poor I'm not sure I can continue! yeesh! Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
It's weird when dueling maximalist pseudoscientific proponents fight on conspiracy theory podcasts. jps (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Why do references 5, 6, 7 and 8 get to stay in the introduction and imply that the film is pseudoscience, misinformation, has been debunked and etc, while a criticism of one of the articles does not? with a general line of, "however, there have also been rebuts to some of those criticisms [insert reference]". Seems reasonable to me.

Plus this "ජපස" person should be blocked from editting the article. Simply look at it, it will be evident as to why... (bias does not get harder, the fact that this person is allowed to make edits on Wiki is beyond me). RBut (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Whooah, you're talking about one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors there, particularly for WP:FRINGE topics. Of course, that's no guarantee they're doing it right but still ... WP:CLUE is a thing. On the wider point, if there are still lots of shitty sources used, be WP:BOLD and cull them! Alexbrn (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Generally speaking, advocating for the sanctioning of an experienced and highly competent editor with the rationale "just look at their editing" is a better method of getting yourself sanctioned than of getting anyone else sanctioned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@RBut: You need to stop picking fights. I harbor no particular disdain for your position or the desires you have to make sure everything is fair, but what is fair on Wikipedia is not necessarily what you might think is fair or what I might think is fair. The film, rightly or wrongly, makes dramatic health claims which may or may not be validated by reliable sources. You have also pointed out, rightly, that some of the critics of the film may be problematic in other ways. Lord knows we don't need to preference the opinions of people who believe in such fantasies as the so-called "paleo diet". But the way to resolve these issues is to stick to very high-quality sourcing. The article right now has some fairly good sources and some that are perhaps not so good. I would start there. Which are the sources you think are the most problematic? Then, if consensus agrees, we can remove those sources and the content sourced to it. If you find good sources that are not polemical or, even better, entirely independent, we can use those to improve the article as well. jps (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Before you step on any more land mines, have you read WP:GOODBIAS? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@MPants at work:Well simply look at the edit that was done. It was hypocritical... It said the previous version used WP:PEACOCK while simultaneously editting it and using WP:PEACOCK. "Puffery is an example of positively loaded language; negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much.". It did that. Introduce negatively loaded language.
@ජපස and Jps: Please explain why source 10: http://proteinaholic.com/response-to-layne-nortons-review-of-the-game-changers/ - is no good and does not deserve to be in the introduction, while source 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 which you consider high quality and do.

5: https://nz.news.yahoo.com/the-game-changers-vegan-documentary-claims-meat-could-kill-you-023401631.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmVzLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKXpatllbE53RcufmjuE2oWHPdkugfpjo428Czc7K8dUua7PeQPaZFU7060KEMePYzGGpD17lb1qddfuMQCWtwEUXpjW31rsZC8yYBQaGumCvD0SMMcg4nQzA_giw_vETuSuMRmFmix6RNyYSEKCdwyO2ci4myO22kMvfXsNlIN6

6: https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a29067926/the-game-changers-movie-fact-check/

7: https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-review-a-scientific-analysis/

8: https://tacticmethod.com/the-game-changers-scientific-review-and-references/

9: https://www.mysportscience.com/post/2019/11/06/is-game-changers-game-changing-or-is-it-sensationalism RBut (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the dispute or the subject of the article, but I'll tell you right now, that source 10 is a blog, which is generally not a good source. Unless the author is an acknowledged expert, it's completely unusable. Even if the author is, it's still not ideal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Same regarding a lack of familiarity of the dispute, but I'll also note that sources 8 and 9 are also unambiguously blogs (with 7 being labeled as research, but still what I'd generally refer to as a blog). A bit less WP:SELFPUB than 10 (with the exception of 7), but blogs nonetheless. I can't comment on what's reliable versus unreliable on content, but purely from a platform viewpoint I think 7-10 all deserve some scrutiny. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll note that source 10 is written by a surgeon, whereas sources 7 and 9 are written by PhD's in nutrition. They're all selfpub, but the latter ones are higher quality. You're right that source 8 is (relative) garbage: it should not be used at all. Source 6 is clearly not a blog, but an article in a popular and highly regarded magazine. Source 5 is a little funky (I can't find the byline), but otherwise arguably the best source of the bunch, depending on how you judge Men's Health. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Right, but as you mentioned: Unless the author is an acknowledged expert, it's completely unusable. Even if the author is, it's still not ideal. All four of the blogs are apparently written by doctors of some kind. Which isn't to say they must be given the same weight, but that the difference between them in quality/reliability is not the author's credentials (assuming all relevant, actual experience) or the source being a blog post. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I remember what I said. I also said They're all selfpub, but the latter ones are higher quality.
All four of the blogs are apparently written by doctors of some kind. That "some kind" part is the rub. Would you trust a gynecologist to treat prostate cancer? Better question; would any competent gynecologist even try to treat someone's prostate cancer?
(Hint: the answer is "No" to the second question. The answer to the first is entirely yours, and answered entirely at your own risk.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I think I agree with all of that, I was still a bit stuck on the original comment, specifically "blogs are unusable" having only been applied to only one of the 4 blog posts. All of them require that secondary analysis to see if they fit that exception, and I'm not looking to wade into that one :) Bakkster Man (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
If you take a look on the Game Changers wiki's talk page we have already done an analysis. Ref 7 is an advocacy site, previously funded by animal agriculture (also happens to most heavily critize the documentary). Ref 6 and 8 lacks credentials. 6 was written by a journalist that heavily promotes meat while 8 by an engineer. Ref 9 lacks references, which qualifies it under "primary source" (lowest quality evidence, sources that should be avoided via Wikipedia's guidelines). That is the world of health documentaries. There will be no respresentatives of the World Health Organization reviewing it. My argument basically is, is that reference 10 (above) should be added in the introduction with a general tone if the references above are justified. It simply makes it less biased. Alternatively I can rewrite the page with less biased references, however it will have to abide by some different criteria as the reliance on blogs and etc is a requirement, some a tertiary source (e.g. the WHO) is not possible to find. At best I have found blogs that reference secondary and primary sources for their rebuts. So what I propose are review that give credit where credit is due, and criticize where criticism is due, while also containing mostly secondary references. WDYT? RBut (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Who is this "we"? "Lacking credentials" is not the way sources get impeached here... especially when the subject is a film. So to glibly dismiss editorials or reviews because the person who wrote it "lacks credentials" is fairly rich considering the filmmaker does not have "credentials" either. WP:PARITY cuts both ways. Now, I'm not saying that we necessarily need to include all these references. I'm not a fan of tacticmethod.com but I would be okay with including comments that were attributed sourced to that website as long as we're honest about who the author is. Same goes for biolayne.com except that we dwell on this particular critic due to the Joe Rogan section. Now, I'm not convinced that the Joe Rogan section adds anything to the article... except that the filmmaker themselves decided to engage. Once that happens, I think there is a case to be made that this touched a nerve and if you're going to talk about the filmmaker's performance in that debate, you're going to have to include the statements from the horse's mouth. We're in the weeds here, but it's not our fault. That's the way the film ended up being handled by various people. jps (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Bakkster Man, I worried a bit that the (friendly) sarcasm in my comment would rub you the wrong way, and I'm glad to see that it apparently didn't.
The whole topic of nutrition seems (in my very limited experience looking into it) to have a much heavier reliance on selfpub sources, which makes sense. There's a lot of money to be made in that associated industry, which means lots of experts (and non-experts presenting themselves as experts) are strongly motivated towards entrepeneurialship, and that means means blogs a plenty.
As you said, it looks like too hot of a mess to made wading in appealing, and a topic that's begging for a good essay on sourcing to get elevated to guideline status. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but my point was that the criticism you will use against reference 10 applies to all the references listed above. So when you say 10 falls under blog, so do references 7, 8 and 9. Another criteria were if the person is not an acknowledged expert it would also be an issue, well look at reference 6, it is by somebody with no credentials (while reference 10 does have the credentials). RBut (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way I understand that this is a new topic for many people and it is easy to brush off, but the Game Changers is not the buzzwords that are claimed it is (in the introduction of the wiki page). I completely agree that there are a few areas to critique, some of them being that a few of the referenced studies are primary sources with small sample sizes. However the general message is on point. If you look at Canada's latest dietary guidelines where industry was excluded and the review was purely motivated by science versus financial incentives (well, Canada does have free healthcare so it is motivated by reducing healthcare costs), the majority of the plate (around 95%) is made up of whole food plants, because that is what the science shows: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-food-guide-unveil-1.4987261 or alternatively, go here and download PDF (on the right, it says "Download the alternative format") for the full referenced article: https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/guidelines/

"The guide was prepared using high-quality scientific reports on food and health, excluding industry-commissioned reports given the potential for conflicts of interest, according to Health Canada."

"Health Canada recommends eating "plenty of vegetables and fruits, whole grain foods and protein foods. Choose protein foods that come from plants more often." For instance, fruits and vegetables make up half the plate on the report's front cover and nuts, beans and seeds are more prominent."

So take this into consideration. This is a tertiary source (considered to be the highest quality by Wikipedia guidelines). However these are recommendations towards the average person, and not an athlete. RBut (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

While I understand your syllogistic reasoning here, this is pretty clearly WP:SYNTH. It's a good idea to stick close to explicitly stated conclusions in the sources. Also, I can assure you that not all healthcare in Canada is free! You raise valid points, and I am hopeful there is appropriate compromise to be had here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes of course. The purpose above was to show that there is support for a predominantly (mostly) plant based lifestyle by high quality, tertiary sources. There are other major organizations as well, for example the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (and around 10+ other major dietetic organizations around the world) that support it as well. Even the UN (but they do it moreso for the environmental benefits as well reducing the probability of zoonotic disease). RBut (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Plant-based doesn't mean vegan. The major dietetic and health organizations around the world are not supporting a vegan diet. They recommend a balanced diet of vegetables, fruit, nuts, legumes, grains and lean animal protein which is getting closer to plant-based but it is still not quite there yet. They all still recommend animal protein sources (seafood, eggs, chicken). You might call this "semi-vegetarian", similar to the Mediterranean diet. Generally they are telling people to reduce saturated fat content and stay away from red or processed meat but that is a long way off from avoiding all animal products. James Wilks was asked about plant-based i.e. a diet made up of mostly plants with a minimalistic amount of animal protein and he said no, that's not good enough and not what the Game Changers is about. On the talk page I listed 4 reviews that were mostly negative about the Game Changers written by registered dietitians (one of them was plant-based). I believe those reviews should be used on the article because they are experts on the topic. The negative reviews greatly outnumber the positive. We should not create a false balance but I agree that Garth Davis could be used on the article but not in the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Psychologist Guy:For one, there is no reference for the claim that that James Willks does not support a mostly plant based diet. He included people in the film that eat such a diet (Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Nate Diaz that eat mostly plant based). And two, the references you included might be by experts but some of them contain no sources. They do not fit into the criteria of Wiki's guidelines... it is called a primary source (source that has no place on Wiki). It's also a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. We went over this. Let's say I can find another credentialed authority that does not reference their claims and then claim the exact opposite that was claimed to your authority, how are you going to figure out who is truthful?.... For three, I never tried to create a balanced support. The published sources in the article are extremely flawed to which I attempted to add one single rebuttal by an expert. I asked people: "Justify those articles while simultaneously claiming the Dr Gath one is flawed". Nobody does. Either the request is skipped or admittance is shared that those sources are flawed, however they still remove the Dr. Garth one while leaving the other ones up. For four, the majority of those organizations you mentioned have sponsors from fast food companies such as McDonalds and soft drink companies such as Coca Cola, and especially the Beef, Dairy and Egg industry. Expecting their analysis to be 100% scientific over financially motiavted is illogical. I just visited Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the largest dietetics organization on our planet) and one of their top articles currently promotes eating healthier for kids in fast food places, with one of their recommendations being a roast beef sandwich, inadvertently I also checked thier sponsors, ooh "National Cattlemen's Beef Association" hmm... (they also had Egg, Dairy, soft drink companies and a lot more). Please tell me what science that is based on (recommending beef sandiwches for kids), I'm actually hoping you will respond to this request. They're the most objective organizations we have right? here's my suggestion: Check out latest Canada's dietary guidelines. A country with free health care, a country that excluded industry comissioned reports from their last nutritional guidelines review. What this stands for is that their analysis was purely motivated by science and reducing health care costs. What they found the best dietary recommendation to make was predominantly plant based, around 95%. Same as James Willks.... RBut (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned over the idea of including Garth Davis as there is a WP:REDFLAG for me with his participation in What the Health. jps (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@ජපස:If Gath Davis is a WP:REDFLAG, can you please explain how references 6, 7, 8 and 9 do not qualify as WP:REDFLAG? RBut (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
A general point: a claim that some kind of health intervention has an effect is pretty much always shading into being WP:EXCEPTIONAL and needs strong sourcing; a claim of "nah, doesn't work" is a commonplace (this is, after all the default assumption in science) and so generally weaker sourcing suffices. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: Can you please expand on this more. What evidence for which claim are you looking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBut (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I was making a general point because I'm seeing questions like "if source X is bad, how come source Y is okay?". Editors should bear in mind that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS so different strengths of source are okay for different strengths of claim, and claims of health effect are nearly always stronger than claims of no health effect. Alexbrn (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok, well that source was critiquing one of the other sources and their references. RBut (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
You're asking me to defend a position I have not taken. As you'll see above, I don't think that we should be promoting the claims of anyone who may be problematically WP:FRINGE in terms of their advocacy whether it be stridently vegan or stridently paleo diet. However, given that there is an entire section devoted to some conflict on the Joe Rogan podcast (which I am not convinced is worth discussing in depth), it would be quite strange to discard sources from the main interlocutor while allowing pontification from the filmmaker. That said, to argue that an editorial in Men's Health magazine is equivalent to the blogpost of a cast member of What the Health is somewhat disconfirming. Perhaps dial back your WP:ADVOCACY here and try to figure out how to collaborate with others? jps (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

