Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

    We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

    If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

    Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.

    Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Article alerts


    Did you know

    Good article nominees

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    Water fluoridation controversy

    [edit]

    RFK Jr. may belong in the article, but some people insist it has to be in a specific way, which results in lots of edit-warring recently. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if this is the correct space for this. But why do we call it a "controversy"? There is no reasonable controversy to speak of when we're looking at water fluoridation. We don't call the antivaxxer movement part of a "vaccination controversy", or do we? The nicest terms I've seen used is "hesitancy", as in vaccine hesitancy. I think anti-fluoridation cranks deserve the same treatment as anti-vaxxers. Also, they're mostly the same people... I'm thinking the tone should be more in line with anti-vaccine movement or outright mention misinformation, like in COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy. VdSV9•♫ 12:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, deleting the "controversy" part would probably give a better article name. "Opposition to water fluoridation"? But that belongs on the talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a better name Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Water fluoridation, which is teetering on the brink of an edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Plant perception (paranormal)

    [edit]

    I have proposed a deletion and redirect of this article as the content is mostly about Cleve Backster which is duplicated content from his own article. I also believe it is misleading to have an article on "paranormal" plant perception as this is not an independent or recognized field of study. We have Wikipedia articles on plant cognition (plant neurobiology) and Plant perception (physiology). Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a WP:BLAR and maybe a merge of some content if appropriate would be easier. Than prodding it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the best thing to do is to have an article called plant intelligence where all the plant perception paranormal content and the plant intelligence/plant neurobiology stuff is mentioned on one large article. The plant cognition article has an incorrect title as all the WP:RS refer to the field as "plant intelligence". I believe the article title needs to be renamed. These articles have been a mess for over a decade. It's important to keep content on plant physiology separate from any of this intelligence content which is WP:Fringe. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, surely the best course of action then is to move the plant cognition article to "plant intelligence" and then WP:BLAR Plant perception (paranormal) to it? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping to do this but Wikipedia would not let me per technical reasons. A user had already created a plant intelligence redirect years ago. About a decade ago there was a very poorly written plant intelligence article [1]. There was an old decision to redirect that article into Plant perception (physiology) which was a mistake. I have requested a rename and move on the plant cognition talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests is for. I don't think the request will be very controversial so I would just go ahead and write it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    what's going on with this now that the title has been changed to Plant intelligence and the AfD has been withdrawn? Should Plant perception (paranormal) be merged into plant intelligence? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have redirected and merged the small amount of text on that article to plant intelligence. I believe the issue has now been resolved as we have 1 article for all of the fringe content on which should have been separated from plant physiology a long time ago. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The last thing to do, it to rename this category [2] Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Science based medicine at RSN

    [edit]

    Those who follow this board will probably be interested in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Science-Based_Medicine"_blog MrOllie (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that the RFC was closed and immediately restarted in a new section, so you might want to look a second time. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Stonemounds

    [edit]

    A link to Discover Stone Mound App has been added to Karahan Tepe. The app offers virtual guided tours to a number of ancient sites. I haven't downloaded the site, but am hoping someone knows something about it, and whether it is appropriate for our articles to link to it. Donald Albury 15:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like advertising and shouldn't be on WP. VdSV9•♫ 17:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The app is free, and I don't see anything for sale on the website. It says that the audio is recorded by archaeologists who worked on the sites. My concern is whether the information presented is in line with reliable sources. I'm not familiar enough with the various sites covered to confirm that myself. Donald Albury 18:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    App seems (would want further verification) to be associated with the "2024 World Neolithic Congress". The 2024 WNC seems to have the backing of prominent government institutions and international universities [3]. If this connection is provable, then I would say it would be a reliable source. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of the reliability of the Journal of Controversial ideas

    [edit]

    This discussion may be of interest to people on this noticeboard. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Journal_of_controversial_ideas_redux Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I found a couple items in the Chronicle of Higher Education that may be usable; the relevant parts are quoted in this edit. XOR'easter (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional edits by a reincarnation believer on Ian Stevenson

    [edit]