[25] I think when you are so used to dispute, it may be easy to mistake a neutral improvement for a smear. I explained myself on the talkpage, but this is a classic enough example, I thought I'd plop it here. Anyone else thing my wording changes are "negative"? jps (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: Alright, what is your position on reference 6, 7, 8 and 9?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RBut (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
See above. Briefly, I think that if we are going to discuss Joe Rogan, we have to accept attributed statements from biolayne.com. I agree that if we are going to use tacticmethod.com, it should be attributed to the author. I don't think "credentials" is a valid consideration for inclusion/exclusion of sources in this instance given that the filmmaker doesn't really have "credentials" either. jps (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@ජපස: Right, how does Dr. Garth not qualify to be included as a reference?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RBut (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
See above! My concern (note that this is not a disqualification) is that his involvement with various polemical works that may stray from dispassionate evaluation into promotion of his particular advocacy may not make him any more reliable (or unreliable, for that matter) from the detractors. At the very least, we would need to attribute anything he says and it would help the reader if we indicate that he may be motivated to support the main ideas of the film, for example. jps (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@ජපස: How about biolayne? he was previously funded by animal agriculture. Should we warn readers that he may be motivated by more than a psychological motivation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RBut (talk • contribs) 18:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely! I am not thrilled with how he is being described in the article right now. But instead of funding sources (which we do not mention for the film, I might add), what I'm more concerned with is his advocacy of the paleo diet. jps (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Why would you not be concerned if he was directly funded by the opposing side of the research presented in the documentary while being concerned that Dr. Garth might have a bias? RBut (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Because receipt of funding, while it can indicate problems and should be disclosed when there are conflicts of interest, is not nearly as disconfirming as someone who actively promotes a competing POV. For my work, I get funding from the government. That does not necessarily mean that I am compromised when discussing the government. On the other hand, if in my work I advocated strongly in favor of the government as a political position, that would be an important thing for a reader to know when considering my review of the "GOVERNMENT IS BAD" documentary. jps (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

So using your analogy, if somebody were paid to say "GOVERNMENT IS BAD SUCKS!" it is not as much of an issue if somebody came to the conclusion by reviewing the evidence that "GOVERNMENT IS BAD MAKES SOME GOOD POINTS!"? RBut (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
No. I'm saying that a person who advocates for a position in a consistent fashion to the point that they are affiliated with discourse that have been subject to WP:MAINSTREAM critique needs to be properly contextualized. It doesn't matter what the position is. It only matters that the position is WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Can't be that fringe if Canada's non industry funded dietary guidelines came to the same conclusion. That plants should be maximized in a diet and have benefits. RBut (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
What the Health is fringe. I think there is no two ways about that. jps (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Having a few scenes in a documentary is a stonewall argument to discredit you for life? RBut (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
100% agreement with this statement, and the point it makes.
But, can we actually change the game already? I've got Super Mario Cart and 4 controllers. My 6yo is deceptively competent at it, if you like a challenge. This discussion between you two probably belongs back at article talk, as you've gotten back to the discussion of specific changes.
ජපස, if you need an extra pair of eyes, you know my talk page is always open to you.
As a final note, RBut, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) each and every time you write a new comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair. I'll just end with a point that it hardly think it is "discrediting" someone to point out WP:REDFLAG may apply to them as a source due to an appearance in a documentary with a similar agenda to the one they are commenting upon. jps (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Right. If they were paid to do it however it's no biggie (of course only if they were paid to present the agenda of the opposing side though). RBut (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
RBut, James Wilks does not eat a 95% plant based diet, he is strict vegan (he does not eat meat, dairy or eggs). In the debate with Chris Kresser he was asked and he said he does not eat animal products as meat is bad. Wilks definition of "plant-based" is vegan but the documentary did not use that term because of the baggage that is sometimes associated with it. There is a recent interview with Wilks where he explains his vegan diet [26]. He lives off oats, vegetables, lentils and soy which is completely unbalanced (Wilks does not seem to have researched antinutrients) but he wiped the floor with Chris Kresser who nobody in the nutritional world takes seriously (he is an acupuncturist). Kresser made an embarrassing mistake of claiming that vitamin B12 is never added to livestock feed so Wilks had an easy time shooting down his arguments. It seems Wilks got more attention for his debate with Kresser than the documentary itself. However if you look at the reception of the documentary it was negatively reviewed by dietitians for making exaggerated nutritional claims and the experiments on the show contained no blinding, randomization or control group. So far you have only given us one response to criticisms of the documentary from Garth Davis. There doesn't seem to be any other reliable sources defending the documentary. Other users have rejected the idea of adding Davis as a source to the article so I am not sure how we can proceed with this discussion. Like I said the criticism of the documentary out ways the positives. We can't have an entirely balanced article, because that would be a false balance and undue weight. The mainstream view is that documentary contains pseudoscientific claims so that information is summarized in the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Psychologist Guy: Where does it say that James Willks does not support anything other than fully plant based? "Some people like to jump all in, but for others, a gradual approach works best. We like to say it’s not “all or nothing”, but rather, “all or something”. The research shows that any shift towards eating more whole plant foods can be beneficial. We’ve actually put some tips for people who wants to eat more plants on our website."
And unbalanced based on your assessment? And what if by the assessment of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics it is balanced? How are you measuring this unbalance-ness? And why would he have to research anti nutrients? (which is also the talking point of carnivore advocates) telling somebody to research anti nootrients does not make any point if you understand how anti nootrients work. Are you suggesting he's deficient in nutrients because of anti nootrients? and what about the anti nutrients in animal products? Plus no worries, I already figured out how this works. The validity of the arguments of any of my references do not matter as long as they have previously supported a plant based diet. The flawdness of the references of the criticisms of the Game Changers also do not matter, as long as they argue for the mainstream view. Those sources could literally claim anything, no matter how flawed or hypocritical and editors would stay silent because tons of meat is supported by the mainstream view. Even if they go completely against Wiki's guidelines. I basically figured out there is a pretence of non bias and following Wiki's guidelines. Here is your reference (which was not accurately presented by you):
"As far as diet, I usually have oatmeal for breakfast, either cooked or overnight oats. On Sundays, my wife makes pancakes or waffles for the family and I’ll make a simple healthy syrup made of berries, dates and water. I’ll have a smoothie most days, which usually has a banana, berries, greens, nuts and seeds, and soy milk. For main meals, it’s a real mixture. Things like lentil pasta with veg, cottage pie made with lentils, beans and rice with veg and guacamole, lasagna made with tofu, and enchiladas." RBut (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
That still doesn't include animal products so I don't see how a longer quote changes anything. Moreover, I saw multiple claims that the Canadian guide agreed with the diet being promoted, but the guide doesn't advocate against the consumption of animal products (even if it recommends including a good ratio of plants)... I will also ask a relevant question, because you appear to be invested to prevent criticism in the article: do you have a conflict of interest in relation to the film or related people? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Did you read the quote? It says it's not an all or nothing approach but rather all or something because any shift towards more whole plants can be beneficial. And the guidelines removed dairy, made most of the plate plants and said opt in for plant protein over animal protein, which is another way of saying replace animal products... And it is weird that you read the whole exchange and came to the conclusion I have a bias but not anyone else here. I have no more bias than anyone else. Since your name is PaleoNate, is there any chance you have a bias towards promoting a diet with little science behind it? the Paleo diet. RBut (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Longtime WP editors been engaging with you in good faith, RBut. This is in spite of you declaring early on your intentions as ones that mirror WP:ADVOCACY fairly closely. I've seen similar sorts of conflict play out many times before, and given that I'm going to offer you some advice: you need to learn to work collaboratively with the people who are active here and not respond with knee-jerk combativeness and rudeness. If you don't alter course, you'll probably find yourself subject to things like WP:BANs and WP:BLOCKs. jps (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I took a page from your book. This is being a hypocrite:
You misread my response, commented something that made no sense, to which I tried to get you to clarify, and then: "If that's not what you intended to communicate, you might want to try toning down the rhetoric a bit. jps (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)"
You were upset because you misread my quote and blamed me. When I pointed it out that I do not understand what you are trying to say you followed up by projecting your emotions onto me: "I literally quoted you. It is directly above. Wait, are you upset with the word "red"? My god. jps (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)"
Very professional yourself there pal... RBut (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
RBut -- I mean this with all due respect and in good faith, but you really do seem overly combative with editors who, while they may disagree with you, are being quite civil. I am not accusing you of anything, but given your behavior, it certainly seems understandable to draw an inference that you are somehow connected to the article subject. Please try to remember that reasonable minds may differ on a subject, and disagreement is often in good faith. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are my current two concerns: should references 4, 5, 6 and 7 be allowed but reference 8 as a response to ref 5 not? To catch everybody up, ref 4 and 6 lack credentials (4 a journalist, 6 an engineer) and 6 is a blog, ref 5 is an advocacy blog but has credentials and references, ref 7 is a blog and has credentials but contains no references (primary source), ref 8 advocacy blog has credentials and references, is a response to ref 5.

And the second concern, is "The film viewing is an approved activity for continuing education credit by the Defense Health Agency[11] and the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.[12][13]" has been moved down to the "reception" section. Does that make sense? Why can this not stay in the intro as it was (given as ref 4, 5, 6 and 7 reside there, it seems to be the most approriate place for it). 1. It was marketed as being accredited/endorsed by those organizations, 2. It's in the intro of the documentary, 3. These organizations have accredited courses examining the science behind the documentary that secure credits for CE/CME (continuing medical education) which includes: "Physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, pharmacists, registered dietitians, certified diabetes educators, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, social workers, and more!". Clearly it is accredited/endorsed otherwise those organizations would have sued the documentary into oblivion. So I proporse changing it back to "It received generally positive reviews by viewers and endorsements by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine and the Defense Health Agency". And please "ජපස" let everybody else analyze for at least a couple responses. RBut (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I want to add a few things which are not necessarily relevant - call it nitpicking, preaching, and pep talking. But since this is not an article Talk page, here goes.
First, you seem slightly concerned about user names. I am pretty sure there is a policy about not talking about other users' names, but I cannot find it at the moment. But, just for the record, ජපස and jps are the same person, "ජපස" being just Sinhala script for "jps", which is the usual moniker here. "Paleo" just means "old". A PaleoNeonate is an old newborn. Nothing to do with the caveman wannabe movement.
Second, that article is about people who eat only plants. Completely unexpectedly, people who eat only animals disagree with them, but happily, that part of the article is much reduced now, although I am just waiting for people who only eat fungi to chime in. And the people who only eat bacteria. And the people who only eat archaebacteria.
The opinions of paleo diet advocates do not belong in Wikipedia articles about vegetarianism. But there is also veggie fringe, and that does not belong either, unless with skeptical sprinkle added. The people you are talking to here are experienced with things that do not belong here. You should not care about what they eat, or what user names they chose. The reasoning is what counts, and if it does not hold water, the motive behind it does not matter. Neither does it if it does hold water. Not in Wikipedia.
You have been a bit personal at the start, suspecting people, accusing people. Then you got much better, using actual reasoning. Then you were at it again. Now you are back to good, after Dumuzid had a say. That is the way to do it, thanks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Eat food, mainly plants, not too much. -Roxy . wooF 10:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought we were getting to a point where we might have had some better working environment, but no dice: [27]. jps (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The escalating SPA activity at this article has caused significant WP:DISRUPTION and editor exhaustion. I've dropped a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#The_Game_Changers for what it's worth. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Article on why people fall for conspiracy theories

[28]. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

2020 article by a retired geologist on the Kensington Runestone

The Kensington Runestone: Geological Evidence of a Hoax,Harold Edwards. 2020, The Minnesota Archaeologist.[29]

Abstract: "Analyses of the geology, geological provenance, fabrication, and lack of weathering show it consistent with an 1898 date and not a 1362 date. The agstone that was used as the raw material is not native to the Kensington area. Toolimpressions and other features of its fabrication are consistent with nineteenth century practice, not four-teenth century practice. All of the letters are virtually unweathered. A calcite-rich coating covers the lowerleft corner of the front. This coating is consistent with stucco applied to the surface of the sandstone. This coating is less weathered than the calcite in 61-year old marble tombstones found in Minnesota, so it could not have been exposed for 536 years. It is well established from karst geology that calcite weathers at least one and a half times faster below ground than at the surface, so if the artifact were buried for any lengthof time, its calcite-rich coating, including its inscription, would have been obliterated. This artifact was created near the time of its discovery, and is a late nineteenth century hoax" Loads more detail. But I'm too busy/tired, sorry.

Doug Weller talk 14:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC on how to depict DRASTIC (twitter group researching COVID-19 origins)

DRASTIC has an RFC for NPOV depiction of this twitter group researching COVID-19 origins. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC on whether to FORK Snake Oil ("oil from a snake" and "the pseudoscience term")

Snake oil has an RFC for whether this article should be split into two articles: "literal oil from a snake" and "the pseudoscience term." A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Linus Pauling Institute

Is this, originally the "Institute of Orthomolecular Medicine", a bona fide "research institute"? I found it via the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons's Art Robinson. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, nutritionists, the cornerstone of modern science. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
It's about as bona fide a "research institute" as AAPS is a real "medical society", and about as trustworthy as that guy in those commercials who promises to send you that miracle holy spring water. Lemme put it this way, if a bit crudely: FAAPS is an apropriate acronym for AAPS's fellows, because it describes well their process of intellectual output. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Bingo. Got em. Anybody who recognizes the way pseudoscientists cite Linus Pauling as the second coming of Andrew Taylor Still will see the irony in this institute's name.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest regarding Covid-19

See User talk:Francesco espo#Conflict of Interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Be sure to update if this goes to action. I suspect DS would mean a much dimmer view might be taken over arguing no COI on a technicality. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • They have a point; this really is stretching the definition of COI. I suppose the argument is that bringing attention to the lab leak theory will drive traffic to their website? That's a very weak 'interest' and the consensus across multiple discussions, reflected in the guideline, is that simply being interested in or writing about a topic off-wiki is not a "role or relationship" that creates a COI. If this editors' edits are a problem, I think it'd be better dealt with under WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. – Joe (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
In this case, however, the individual appears to operate a website to promote a single issue, a position that the editor then comes to Wikipedia to promote, using their own website as a source. To be clear, the problem here isn't just a COI, but an undisclosed COI. Additionally, though, operating that website also implies that the account is a SPA and engaging in advocacy, and that they are likely WP:NOTHERE. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
+1 to this. It's exactly my thoughts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Where have they used their website as a source? I looked for that (because it would be a more convincing COI) but didn't find it. – Joe (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Could someone check the revdeleted content in the history of DRASTIC to see whether Francesco espo copied material from their website at [ laboratoryleak.com ]?
In [30] Francesco espo wrote "As I've written in other pages, the content is mine, laboratoryleak.com is my website. In any case i deleted that content." --Guy Macon (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Drmies, see above --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Shibbolethink, see what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)
Yes, that material was copied from their website - no need for anybody to look: that's the reason it was revdeled. On a graver note, we have a frivolous thread at ANI about, you've guessed it, the covid subject again - where there are also allegations of a COI (someone should tell them the difference between WP:INVOLVED and WP:COI). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Copying content is not the same as inserting a link as a source, though. Again I'm not saying there can't be a problem with their edits, but forcing them to make some sort of 'disclosure' (which isn't even required by policy in this case) isn't going to help anything, and this kind of precedent would stop, for example, an expert on apes from contributing CC-licensed articles on apes they've previously published elsewhere. – Joe (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Never mind all that, he's admitted to being an unreliable source on the COIN page. content cited to him should be removed. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, this site was never cited by anyone for anything. jp×g 13:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Copying content is basically using it as a source, though (although also a potential copyvio issue). I do think that disclosure is necessary. Certainly if I were going to cite something published by my agency (which would almost certainly meet MEDRS standards), I'd include disclosure, and most likely I'd post it on an article talk page instead, with the citation and suggested wording, and let another editor look over it and decide whether to add it to the article if they believe that it is appropriate. Don't we have a WP:CITESELF guideline on this? Hyperion35 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
If you look at the history of this article, almost none of the original revisions' content (written by the article creator) remained by the time the AfD closed. Compare what they wrote, weighing in at a whopping three sentences, with this revision; almost the entirety of the latter's content was from myself, Hemiauchenia, and Novem Linguae. The revisions consisting of content from "laboratoryleak.com" were revdelled -- what content is being disputed here? jp×g 13:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
It should be noted that, as of the time of writing, there are no less than one, two, three, four, five, six separate threads on this noticeboard about the COVID-19 lab leak (and this is the second one you've created about the same article). Is this really necessary? jp×g 13:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Credit to the user in question: I will read these policy pages and keep off the COVID-19 lab origins topic until I understand what to do. Which is, quite honestly, exactly what we'd hope for from a user. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a mountain based on a mole hill here. Francesco espo (talk · contribs) has made no edits to DRASTIC since June 1, and most of the previous edits have been deleted, and none of the content added by the user exists in the article's present form, which has since been edited by numerous (presumably) completely unbiased Wikipedians. Contrary to aggressive claims by User:Guy Macon (who dumped a truckload of wikilaw on the user's talk page and proposed topic bans in what I see as a very bitey fashion), the user is not an SPA, as they have made more edits to articles about snakes, sharks and Italian culture than anything related to COVID-19. There may indeed be a conflict of interest with respect to DRASTIC, but it so far hasn't been much of an issue that affects other articles. I suggest a wait-and-see approach, that is if the editor hasn't already been scared off from making any disease-related edits ever again. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Edit counts for Francesco espo:
11 Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology
11 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin?
10 DRASTIC
10 List of snakes of Italy
6 Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
5 COVID-19 pandemic in Italy
5 Traditions of Italy
4 Talk:Uyghur genocide
3 Talk:DRASTIC
3 Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information
2 List of laboratory biosecurity incidents
2 Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
2 User talk:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak
2 UEFA Euro 2020
1 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drastic Team
1 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:China COVID-19 cover-up
1 Bluntnose sixgill shark
1 Common thresher
1 Culture of Italy
1 Corn snake
1 Vipera kaznakovi
--Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Nice counting! --Animalparty! (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

AfD that may be of some interest

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (2nd nomination). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Was just gonna cross-post this! Thanks MP.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
That's the most bizarre AfD nomination I've ever seen: literally finding additional sources which give non-trivial coverage of the subject in the nomination, and then arguing for its deletion... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The glorious ambrosia of WP:FRINGE is one hell of a drug, my friend. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink: Yeah. Well, anyway, I have some experience with closing AfDs, and this one seemed eligible for a speedy termination on multiple grounds so there you have it. I've also given a BOOMERANG treatment on your AE thread (though you seem to be managing that just fine on your own). Cheers,— Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomCanadian (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
haha, thanks. No I think you're right on both counts, and I appreciate the help even if I already gave the admins a diff-splosion of ASPERSIONS. :) --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Black veganism