    O Govinda has been adding tonnes of promotional and WP:Fringe sources at Ian Stevenson and removing sources critical of Stevenson's work. This has been going on since September. I have been bold and reverted their edits. See talk-page discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for bringing this up. I read that article recently and did feel like the whole "dismissal without consideration" and some other things there had some pro-fringe sentiment behind them. VdSV9•♫ 12:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a perennial effort from one editor that has been ongoing for at least a decade or more. It begins with innocuous edits like formatting citations, cleaning dead links, improving grammar, etc. If there is no response, next very subtle POV shifts are introduced, slight watering down of criticism, etc. If there is still no response, then critical material is trimmed and credulous or supportive material is given primary weight. At this point, usually someone steps in, reverts all the edits, and the article goes dormant again for a few years, only to begin the same cycle again. I was about to do the revert when Psychologist Guy beat me to it.- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It is a type of stealth editing to make some slow minor edits but over time keep adding until the biased POV gets more and more. In general I am not a deletionist, over at A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada I supported a user's re-write of the entire article which was at first controversial. If edits (even controversial) are supported by good sourcing then that I will back them but in this case the sourcing is badly cherry-picked and mostly irrelevant fringe sources from non-specialists, there was a serious UNDUE problem. It's also concerning that this user claims on the talk-page that information cited to a critical source is "not upheld by the source. At best this could be WP:synth, but its not even that". Yet when you click on the source [4] the text matched perfectly. The user removed the content without any consensus [5] claiming incorrectly in their edit summary "Verifications failed. Deleted OR". It's hard to come to any other conclusion that this was not done in good-faith because this material does not fail verification nor is WP:OR. This is a case of deleting sources they dislike and leaving false edit summaries. This isn't at the level of ANI yet but there has been a repeated pattern on and off regarding this type of behaviour on their account going back years from what I could see. If it continues into 2025 a topic ban may be appropriate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a similar cycle that happens on Talk:Parapsychology every year or so, a push to 'right the great wrong' of not recognizing parapsychology as a science, citing AAAS, Etzel Cardena, etc. It's currently in the ascendant phase now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RE Ian Stevenson, see talk-page discussion - User wants all his fringe material restored. I disagree. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    David Berlinski

    [edit]

    Article about a creationist and therefore a traditional playground of pseudoscience-deleting philosopher-of-science wannabes. Th last of them threw a fit after being reverted. It's OK now but both the article and the user merit watching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what was going on there, the editor removed pseudoscientific twice [6], [7] then added it back in [8]. Looks like WP:Disruptive editing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They go through articles replacing "which" by "that", and they did it in that article too. As they were at it, they also removed the "pseudoscientific" as an aside. I reverted that, and they got angry, said incomprehensible stuff and called me a fool for a reason known only to themselves. Then they seemed to have noticed that was a bad idea and reverted the "pseudoscientific" deletion to save face or something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Denis Noble

    [edit]

    Denis Noble has been editing the "The Third Way of Evolution" section of his article for a while. Parts of the this section now read as promotional. There is definitely some WP:COI editing here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    He appeared in a video online? Stop the presses!
    The Forbes story it mentions turns out to be a "contributor" piece. XOR'easter (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uzziah

    [edit]

    This is about Uzziah's name appears in two unprovenanced iconic stone seals discovered in 1858 and 1863. The first is inscribed l’byw ‘bd / ‘zyw, "[belonging] to ’Abiyah, minister of ‘Uziyah", and the second (rev.) lšbnyw ‘ / bd ‘zyw, "[belonging] to Shubnayah, minister of ‘Uziyah."[1][2] Despite being of unprovenanced origin, they are the first authentic contemporary attestations to the ancient king.

    Reason: mainstream archaeologists are not allowed to even comment upon Mykytiuk's claim. Unprovenanced objects are taboo: discussing them breaches professional ethics and maybe the law. Just to be sure: I'm not speaking about Wikipedia editors, but about professional archaeologists. Mykytiuk is a retiree and apparently not an archaeologist. And Avigad died in 1992. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Avigad, Nahman (1997). Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. ISBN 978-9-652-08138-4.
    2. ^ Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2004). Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200–539 B.C.E. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. pp. 153–159, 219. ISBN 978-1-589-83062-2.


    Shouldn't there be something like "According to jewish tradition," or another similar type of attribution, before the claim that "Uzziah was struck with tzaraath for disobeying God" in the second paragraph of the lead?VdSV9•♫ 12:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Identifying fringe

    [edit]
    If you want to have a meta-discussion about what constitutes fringe, the Talk page is thataway. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Imagine a world (unfortunately, the one we live in) in which there is a significant amount of unresolvable polarization. Editors are locked in a dispute:

    • A: We can't cite Source1 because they're PROFRINGE. We should cite the widely accepted Source2.
    • B: Source1 is widely accepted and not PROFRINGE. Source2 is the PROFRINGE one!

    and things get worse from there, until (if the rest of us are lucky) a passing admin declares a block on both your houses.