This article was recently created but I think there is a WP:SYNTHNOT problem here. Is there really such thing as "black veganism"? It is not supported by reliable references. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It does appear to be an actual term in use, and supported by the reliable references in the article.
  • NYT: Like many food trends that seem new, black veganism has historical roots. Eating vegan has long been a practice, especially for followers of religious and spiritual movements like Rastafarianism and the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem, a religious group with black nationalist underpinnings that rose up in the 1960s and still runs a chain of vegan restaurants in cities like Atlanta; Tallahassee, Fla., and Tel Aviv. Avoiding meat is also a core principle of the Nation of Islam, whose founders believed that pork was at the heart of the slave diet, and preached vegetarianism as the most healthful diet for African-Americans. Many people who give up eating animal products do it for their health, or for animal welfare. The same is true for the new veganism among African-Americans, but there is an added layer of another kind of politics. “It’s not just about I want to eat well so I can live long and be skinny,” said Jenné Claiborne, a personal chef and cooking teacher who recently moved to Los Angeles from New York. Her first cookbook, “Sweet Potato Soul,” is due out in February. “For a lot of black people, it’s also the social justice and food access. The food we have been eating for decades and decades and has been killing us.” Ms. Claiborne, 30, is part of a new generation of vegan cooks who are transforming traditional soul food dishes, digging deeper into the West African roots of Southern cooking and infusing new recipes with the tastes of the Caribbean. As a result, ideas about the dull vegan stews and stir-fries that were standard-bearers among the early generations of black vegan cooks are changing — albeit slowly.
  • BBC: "The vegan community has been white for so long, and sometimes it feels like they want to keep it white," he says. While the diet has been stereotyped as something exclusively for soy-latte swilling, upper-middle class white hipsters, there is a long history of black veganism in the US and abroad, he is quick to point out. "You love to see yourself represented. That's one of the main reasons why the black community has really galvanised around the vegan idea," he says. While many vegan organisations lobby to improve animal welfare, and Black VegFest is no exception, Mr Adewale also makes sure its platform addresses wider issues in the black community like the fight to end police brutality.
While there might be SYNTH issues in specific parts of the text (didn't check) it does appear to be a real, notable (if often overlooked) movement/community/lifestyle. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The BBC news and New York Times are not academic or scholarly sources and the national of Islam is not an example of veganism, they were vegetarian. The idea of "black veganism" is very new and is only reported in recent news sources, it has no historical basis. All of the scholars who have dealt with the history of veganism have never mentioned it because race has nothing to do with veganism historically. You could argue it is a new idea supported by a minority of fringe writers but the article is a mess. I don't see why we need this article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
What part do you dispute? That there's 'no such thing' as "black veganism"? That it lacks a historical basis? Or merely that it's too recent a development to be notable? Only one of those statements seems to fit a "fringe theory". If you think we don't need this article, AfD would be the right venue (and please courtesy link here, if you submit). Bakkster Man (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • My impression is there's some RS on the slighter wider topic of intersection of race and veganism (e.g.), though I'm not sure how this stuff would fit best on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The response to the claim that veganism is associated with the white privileged can be found in academic papers, it goes back nearly 10 years [31] but that is not about black veganism and in total there are not many papers on veganism and race. If those sources are to be used they would fit on the main veganism article. The black veganism idea is very new. In 5 years there might be more sources on it but right now it is not really supported outside of a few newspaper reports. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Newspaper reports, about a self-identifying movement, with multiple published books on the topic. We've got author articles considered notable for less. I just disagree that the lack of academic sources necessarily means this topic is non-notable enough to delete the article. I guess I just don't make the connection that this concept of Black Veganism is a purely academic one living on the fringe, and thus in some way problematic to have an article on the topic lest it give undue weight to bad science.
Specific claims being made about historical context without WP:SCHOLARSHIP, those should be addressed as a fringe idea? But I don't see the argument for deleting the entire article. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what to do about this one either, but it does strike me as a sort of WP:NEOLOGISM, at least in terms trying to claim notability enough for a standalone page. I'm not seeing much meat in the article really focused on black veganism specifically, but more sort of namedropping and other tangential material. It at least needs some pruning. At least at my current read, this subject comes across as individual authors trying to carve out theses rather than a mainstream academic notability.
On a wider scale though, I usually edit agriculture and food topics, and I have been seeing a trend with vegan-related articles like Vegan organic gardening and farming in terms of WP:ISNOT:
6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article
That gets a little beyond the focus of this noticeboard, but there does seem to be a wider issue of XYZ veganism pages that seem superficial in terms of page notability (rather than due weight integration into relevant articles). If you have articles "X people that are Y", there are definite policy concerns that can easily crop up. Like Psychologist Guy mentions, SYNTH can often show up, especially when trying to assess where a topic falls between fringe, minority, to mainstream focus for notability or how much content should be included. KoA (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll respond to this tomorrow with a list of the various mentions of this being a thing. It would be best if I don't do it tonight, I've already had a glass of wine and it's never a good decision to respond when you're both pissed and pissed. —valereee (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: This noticeboard isn't generally a 'notify pages of a discussion' thing like a disciplinary or RfC board. It's generally more intended to get more eyes on a topic or getting a second opinion if someone needs a gut check (I note that Psychologist Guy doesn't appear to have edited the article itself, suggesting he was swayed by discussion, rather than using the board to WP:CANVASS), which should be participating in article talk if there are concerns to address (unlike an RfC where that conversation happens off the article's talk page). Questions of etiquette aside whether someone should have reached out aside, it's pretty typical so I wouldn't take this post as something personal. The Talk comment was perhaps less WP:CIVIL than it could have been. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bakkster Man, that doesn't excuse not notifying well-intentioned editors. I'm not exactly famous for creating articles about fringe theories that anyone would have to worry I was canvassing a subreddit about. This is really unkind. —valereee (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • So, I'm usually editing about tangible things rather than ideas, and when I do write about ideas I find it more difficult. I feel like the actual issue here is not that this isn't a thing but that it's not easy to write about and I haven't done a particularly competent job, which is why the first thing I did after getting it as right as I initially could was to open a talk section asking for input. PG's argument seems to be that veganism isn't political, so this can't be a thing. Of course veganism can be political. Vegetarian ecofeminism -- also a thing -- is inherently political. And the fact he's arguing that Black veganism equates to Asian veganism affirms to me that I haven't written the article well or clearly enough, as Black veganism connects the use of non-human animals to that of humans w/re considering certain bodies -- certain beings -- to be objects appropriate to be used by other bodies however they like. There is no Asian equivalent in the US. It may be a revolutionary idea, but that doesn't make it a fringe theory. —valereee (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I think the link to Vegetarian ecofeminism comprehensively refutes the overreaching argument that this can't be a thing. I think the big difference (and the only significant tweak I see for the article) is the lack of WP:SCHOLARSHIP to date on black veganism, especially relative to the vegetarian ecofeminism article. I don't think it means anything more than softening some of the language that isn't backed up by a journal. I made an example edit on the one sentence I saw that needed it. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Vegetarian ecofeminism is still a minority viewpoint in the vegetarian community but is definitely is own discipline. Carol J. Adams was its main advocate, and we have Greta Gaard and Corey Lee Wrenn. You can maybe list several other advocates of it but that is about it as much of the other mention of it is either writers criticizing it or discussing Adams' views. Black veganism has even less support from academics, Aph and Syl Ko are about the only people actually writing about it in book form but even they have not published anything in peer-reviewed animal rights journals on the topic. I can only see two peer-reviewed papers on black veganism, one of those was written by Corey Lee Wrenn. This is a very new sub-field of vegan studies. There are only a handful of people discussing this in the academic literature currently but I agree with the statement that it can be seen as an "emerging discipline" because of the news coverage and interest in the topic (Americans are obsessed with race). In 5-10 years, yes there will be more peer-reviewed literature on it. As it stands this is indeed fringe if we are talking about response from academia. There is two papers in peer-reviewed journals exclusively on the topic so its hardly its own discipline right now but as more scholarly papers are published on this topic and responses this may change. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Moore (consultant)

There is discussion at Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant) about how to discuss various of the subject's claims (e.g., that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing); I'm sure more eyes would be welcome. --JBL (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Lynn Hughes

Just for the sake of having eyes on this article, Lynn Hughes is the federal judge who ruled that a private employer in Texas could mandate COVID-19 vaccination of its employees. This appears to be the inspiration for edits like this one. As it stands, the article seems highly out of balance. There is a disproportionate focus on controversial rulings that were overturned, given that a judge of this tenure is bound to have heard thousands of cases and had some proportion appealed and either affirmed or overturned. I would expect the ruling on COVID-19 will bring out more colorful responses. BD2412 T 17:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Watts Up With That?

Watts Up With That? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can James Delingpole's blog turn into a reliable source by being "longstanding" in the real world? Or just in the fantasies of people who regularly try to move articles about denialists towards hagiographies? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Totally unreliable for anything but the colour of the socks James is wearing. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Pffft. If that blog said he was wearing red socks, I'd put my money on blue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
There may be a previously unnoticed time delay on my watchlist. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Seems like a pretty innocuous use to support an uncontentious fact, but there's also no point in having it when there's a definitely-not-a-crank-blog citation for the same fact. --JBL (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Query about Reverse Love Jihad section

Love_Jihad#"Reverse" love jihad

In the talk page discussions, the editors don't consider Indian media sources as good sources, while they have written this "Reverse Love Jihad section", with few Indian media sources. They say that Indian media sources are supported by academic source. I found that the lone academic source, was written by Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik from Aligarh Muslim University.

I read the scholarly article, and in that article by Aligarh Muslim University faculty; the reverse love jihad section (inside the scholarly article, not Wikipedia article) is sourced from an Indian media coverage. And in the reverse love jihad section of Wikipedia article, the same Indian media coverage is used to expand the section. Means the same media source is used two times in the Reverse Love Jihad section. First directly, then indirectly as a scholarly article.

Is this section, an attempt to create WP:FALSEBALANCE in the article?

2402:3A80:111B:2A30:3569:2E50:AA35:C5DC (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not a fringe theory that Reverse Love Jihad exists. The people organising it openly promote their campaign. The same cannot be said for Love Jihad itself, which remains an Islamaphobic conspiracy theory despite the hordes of edit requests, often from Indian IP addresses. FDW777 (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
First, I want some un-involved editors views, not those who supported it the talk page. You are involved here. Including it in this article could be WP:UNDUE. 42.110.221.125 (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
If you post misleading claims here, you can expect them to be corrected. Also I see you have failed to even attempt to refute the substance of what I said, and have resorted to simply attempting to discredit me. Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory. That some people have acted on that conspiracy theory and formed a very real campaign does not make Love Jihad any less of a conspiracy theory, and likewise the status of Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory does not make Reverse Love Jihad any less real. FDW777 (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Note- In this noticeboard, I am not discussing anything about Love Jihad. I am discussing about the section. The Reverse Love Jihad Section, is written with Indian media sources (including the AMU academic source, which quotes an Indian media coverage), but they always say on article talk page that Indian media sources are poor sources. 42.110.221.125 (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Indian media sources about this topic are almost uniformly terrible. Academic sources that, in part, examine, study, quote, or discuss Indian media sources about this are not the same as Indian media. This straightforward fact has been explained to you quite clearly already several times. You should desist. --JBL (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The problem with some editors here is that if some Chinese academic from Chinese university will deny Uyghur genocide, you will not accept it as neutral academic source. If any Israeli professor from Israel University says no Palestinian died and denies this The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, then that Israeli professor's note will not be accepted as neutral, while a Muslim professor from Aligarh Muslim University writes about Reverse Love Jihad, then it is accepted as neutral source. The university has lot's of religious bias. I can show that. It was originally known as Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College.... " the Anglo-Muhammadan Oriental College (now Aligarh Muslim University) at Aligarh in 1875. It was India’s first centre of Islamic and Western higher education, with instruction given in English and modeled on Oxford. Aligarh became the intellectual cradle of the Muslim League and Pakistan."...[1] After it became central university, other religion students are studying, but the university was established for Muslims. [2]2402:3A80:110B:11BC:5F9:94BD:2215:E9A6 (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, everyone understands: you are committed to the conclusion, and you don't care what argument or process gets you to it. This is called POV-pushing, it is inappropriate and unwelcome, and you should desist. --JBL (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Aligarh Muslim University university, Aligarh, India". Britannica.
  2. ^ "How AMU was founded".

Mary Baker Eddy

A couple of users usually associated with the Christian Science church turn up on this article every few months and try and re-write the article to remove any criticisms of Eddy. Usually this involves trying to remove the fact that Eddy was a practicing spiritualist for a period of time or wore glasses or took morphine. What they usually do is remove Martin Gardner as a source and add Christian Science biographies of Eddy which are basically entirely apologetic. An account [32] called "metaphysical historian" has been re-writing some of the article with an unreliable self-published source "A Story Untold: A History of the Quimby-Eddy Debate" which relies heavily on Eddy and her family which is clearly not neutral. If you check this users talk-page they were told not to add this source to Wikipedia articles because it is self-published and unreliable back in February 2017 but now they are back doing it again adding it to multiple articles. This user is very likely the author of that self-published fringe book. This user is clearly a spammer and just wants mention of their book added on Wikipedia for example adding it to the Warren Felt Evans and others. Any help with clean up would be appreciated. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The good state of this page (and Christian Science) was largely due to the work of SlimVirgin aka SarahSV (who we have very sadly lost). She would also keep the CS church at bay and believe me there have been some very concerted efforts to get the text changed (sometimes in details that a lay person would find surprising, but to believers is mega important). I shall re-watch these pages and it would be good if others could too, as it would be a shame to let them slip. Alexbrn (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy is in fact the spammer who refuses to address the latest research from published sources but instead hides behind a fictitious notion that a fully published book can be dimissed as "original research" because it conflicts with his out of date information. None of his recent edits have anything to do with substance but rather in Orwellian fashion he believes that research that goes against his preconceived notions does not need to be addressed in a scholarly fashion but instead cancelled so that no one knows about it. In 2017 SlimVirgin, without bothering to read the 1500+ page scholarly book which was offered free of charge at that time online—and a work used readily by real non-Christian Science scholars—dismissed it as self-published. Without addressing the logic of that determiniation, suffice it to say the book was duly published in three volumes and is readily available for anyone to read. Perhaps Psychologist Guy should actually do that before throwing mud at other people and slanderting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaphysical historian (talk • contribs) 06:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community takes a dim view of people using the Project for self-promotion by spamming their crappy sources around the place, and especially so if aggravated by nastiness such as is on display. Continue trying it and you'll likely find yourself sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Metaphysical historian I am interested in reliable sources. Keith McNeil [33] is not a reliable source. It says "As a member of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, his main interest initially was of the history of Eddy and the Christian Science movement, but in time that interest broadened into a history of mental healing in America, including the history of New Thought.". Keith McNeil is a Christian scientist and his book is self-published. It is not a neutral source. The book relies on Eddy and her family as witnesses, it isn't reliable at all. I understand McNeil wanted to write a favourable book about Eddy but that is not neutral research at the end of the day. Robert Peel did the same thing and was criticized by scholars as an "Eddy apologist". Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Your edits are not acceptable because you have just been going around and adding the Keith McNeil book at the bottom [34] of articles. That fits the definition of trying to promote the book, i.e. advertisement. Also this is a bad POV edit [35] in which a scholar Charles S. Braden was removed so you could add the McNeil book without even a page number. I have flicked through the McNeil book the agenda is to downplay Phineas Parkhurst Quimby and praise Eddy. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The book also appears to have been promoted at other articles recently (insource search), by an IP address: IP address diff, and another account: another diff, yet another, —PaleoNeonate – 18:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
    Adding: the insource search shows the three extant articles where it's used. So the book is indeed technically no longer self-published, it's in the "Winds of change" series of a small house (apparently a category for religious themes), it's unclear to me if it's pay-to-print. The about page mentions the scope: "small-press publishing business for over 30 years. We are the successor to Guild Press of Indiana, which published over 150 books about Indiana history and culture." There is no listed editors or historians so we could assume the book to be McNeil's take, like for self-published books. I think that my search results come up with other people of the same name. I have found one mini-review (or announcement?). Considering that it's not an academic book, that the author is not a recknown historian, that reviews and criticial analysis are wanting, I'm not sure that it's very useful. Perhaps that in some instance it can be attributed as an opinion, but how to put apologetics in perspective if noone wrote about it? —PaleoNeonate – 11:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Would going to ANI and seeking a handful of partial blocks from a small number or articles plus semiprotecting those same articles solve the problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Good suggestion but I don't quite think we need to do that yet. It's true what Alexbrn said. Basically SlimVirgin wrote many Christian science articles from a neutral scholarly point of view with good sources. However, IPS and single purpose accounts have over the years been removing neutral sources or sources that criticise Mary Baker Eddy. This type of editing is what metaphysical historian had been doing. Any criticism of Mary Baker Eddy has to be false and is played down somehow or made irrelevant with the Keith McNeil source. I will try and watch out for any of this type of editing in the future but there are a lot of articles to check. I think the main one to watch out for is the Mary Baker Eddy article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know, patrolling may be enough. Also helpful would be if independent sources discussed this book at all, it would permit to mention the book in its proper context... —PaleoNeonate – 01:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion an ANI coupled with some semiprotection requests, or at least the ANI for being an WP:SPA engaged in WP:TE, could be effective. Of course, it still takes effort to write one up. Acroterion is also warning the user on their talk page, though. Crossroads -talk- 04:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I considered partial blocks of Metaphysical historian, but there are too many articles involved for that. I'm also considering topic banning them from Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddy, broadly construed. That can't be done now, as their DS alert is too recent, but if the disruption persists, it seems like a solution. (Though the IPs may also make some semiprotections necessary.) Let's hope Acroterion's engagement on their page has a good effect so that we don't need a t-ban. Anyway, I don't think anybody needs to write up an ANI — this is a noticeboard too. Bishonen | tålk 07:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC).


The question of the integrity of Wikipedia, as part of this discussion, should include these Wiki sites (not just Mary Baker Eddy) and what has been done, by removing content, to attempt to cancel Metaphysical Historian:

Warren Felt Evans:

Removed: The scholarly book, The Spiritual Journals of Warren Felt Evans from Methodism to Mind Cure, edited by Catherine Albanese. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press (2016).

Albanese is a pre-eminent scholar of American religious history, especially the mental healing history of the 19th century, and her book cites A Story Untold many times as an important source work. To remove the Albanese book from the Evans Wikipedia page is an intellectual travesty.

Removed: a complete listing of ALL of the books by Evans (including a manuscript by Evans for an unpublished book at the National Library of Medicine), leaving just some of his books. There is no rational reason to vandalize the Evans page by removing these bibliographical references. Also removed was the correction of an error in a later Evans book, so that now the list has an error that a scholar should have picked up on.

Removed: important basic data on the family of Evans, including the date of his marriage and how many children he had.

Removed: the location of where the Evans spiritual journal manuscript resides. That is obviously a critical point for any scholar wishing to research Evans, and, included with the above depredations, amounts to a unfortunate bowdlerization of the site——for no legitimate reason.

Emma Curtis Hopkins:

A prior editor incorrectly cited Charles Braden as the source for a statement that Phineas P. Quimby travelled New England teaching mental healing. Braden said, rather, that Quimby traveled around New England as a healer and made no reference to teaching. That distinction is historically significant. (A simple review of Braden’s book would have shown that.) In addition, an incorrect date was ascribed to the creation of the Massachusetts Metaphysical College. Those corrections have now been undone and the site has returned to its former incorrect state.

Julius Dresser:

Removed: important basic biographical data on the family of Dresser.

Removed: the correction of a false statement that the Dressers took Eddy to court in the 1890s (which was a completely unsourced allegation). That perhaps is a confusion about a lawsuit brought by Josephine Woodbury against Eddy. No such Dresser lawsuit ever happened. That completely incorrect and unsourced allegation has been returned to its incorrect state.

The question of whether A Story Untold needs to be banned as an “unreliable” source is not based on anything in the book itself but rather a standard established by SlimVirgin (SarahSV) and others. In 2017 she defined what the book (then in e-book format only) would need be to qualify for use as a legitimate source. She wrote:

“The author of A Story Untold: A History of the Quimby-Eddy Debate would have to be an established expert, someone who is a published author (published by third parties) in the field of Christian Science, New Thought or related areas. I hope this helps. SarahSV.”

It can be shown that the author is widely recognized as an established expert in the field of Christian Science and New Thought, and SarahSV said nothing about requiring that a specific third party publisher fit into some undefined list of “acceptable” publishers. But the book does not even need to be published. SarahSV noted that “Self-published expert sources” can be usable:

“Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.”

The Wikipedia rules are not designed to ban books or practice censorship but they don’t want to allow truly unreliable works that are not scholarly and promote alleged facts that cannot be verified. It would seem to make sense before banning A Story Untold that it be judged on its merits and not just swept aside. Thus far the only analysis of the contents of the book comes from one who admitted he had only “flicked through” the book. Surely Wikipedia can do better. (And if it is wrong for me to refer to another editor as a “spammer” it is also just as wrong for other editors to use the same term against me.)

Metaphysical historian (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

A slide into the silly language of "banning" and "censorship". Wikipedia is based on high-quality sources, not crappy ones. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Well there still are three extant uses of the source in the encyclopedia that noone removed yet (perhaps a little early to cry censorship). As for expert sources there are evaluation factors: recknown historian? Published in academic venues? Primary of self-published? (WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS) Conflict of interest? (WP:COI, WP:PROMOTION) About self? (WP:ABOUTSELF)... And obviously someone isn't a spammer for reverting undue material. —PaleoNeonate – 15:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

When I referred to using the term “spammer” I was not talking about the action of undoing a prior editor’s entry. I was talking instead about the public use of the term itself, as when a certain account referred to me:

“This user is clearly a spammer and just wants mention of their book added on Wikipedia for example adding it to the Warren Felt Evans and others.”

My use of that term was in direct response to that same editor’s use of the term about me.

I believe there are five sites where I have made changes to improve the quality of the page but with the second goal of leaving intact as much of the original text as possible. Being new to the Wikipedia-editing world, I was clumsy in the exact manner in which changes were made and how I communicated with other editors.

With regard to the comment that three of my edits remain, I would note that I see four references to the author of the book in question (all under the P P Quimby site). I admit to being mystified that my edits (including listing A Story Untold as a source) to the Quimby site have been left largely intact (with just a couple of minor tweaks by other editors), while references to A Story Untold at the following sites (Mary Baker Eddy, Julius Dresser, Warren Felt Evans, and Emma Curtis Hopkins) have all been expunged entirely. The edits to those four sites have also generally been erased. Metaphysical historian (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thule Society

I just removed several sources in which loons accuse other loons of being in league with the Devil. This article and some related ones are probably good additions to watchlists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Benny Peiser

Seems to contain a real lot of undue fringe theorizing, but it looks like a lot of work to extract it from legitimate content. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Atlantic voyage of the predecessor of Mansa Musa

The original article has been rewritten and renamed. The title is fringe/pov and although I haven't looked at content my guess is that it reflects the tone of the title. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It could definitely use some cleanup, but it's far from the dumpster fire I feared when I read the title. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
My apologies. I am the one who suggested renaming the article; it was my attention to avoid a POV or fringe title with the article. What about the title is fringe/pov? The voyage itself is certainly alleged to have happened by one near-contemporary source, and I am unaware of any source that has outright denied that such a voyage has ever happened. It is the fate of the voyage where the fringe theories arise. The previous title, Abu Bakr II, was certainly incorrect: historical consensus is that "Mansa Abu Bakr II" arose in a mistranslation and that the alleged voyage should be attributed to Mansa Muhammad or Mansa Qu. Given the lack of historical consensus on the identity of the central figure, I figured it was better to rename the article to refer to the event it discusses rather than the person. I would appreciate any help I can get improving the article. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

ODNI Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

ODNI Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena has been released today [36]. It's a bit underwhelming, to say the least (no aliens). The abstract describes it as a report that "relays the progress the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force has made in understanding UAP", so it's possible that this could be a section of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force article. However, the WP:RS coverage of this report will likely be sufficiently robust enough to justify a new article, and it's always possible for fringe to creep into it. As a classic sci-fi film once said, watch the skies! - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend Tyler Rogoway for some reliable analysis on this topic. He's been providing coverage in the lead-up to this report, and I suspect he'll continue to do so. Some of his prior work. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Hmph. There I was, all excited, ready to re-write a large portion of Wikipedia in response to the news that they were among us. But - it's just a big nothingburger! Alexbrn (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Articles impacted are Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, Pentagon UFO videos, and UFO to varying degrees. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Too late, someone already created an article 24 June 2021 the day before the report's release, the mis-named Pentagon UFO Report. The Office of the DNI is a cabinet-level position reporting directly to the President and is not part of the Pentagon. I expect to participate in the eventual vote to delete/merge this mess into a section of the UAP Task Force article where it belongs, sigh. 5Q5|✉ 12:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Present article uses selective quotes to hint at at mysterious mystery/unknown threat etc. I'll wait for the news cycle to advance a bit before adding level headed response/analysis from RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
From a military airspace security standpoint, there probably is a security threat to some degree. Though the same can be said for incidents like drone swarms flying over nuclear plants, and neither threat is likely to be extraterrestrial. Plenty of room to improve without a lot of difficulty to make clear that mundane, Earth-bound explanations are not only likely but the apparent primary concern of lawmakers. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if there is any useful documentation from NORAD or similar agencies, in terms of background information on airspace security, prior investigations, and a general sense of the real security concerns. Rogoway and others at TWZ probably also have some good background as well. But yes, there needs to be some emphasis on the real threats of drones, spy planes, missiles, etc that worry the military. I have no doubt that the US military worries about any unidentified aircraft in our airspace, but Marvin the Martian isn't their primary concern. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I made a few quick updates that improve this, but I think it'll require significantly more effort (and perhaps a bigger hatchet being taken) to get it to put a more balanced level of attention. Yes, extraterrestrials are not written off by the report (unidentified means unidentified), but neither were they the primary concern in the first place. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Some editors now seem to take this report as evidence that no UFO can be explained by experts and skepticism is WP:FRINGE[37]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The current title Pentagon UFO Report violates WP:TITLE for inaccuracy. More on the article's talk page. 5Q5|✉ 13:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite sympathetic to this, but from a quick review of sources, it seems like "Pentagon UFO report" might be the WP:COMMONNAME. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
That thread opened in the dumpster of "WP sucks and skeptics are buttheads, wah!", but it managed to bootstrap itself up to "move the image to a different section and we're all happy," which was surprisingly helpful.
...And then someone else showed up to whine that WP sucks and skeptics are buttheads. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I think at least in some cases, there is a misunderstanding or perhaps misuse of this ONI report, e.g. as a blanket cancellation of all previous explanations of ufos as instrument error, balloons, birds, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree. The arguments I'm seeing seem to presume that this report is the final word, while, for reasons I expressed here I strongly doubt that's true, or even a reasonable position to take. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the simple context around this is: incidents that went unreported/uninvestigated (due to the stigma caused by the 'aliens are among us' types) may have harmed national security by preventing the mundane foreign threat explanations from being identified and countered. That things remain unexplained (at least publicly) is pretty much beside the point of "we need to track when and where these things happen, so the military can effectively do their job of defending the airspace". Bakkster Man (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
That is the single best summary of this report I've read. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes the concern is of course the possibility of (earthly aerian) security threats. IRT mundane explanations, didn't the report itself mention that at least one case was confirmed to be a balloon? —PaleoNeonate – 01:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite a bit behind on my reading, but that would be solid info to add to the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm collecting potential RS for the inevitable Analysis and Response section of the article. Post any helpful links here. So far: Experts Assess the Unexplained in Government’s Recent UFO Report nextgov.com, U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects, but new report finds no evidence of alien life. WaPo, Are UFOs Visitors from Space? Government Report Won’t Rule It Out. BU Today (not a student paper). - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess this won't help: We now know what U.F.O.s are --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the wapo one is decent, —PaleoNeonate – 05:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This curious article, which strikes a tone of sensationally mundane (or is it mundanely sensational?) might be helpful. This precedes the report's release but is germane and reliable, being written by astrophysicist Adam Frank; around the same time he was quoted here concerning the extraterrestrials-are-here theory:: "You'd have to write a science fiction story to explain why they’re [extraterrestrials] here and being secretive but not so secretive that we don’t keep finding them once in a while. [...] If it sounds like science fiction, it is." Some additional, relevant quotes from Frank concerning this hubbub are here. Lastly, a quick scan of this didn't reveal anything useful, but the discussions therein can sometimes, and perhaps eventually will in this case, provide helpful links to RS. I will check back there semi-regularly. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The usatoday article seems pretty good to include some context and a short summary of the state of current knowledge IRT the potential existence of (intelligent) life elsewhere. Some of the above might also be nice for the Fermi paradox article... —PaleoNeonate – 04:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Pentagon UFO videos

The RfC here might be of interest to the 'fringe' crowd. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Bill Nelson

Just reverted some edits at Bill Nelson which all but stated that he was convinced there were ETs because of reading this report. This is getting to be more and more problematic. jps (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The content was re-added without the egregious insinuations but still seeming (to me, at least) to be way over-WP:WEIGHTed w.r.t. the relevance for a NASA administrator. YMMV: [38] jps (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I also reverted some stuff on extraterrestrial life [39]. jps (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think it's due at extraterrestrial life (not news, not very relevant, report is more about national security than alien life, personal opinion polls don't define the topic, etc), but maybe at the BLP... —PaleoNeonate – 16:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    Not even there. It is a boring statement, not relevant to anything. *I* do believe there is ET life. Of course it did not come here, and it very likely never will. Its existence or nonexistence is of no consequence, and someone saying ETs exist or don't is as interesting as them liking milk or lemon or nothing in their tea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Pentagon UFO Report

I’ve added [40] well-sourced “Categories” and “Response and analysis” sections to the article, which is generally NPOV, but leans a little heavily towards emphasizing “we don’t know what they are” alarmism, especially in the lead. Lots of activity here lately, so a few more eyes would be helpful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Lab Leeks! Lab Leeks! Get your hot, steaming Lab Leeks here!!!

Another Wuhan Lab Leak page with WP:NPOV problems: Drastic Team. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem with Drastic is that pretty much all coverage of them is favourable by dubious sources, and those that cover the lab leak idea critically don't mention them at all. It like to see an entry for UnHerd at the RSN, as they seem to be a contrarian opinion magazine ala The Spectator or Spiked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I worked on that page a bit earlier today. Another problem it has is over-quoting and WP:SCAREQUOTES. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I took a look at some potential improvements yesterday, there's just not good sources. It seems the sources mentioning DRASTIC by name tend to be 'puff pieces', and those criticizing their behavior tend not to (the Wired article being one of few exceptions). Pseudonymity compounds that difficulty. One of the members being... outspoken on Twitter about WP (perhaps in part due to this ban) in particular makes it a tricky article. That it survived AfD by a wide margin this month as well, I dunno how to handle it. Not that I think it should be deleted, but it definitely feels slanted for the reasons above, and unlikely to change any time soon without additional critical sources on a topic most don't want to touch. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I just did a rewrite, attempting to be descriptive without the puffery. I invite others to improve on my no doubt ham-handed effort. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I've heard that members of the group have sauntered over to Wikipedia to argue about it. Definitely fucked up if true, and I've been keeping an eye on the article for that reason. @Novem Linguae: I appreciate this edit. I don't know how the hell that huge hunk of dreck got in there (although I was away for a few days, so probably during then). jp×g 13:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Whether the media writes "Puff pieces" or not, if they are reliable sources they establish notability and guide the due weight of coverage (and discounting "puff pieces" because they're positive explicitly violates WP:NPOV). Rowan Jacobsen writing for Newsweek and Katherine Eban writing in Vanity Fair are legitimate journalists who have covered the group in detail, as have others. The organization is not a biomedical topic although it's related to biomedical topics, and even if the members promote a fringe theory, we follow the balance of viewpoints as we do with any fringe organization such as Institute for Creation Research, stowing our personal opinions about which sources are too negative or too positive. The world's knowledge does not stem solely from the pages of peer-reviewed review articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, my 'puff piece' comment refers mostly to the primary-sourced interviews of members (a significant proportion of the article's sources) being weak for determining notability per WP:GNG, not necessarily their perspective (same argument applies to depending on 'hit pieces' to determine notability. And, as I mentioned, I'm not looking to overturn the existing consensus of notability, only pointing out the difficulty of writing an article about an unambiguously divisive topic, with so few reliable sources on one side of the dispute.
To put it another way, we're put in a bind if the media organizations viewing a group in a positive light find them notable, but those who view them in a negative light ignore them, it can skew NPOV (and the same if roles are reversed). No dispute from me that the group should be a notable fringe group, and that we're right to start with WP:VNT. The problem is if critical coverage of said fringe is lacking, for whatever reason, verifiability ends up potentially moving us further from neutrality than we'd end up with if there was more coverage. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Another one: Luc Montagnier. So, mainstream scientists have been "more receptive" to lab leaks? I'll let someone more familiar with the subject handle that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Luc Montagnier has been known to spout fringe nonsense for a long time, so it's hardly suprising, a classic example of Nobel disease. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Saturated fat

A couple of new users associated with the low-carb community have recently joined Wikipedia commenting on this talk-page. They believe there is a "controversy" about saturated fat consumption, cardiovascular disease and other diseases. The mainstream scientific consensus is that a diet high in saturated fat is a risk for CVD but these users dispute this and are linking to healthline and studies funded by Nina Teicholz or written by Aseem Malhotra. This is obviously a false balance. Link to the talk-page [41] Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy and User:Alexbrn and User:Tempes1. Does this particular source cited by Tempes1 not propel the idea are they arguing for out of the fringe theory category and warrant at least acknowledgement in the section they are disputing? As it is now, it reads in very heavy wikivoice about the association between CVD and saturated fat only and yet makes no acknowledgement to the "idea evolving" as per this Harvard link. Not to mention it is already in the entry as source 3. FrederickZoltair (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, it not a reliable source for any non-trivial medical content. So no. So far as I can see there is a strong consensus across good WP:MEDRS that saturated fat is associated with CVD, but for overall mortality the picture is less clear. Alexbrn (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
It's also quite an old weblink (it was written in 2014) and it cites a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies from 2010. A much more recent review of prospective cohort studies has been published [42]. I don't think we should be citing studies older then 5 years when it comes to controversial medical topics like this. The article section on "association with diseases" needs to be updated with modern reviews, not reviews from 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2003. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I found these two sources and I realize per MEDRS they probably do not warrant use, but I wonder if you would guys mind checking them out and giving your opinions. Healthline in particular links to many studies such as this one and this one from 2018 and 2017. The Healthline article says in its conclusion "Though saturated fat intake may increase heart disease risk factors, research hasn’t shown a significant link between it and heart disease itself. Some studies indicate that it may negatively affect other health aspects, but more research is needed." while WebMD says: "“It’s true that low-saturated fat actually lowers LDL [or bad] cholesterol, but it cannot predict cardiovascular disease,” says lead study author Yuni Choi, PhD, postdoctoral researcher in the Division of Epidemiology and Community Health at the University of Minnesota. “Our research strongly supports the fact that plant-based diet patterns are good for cardiovascular health.”" Thank you both. FrederickZoltair (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Healthline and WebMD are not reliable sources per WP:MEDRS, especially in a field where there are high-quality publications. Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Your opinion, when I qualified not recommending using them in the entry inherently for that reason, is that they should not be used in the entry? Did I get that right? Did you even read what I wrote or read the the content of the links? And "Yikes" as your edit summary....really? FrederickZoltair (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
You asked, and I responded. What further point is there in discussing unreliable sources? Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
You're killing me smalls....Why would you use a mocking and passive-aggressive edit summary twice now or respond in this way to a good faith attempt to include you and give your ideas credence as they relate to my own? Wikipedia is not a meritocracy of scientists (or science enthusiasts which more aptly describes you in my opinion) and their opinions only and while policy like MEDRS is important for biomedical information, it is not the only guiding policy at play nor is it proper to assume existing information in an entry is so sound (Scientific information specifically which literally changes day to day in some fields) it is not worth consideration of any changes? While you may believe currently that MEDRS has this situation tightly under wraps, it is my opinion and others that it does not so it merits a good faith discussion at minimum. I think based on this, it would be better to not engage with you further and I will begin now. FrederickZoltair (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
You seem to personalizing. I don't know what my "ideas" are on this - except as I have consistently said we need to use high-quality WP:MEDRS sources, and I was reacting to low-quality ones (not to "you"). That is in accord with the WP:PAGs. When we have sources like recent Cochrane systematic reviews why are we talking about unreliable pop-health websites? Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Please. Yikes = "expressing shock and alarm, often for humorous effect." nor are edit summaries for making jokes and it was not received as a joke about the sources and furthermore implying the sources I personally contributed are such low quality as to warrant joking about them without informing me as to why is insulting and also serves as a cheap jab that had I not noticed would likely have framed my comments to anyone else. Its one thing if you want to be neutral and sit on the sideline simply pointing out when someone is being irrational but do not fail to assume good faith and then claim you are being altruistic and I am at fault for my perceptions while I stare at the evidence of it. That is literally a tactic that abusers use to foster a narrative and bully their targets while remaining innocent from an at a glance perspective, and I am far from the only one that alleges this is what you have been doing for a good long while. Like when you called an editor's opinions the most idiotic tinfoil and ignorant thing you have ever seen on Wikipedia in addition to questioning their competency and sealed it by citing policy and saying engaging in idiotic ideas helps nobody and from the looks of it hurt their feelings badly enough that I do not think they have come back, and this was only in the last week. FrederickZoltair (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I picked the right word then to express my "shock and alarm" at these sources being put on the table. You might find WP:CGTW#20 amusing, but in any case such discussion are out-of-scope for this noticeboard. Please WP:FOC! Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Per MEDRS: "Medical information resources such as WebMD and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources for uncontroversial information; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly.". I even acknowledged above that they should not go into the article, but asked for opinions on the "more established literature directly" for example, the studies they cite that I also linked in my comment. Now with that in mind are we really going to deconstruct every study that disagrees with the current entry as is and not do the same for every study that does not while ignoring in a recent noticeboard another editor was told specifically not to do that and take the studies conclusions at their presented merit? We do not interpret the conclusions of studies, if the study is valid and not from a fringe journal or retracted or otherwise been shown to be unreliable and is not a tiny minority they get covered. Additional studies to consider: Controversies and discrepancies in the effect of dietary fat and cholesterol on cardiovascular risk and Faith in Fat: A Multisite Examination of University Students’ Perceptions of Fat in the Diet, Dairy Fats and Cardiovascular Disease: Do We Really Need to Be Concerned?, A healthy approach to dietary fats: understanding the science and taking action to reduce consumer confusion, Dietary Fats and Chronic Noncommunicable Diseases , Fat, Sugar, Whole Grains and Heart Disease: 50 Years of Confusion , Efficacy of dietary odd-chain saturated fatty acid pentadecanoic acid parallels broad associated health benefits in humans: could it be essential? (This one is heavy and I may be mis-interpreting its results)FrederickZoltair (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:BESTSOURCES are good: so ideally secondary recent and in esteemed journals. I'd avoid anything from MDPI when we've much more reputable stuff to hand for this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Just note that the section you quoted comes from all the way down from the top quality sources mentioned first, and it's quite clear that the guidance is to not use them for anything but utterly uncontroversial statements. They are absolutely not what any reasonable editor would consider to be WP:MEDRS sources. I mean, the key word in that sentence is "however" for a reason. If you need to add a cite to the claim that getting punched in the face is bad for you, then WebMD is perfectly fine. But when you're arguing against a longstanding medical consensus, it's about on par with Dr. Nick. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Both observations are valid, but that is all they are and not evidence we cannot use these studies. FrederickZoltair (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Evidence that using them would be going against the established guidance, reflecting the consensus of the community. It such cases there needs to be a good, consensus-based justification otherwise it's just WP:DE. I can see no possible jusitifcation for using poor sources when there are ample good ones. Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Except that this new evidence has not been established via consensus to be of poor quality. You have made the argument here, and so has Psychologist guy. Simply asserting that it is, does not make it so. Please take the discussion to the Saturated Fat talk page and if we are unable to reach consensus there, then I guess another noticeboard is where we are all headed. FrederickZoltair (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
You are citing editorials and opinion pieces which are primary sources, they are not reliable for Wikipedia per the guidelines which have been explained to you. On this topic we need high-quality meta-analyses and reviews which are considered reliable secondary sources. That is why we cite the Cochrane review on the article [43] and others like it. Hopefully you understand this and the difference between a primary and a secondary source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Lets move this to the talk page permanently please, I just posted a significant list of reviews and meta-analyses only, all from the last 5 years. FrederickZoltair (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The danger of the spike protein in RNA vaccines, according to … their inventor?

Robert Malone is an individual who has appeared on social media to (as this Reuters fact check puts it) say that the spike protein as used in several COVID vaccines is "very dangerous" and "cytotoxic". He styles himself and is referred to in such forums as the "inventor of mRNA vaccines".[44]

Over at RNA vaccine#History there has been repeated editing trying to get this "inventor" characterisation into Wikipedia, despite apparently there being no suitble WP:RS for it. While there is no doubt Malone was a scientist publishing early work in this field (see here) for example, his role does not even seem to have been so much that he is even named in historical overviews of the topic, in contrast to - say - Katalin Karikó. Alexbrn (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Katalin Karikó thanks Malone in the 'Acknowledgements' section of her first mRNA immunotherapy publication. This article tells Karikó's impressive contributions as extensions of Malone's earlier work. I sense you're striving for good information rather than simply taking down Malone, but where are you getting this historical overview information? AntaniSuper (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The main issue with Malone is there aren't any reliable sources that discuss him in detail or the merits of his claim to have "invented" mRNA vaccines, though I see the Daily Mail and Fox News have uncritically parroted his claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
"According to his company website, he designed and developed in-vivo transfection experiments that led to numerous publications and over 10 patents on mRNA vaccination.
However, the claim that he’s the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology underlying the covid jab is not widely accepted by independent researchers documenting the intellectual property landscape of this discovery."[45]
The best source for claims of who invented mRNA vaccines appears to be "A network analysis of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine patents" in Nature Biotechnology[46][47] Especially interesting: [48]. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Related: Fact Check: COVID-19 vaccines are not 'cytotoxic' --Reuters Fact Check
--Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
This "fact check" is simply describing the way the vaccines were designed to work, not how they actually have been observed to work in practice and are claiming the design "fact checks" that the spike proteins are not becoming bio active simply based on the claims of the vaccine manufacturers. The gene was edited so that the protein would permanently bind to the cell that creates it, thus immobilizing it as well as keeping the protein "open", so the immune system could recognize it and build immunity towards it. In theory this would be totally safe, and during vaccine research they did a crude test on this technique using a different protein, not the spike protein. In any rushed development corners need to be cut, so they had little time to verify how effective this cell binding actually worked in real patients with the C19 spike protein. In practice, this "trapping" technique fails in a statistically significant amount of patients, and the protein is then free from the cell, making it cyotoxic and free to flow through the blood stream as researchers have found all over the body [1] Asailum (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Robert Malone and his two colleagues *did* invent this technology, their patent was filed in 1989 [2]. You can read through his frustration of how he was not given credit and Katalin Kariko was instead(who did not start researching until 1990) [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Asailum (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Is this a dispute about how to accurately label his involvement? If so, perhaps it would be more accurate to describe him as “one of the scientists who’s work directly led to the vaccine” or something similar. Or is the dispute more about what he says? Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think the sources even go quite that far. They cite some early work (for which he was one of several authors), showing that there was some kind of possible therapeutic potential for mRNA. That's what the article more or less currently says, but there's been a push to single him out and name him as a figure, when the sources don't. Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Professor Francois Balloux tweeted earlier today: (Malone) presents himself as the 'Inventor of mRNA vaccines and RNA as a drug'. I presume his claim is based on being a middle author on 3 fairly well-cited publications from the nineties on DNA/RNA expression vectors (104, 28, and 27 citations this year on Google Scholar). Schazjmd (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The other side of the story: Malone documents why he makes the claim of inventing mRNA vaccines. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
(archive link [49]) —PaleoNeonate – 04:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, mRNA vaccines are not just RNA transfection. That's a gross over-simplification. This man also did not invent nucleic acid transfection. Mark Danielsen and Philip Felgner did that at Syntex Research in 1987.[4] This guy was just a middle author on a few papers that used this same tech with RNA in 1990. I would describe him more as a patent troll than an inventor, personally.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
So they can keep their legal battle going, but it's of course inappropriate to use Wikipedia as a PR platform... When independent reliable sources report about that, it may be possible to cover the process or results... —PaleoNeonate – 04:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I suggest that WP:COIN may be a better venue IRT Malone at this point, —PaleoNeonate – 00:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Photo of an acknowledged inventor?

So now this has developed so that a couple of editors are objecting to a photograph of Katalin Karikó. She is named in multiple RS as a/the key player in the development of RNA vaccines, but her photo is being objected to apparently because of other key scientists (read: Malone) "that have been deleted". I find it uncomfortable that Wikipedia is downplaying a woman with an acknowledged, RS-backed, historical role because of a man who is effectively agitating, with no RS backing, to usurp her. I am pinging WP:WIRED because of concerns about systemic bias Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn is mistaken in his assessment. I am curious why he is making this personal. I studied the previous edits, discussions and read some sources and what I see is a person promoting one scientist, who just happens to be a woman, over other scientists. See our discussion on the RNA vaccine talk page. There even is a table showing all the contributions of many scientists. To focus on one scientist in the history section is a disservice to the page. Alexbrn seems to be fixated on one of the scientist, Malone and seems to have a bias towards that scientist. Please prove your statement: "a man who is effectively agitating, with no RS backing". Wikipedia doesn't support edits according to bias. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
If the RSes are fixated upon this scientist -which seems to be the case- then our articles should reflect that. As years pass and the subject hosts more scrutiny, if more scientists are given more credit in those, then we can adjust our articles accordingly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Red Rose 13: It is daft to say I have a "bias towards" Malone. In fact I don't think he should be named since there is apparently no RS support for so emphasizing his role (see the discussion in the parent section to this). Photos are good to illustrate articles and if RS gives prominence to certain folk, then Wikipedia follows that, for NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Again as I have said before there are many scientists involved in this as clearly shown by the table itself and the section does not reflect that. We will need to research deeper and find the RSes that support this. This picture of her should not be in this section as it distorts the reality.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any sources showing that other scientists have been as instrumental as the woman who literally holds the patent on RNA vaccines? I've read a lot about Kariko since the first vaccine was developed, but I've yet to see any RSes crediting a "Malone". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The idea that deleting Robert Malone and putting in a woman is "causing issues" because of "systemic bias" is quite ridiculous and easily disproven by facts, plus it's quite clear the opposite bias is happening here, Robert Malone is being erased because he is a man that is raising controversy about the vaccines and Katalin Kariko is being promoted because she is a woman, despite the facts proving that Robert along with two others discovered mRNA methods before Katalin even began researching. Robert Malone along with V.J Dwarki and Inder M. Verma share the original method of mRNA transfection which was published in 1989 [5] [6] , and which they were researching for years before that. Katalin Kariko only started to research mRNA vaccines in 1990, so to claim she played a key role in discovering the liposome method is factually wrong. She built upon his work and gave him and the others credit, and thus this page should simply reflect the history of what happened with all contributors, not selectively include people based on bias. Alexbrn is showing a heavy bias in the way he interprets information instead of abiding by the neutral information rule of wikipedia. Furthermore this nature study doesn't even discuss earlier mRNA discoveries, they mark 1990 as the "beginning", so clearly they don't fall under a reliable source for getting this basic fact wrong.Asailum (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is merely to summarize what the WP:BESTSOURCES say (they'll be secondary, reputable, publications). It it WP:NOT many things, and one of the many thing's it's not is a platform for WP:PAID socks to use as a platform for re-writing history in service of (what I now learn is) an ongoing legal dispute. Don't you think some of that might have been going on with all these Malone promotional shenanigans? Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I see allegations of bias, but I'm not seeing evidence to back that up. Show me the RSes covering Malone's contributions, because citing Malone and then telling us to interpret that is just WP:OR and it has no business here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I already did link the paper from 1989[7] here is the patent from 1989[8]. Robert Malone discusses how credit was stolen and the controversy with Merck here [9] @alexbrn I accused you of bias based on your removal of Robert Malone, despite the facts showing he did this research before others. Instead of expanding that section to reflect there might be controversy in some objective neutral way, you simply removed all his references. I'm also seeing a lot of conspiracy theory about Malone's intentions which all seem to stem on him speaking out about concerns that the health authorities are not being transparent about the risks of the current widespread mRNA vaccines. I don't see how that would lead anyone to jump to conclusions that he is an anti vaxxer and he needs to be erased, when he has never said anything along those lines. Asailum (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't need a picture of a person in that article. Putting a picture of one person in a general article is a big decision, I think doing that now would be too soon. Wait until the pandemic is over and people can look at the topic with a calmer view. Note that e.g. General relativity and History of general relativity don't have a picture of Einstein, even though he is undisputedly the inventor of it. --mfb (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. Very solid example of precedent and the threshold we should be looking for to justify inclusion. And attributed text should cover this better (she is mentioned in the text). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075
  2. ^ https://patents.google.com/patent/US5589466A/en
  3. ^ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mrna-proof-principle-vaccination-experiments-from-1989-robert-malone/
  4. ^ Felgner, P L; Gadek, T R; Holm, M; Roman, R; Chan, H W; Wenz, M; Northrop, J P; Ringold, G M; Danielsen, M (November 1987). "Lipofection: a highly efficient, lipid-mediated DNA-transfection procedure". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 84 (21): 7413–7417. ISSN 0027-8424. Retrieved 28 June 2021.
  5. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2762315/
  6. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780127655611500412
  7. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780127655611500412
  8. ^ https://patents.google.com/patent/US5589466A/en
  9. ^ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mrna-proof-principle-vaccination-experiments-from-1989-robert-malone/

Gang stalking

Newly created, looks like the fringe fork from Stalking#False claims of stalking, "gang stalking" and delusions of persecution and Persecutory delusion. --mfb (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a WP:POVFORK of Electronic harassment that creates a false balance between extraordinary claims of "targeted individuals" and assessments by mental health professionals. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Since copyedited, with discussion on Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
It might actually be *better* forked into its own article because the "Stalking" article is about actual stalking, while this one is about a weirdly common shared delusion which is an interesting and important topic in its own right.
Heck, it might even be useful for borderline cases if it came up in google searches above whatever forum or reddit group these people usually wind up on. ApLundell (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh Lord, not THIS again
--Calton | Talk 03:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Calton: Your use of {{Old AfD multi}} with indent messed up the rest of the page. This has been fixed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, the template thinks it is not talking about other pages but about the FTN. It says "this project page". I don't think this is a correct application of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
At least it doesn't add this page to a category that was my initial concern... For the text itself, |type=article allows to change it a bit, —PaleoNeonate – 10:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Your use of {{tl|Old AfD multi}} with indent messed up the rest of the page
Sorry about that. There were a LOT of AFDs, and just copying the text of the box without the links wouldn't have been right.
But the point is, this is not just nonsense, it's nonsense with a long history of attempts to crowbar it into Wikipedia. At the VERY least, any article which somehow gets kept should have "delusion" or "complex" as part of the title. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. There is a requested move proposal at the article now [50]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

Talk:Water fluoridation#removal of israel text - discussion from 2019/2020, but the text where the government of Israel justified its discontinuation of fluoridation is still in the article. What do people think? Pinging User:Jtbobwaysf and User:VdSV9 who discussed this back then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I'm still of the opinion that the quoted statement from the Israeli Ministry of Health shouldn't be there, as it promotes an anti-scientific POV. The fact that they stopped fluoridation of course is relevant, but if we want to add information about this, it should rather be the fact that a "Dental Health Promotion Program has been formulated as an alternative to mandatory fluoridation", quoted from reference 84, than on the reasoning they gave for stopping fluoridation. VdSV9•♫ 22:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@VdSV9: Your input is welcome at the article's talk page where I proposed a compromise. The reason why I removed Newsweek was that its header claimed it was now banned, but since headers can be ignored versus the actual article's content, maybe it's still relevant if you think it should be restored. We appear to agree on other points, —PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Patrick McDermott disappearance

This article is written terribly. As far as I can tell, this individual disappeared without a trace in June 2005, likely drowned. Since then, there have been claims in tabloid newspapers that this individual has been sighted in Mexico, but these appear totally unsubstantiated. This article lends a large undue amount of weight to these allegations and it needs signficiant cleanup. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

One apparently only via a claimed third party "representant", another a mistaken identity... indeed indicating there's no strong reason to believe he's still alive. On the other hand, it's likely those rumors that made the person notable? —PaleoNeonate – 11:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Update: some recent improvements by Hemiauchenia already, —PaleoNeonate – 08:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Mark Hyman (doctor)

A new user is repeatedly adding POV to the lead that some dietitians support Mark Hyman's "pegan" diet. This is clearly false. The added reference was a holistic medicine/alternative medicine website. I have not seen any registered dietitians from reliable sources support Hyman's pegan diet, the added source was Parsley Health which promotes something called "holistic medicine". Parsley Health is sponsored by Goop so this is outright quackery. It is obviously a false balance to pretend some dietitians support it whilst some do not. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This user does not understand how Wikipedia works, they are unfortunately adding personal comments into article tags [51] Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The issue is on-going [52]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I just reverted that series of edits; they are now arguing with other users at Talk:Mark Hyman (doctor). The user in question, RaoulTheWok (talk · contribs), has been notified of this discussion. Recommend a partial block from the article and its talk page to encourage them to edit on some other topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I since back down from discussing what amount/quality of dietitian consider the pegan diet particularly faddy since as PaleoNeonate indicated in the discussion, it is probably not going to be a well sourced claim one way or another unless relevant sources are referenced which has yet to be done. Have you read through the sources and their sources where needed? I have. I'd welcome correctly identifying irrelevant sources/claims as opposed to reverting edits where clearly insufficient sources are used. Please refer to the discussion at Talk:Mark Hyman (doctor) as well. RaoulTheWok (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Also while I'm not an expert on editing etiquette, I'm neither a new user nor intending to do POV edits. It should be beyond obvious what is wrong in terms of mismatch between the claims being made and the sources used. Sorry if someone got the wrong impression initially. I have again tagged some most egregious abuses but cannot guarantee that this is all of em. Feel free to help uphold quality standards on Wikipedia because the impression one would get from reading this article about the man may be a poor one. I say that as someone who's not rushing to do a pegan diet. And no I'm not saying that a fair balance would be to give either side 50% credibility. But there's a different extreme to worry about as well. RaoulTheWok (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rise and Fall of the Black Hole Paradigm

Is there any reason this article should exist?

It's decidedly fringe content, and it seems too recent and obscure to be noteworthy fringe content. An article on the author was deleted in 2018. The stated rationale for the book being notable is not grounded in facts, appearing to be ignorant of what the NASA ADS is. XOR'easter (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

At least some independent people have written about Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object. I only looked for a few minutes, but I found it difficult to find anything that wasn't only a mention or advert for this book... —PaleoNeonate – 10:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hmm what do you think of a bold merge-redirect to the above article? —PaleoNeonate – 10:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything worth merging, and I'm not sure the title of a random fringe book is a likely search term, but I guess redirecting is faster than AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I also have no objection to immediate AfD and am fairly confident that the result would be delete, but exactly, if it's contested it's the unavoidable process, —PaleoNeonate – 14:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
OK, I've made it into a redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I almost put the redirect up for deletion, but then decided that redirects are cheap and it might be useful to have a link back. Good work. jps (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes one could also argue that if there's no direct mention of the book in the target article the redirect should be deleted, although in this case there's a mention of the author, even if there was nothing to merge. —PaleoNeonate – 17:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder

New section "Torture-based deliberate creation" looks rather dubious and was removed. As I wrote this, it has been reverted back into the article.

The prevailing post-traumatic model of dissociation and dissociative disorders has historically been contested and are remnants of out-dated hypotheses that became popular in the 1980s (such as the fantasy-model and therapy-induced model)

The therapy-induced model is outdated? Is that true? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Not at all. See sources here. --Saidmann (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@Saidmann posted a link to this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Fringe rumors in Dissociative identity disorder. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

To amuse you

Apparently an editor has decided that MEDRS-compliant sources (e.g., med school textbooks) about human biology are unacceptable in Sex because doctors aren't necessarily biology experts, and only sources from the field of biology may be cited in the article. See Talk:Sex#Biological sex in humans and my talk page for proof that I'm not making this up. I'm going to bed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to bring this to notice board.
Medicine and biology are completely two different fields of academia end of story.CycoMa (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Please ignore my last comment it was a mistake I didn’t mean it. I swear, look all I’m trying to say was that the sources you presented at sex are not ideal sources okay.CycoMa (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
There, I've struck the comments you made that you wanted to erase. That's how you do it. erasing somebody else's post is just a big nono. I do believe that you should know this, with your time here. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I honestly didn’t know that to be honest. I’m very sorry about that.CycoMa (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
No more apologies, OK? I also note that I believe that you should pay more attention to her ladyship's points at Talk/Sex -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay but anyway I don’t think some of the sources she presented are reliable regarding the topic. Like I don’t understand why sociological sources should be included.CycoMa (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS sources are perfectly acceptable in that article. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay sure. But one of her sources contradict a reliable source I presented.
one of her sources said this.
While we tend to think of sex as a binary (either male or female) determined by looking at a baby's genitals, the evidence shows that sex is determined by multiple biological factors including chromosomes, hormones, gonads and secondary sex characteristics, as well as external genitalia. ... It is important to remember that sex and gender are two different things: a child or young person's biological sex may be different from their gender identity.
While [this source] says this.
Sex is a biological concept. Asexual reproduction (cloning) is routine in microorganisms and some plants, but most vertebrates and all mammals have 2 distinct sexes. Even single-cell organisms have “mating types” to facilitate sexual reproduction. Only cells belonging to different mating types can fuse together to reproduce sexually (2, 3). Sexual reproduction allows for exchange of genetic information and promotes genetic diversity. The classical biological definition of the 2 sexes is that females have ovaries and make larger female gametes (eggs), whereas males have testes and make smaller male gametes (sperm); the 2 gametes fertilize to form the zygote, which has the potential to become a new individual. The advantage of this simple definition is first that it can be applied universally to any species of sexually reproducing organism. Second, it is a bedrock concept of evolution, because selection of traits may differ in the 2 sexes. Thirdly, the definition can be extended to the ovaries and testes, and in this way the categories—female and male—can be applied also to individuals who have gonads but do not make gametes.…Biological sex is dichotomous because of the different roles of each sex in reproduction.
Notice how these two sources have contradicting definitions of the same thing. Sure one could argue binary and dichotomy aren’t the same thing.CycoMa (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Also the definition presented in the second source here aligns more with definition of sex at the article.CycoMa (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


Okay everyone I asked at WikiProject Medicine and they said that medical sources are fine for an article like sex. I’m very sorry about all this please forgive me for all this.CycoMa (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis

I am involved in a disagreement as to whether psychoanalysis should be described as pseudoscience in the lede of the article. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hessdalen lights

Long section on piezo effect seems undue. Does anybody have an opinion or even a source? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If this is being used, it’s not a RS. Neither is Journal of Scientific Exploration. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
There are lights in the sky in central Norway? It must be aliens!
Yes, I'm aware that the Hessdalen lights aren't northern lights, I'm just joking around. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Not sure why Brian Dunning isn't being included in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
(1) Some editors have been removing Dunning cites in the wake of his fraud conviction, although that admittedly had nothing to do with his "Skeptoid" work. (2) Dunning's most constructive explanation of the origin of the Hessdalen lights is that they might be aircraft landing lights -- and then he says, "By no means am I suggesting that aircraft landing lights are the cause of all the Hessdalen sightings." Nevertheless, I would vote for including a distillation of his analysis in the article. DoctorJoeE Stalk/Talk 14:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Brought up the sourcing issue on the article Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Zeta Reticuli

Some determined section-blanking activity here lately. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Problem solved. But I wish we had a better source than “zeta talk” [53] in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no exoplanet around Zeta Reticuli. There is no reason for us to explain a mistake that happened 25 years ago in the article. jps (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
[insert gratuitously Uranus joke here] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_80&oldid=1037033808"