    Given:

    • The individual editors have firmly entrenched viewpoints. They are absolutely, invincibly convinced that they are right. (Also righteous.)
    • The individual editors declare a "he said/she said" approach to be a WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PROFRINGE promotion. Articles must only say what the True™ side says.
    • Editors cannot agree on what "the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" actually are.
      • For example, ____ is the prevailing view in my filter bubble but not in your filter bubble. Or maybe it is an interdisciplinary subject, and the prevailing views depend upon whether one is applying the lens of Department A ("This terrible disease must be eradicated to prevent suffering") or the lens of Department B ("Our greatest artists had this so-called disease, so curing it would diminish humanity"). Or maybe there is a cultural or national aspect, so that what's normal in my country is very strange in yours (e.g., gay marriage is an unremarkable, ordinary thing in California but not in places with capital punishment for homosexuality). This is not necessarily just due to POV pushing by editors, because there are real-world divisions.
    • The debated sources are more like 'authors' rather than 'documents'. They might be an informal group ("pro-rightness political scientists" or "that little clique that always cites each other's papers"), but editors are probably talking about it in terms of a specific organization ("Society for the Advancement of Political Rightness" or "the Paul administration").
      • Wikipedia editors seek to shun or ostracize the Wrong™ side: If the author has ever been associated with the Wrong™ people/groups/ideas, then nothing you've ever written is acceptable, unless you have undergone ritual purification and redemption by publicly renouncing your prior evil ways/associations.
    • In some cases, the debated sources directly address each other, each calling the other names like pseudoscientific or fringe.

    Given all this, how does one determine which groups really are FRINGE? Is there a checklist that says things like "See who's getting cited in centrist newspapers" or "If both of the supposedly FRINGE groups are getting their stuff published in decent scholarly journals, then you should assume that neither of them are FRINGE"?

    I have the feeling that we're going to need more of this during the next few years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What you say above applies to 1% of the disputes about fringe. For the rest 99% is a slam dunk.
    Like that judge who defined porn as "I know it when I see it". Meaning when ARBCOM sees it.
    Of course, if WMF were headquartered in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the definition of fringe would be wholly different from ours.
    Some editor has reverted my edits to WP:ABIAS, wherein I stated that acupuncture is not pseudoscience in China. They believe in the universality of science, while I have studied the sociology of science and have doubts about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    99% slam dunks but it seems like still a lot of effort required to get other editors to give it up. Should tban faster. Like the last point you make, hard problem. fiveby(zero) 13:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that it's 1% of the disputes but >50% of the effort. Simple cases are simple. We can solve the simple cases with an explanation or by waving at policy, and if necessary, with the regulars WP:PILINGON until the Wrong™ side retreats.
    I think that complicated situations would benefit from more of a procedural approach. Template:MEDRS evaluation gives me a format for explaining how I arrive at a conclusion about a medical source What's a similar list for allegedly PROFRINGE sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the complicated %1 i think editors do often become focused on source 1 and source 2 (or just a few sources), usually just snippets of text in each an not reading entire works. My understanding is that an encyclopedia article ideally should be an introduction and summary of the entire body of literature. Due to WP's policies it is really easy to just google and ctrl-f for particular phrasing or label and is sometimes an unfortunately effective argument on talk pages. Making a best sources argument seems much more difficult and often dismissed as OR. I really wish someone would expand the WP:BESTSOURCES policy. If it is really complicated in a well documented area then editors should step back and look to bibliographies and literature reviews, not for use as sources or content, but for selecting and organizing the sources themselves. Tertiary sources as examples of how to organize the content. fiveby(zero) 13:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We talked about re-writing BESTSOURCES recently. It's a bit of an Easter egg, in that it doesn't address any of the things that people would expect from that shortcut.
    For this, I'm more interested in the problem of authors being 'tainted' or 'untouchable'. Imagine one of those "Have you no sense of decency" moments: "We can't cite them. We can't cite them even if the paper is also co-authored by Einstein. We can't cite them even if it's published in the world's best peer-reviewed journal. They are/were part of The Evil Ones, and they and their views can only appear in Wikipedia for the purpose of calling them evil." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty rare isn't it. Andrew Wakefield and Marianne J Middelveen come to mind. They don't co-author with Einstein (who had some pretty fringe ideas, mind you, in his dotage). Bon courage (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's rare in politics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't know about that! Bon courage (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll turn most questions into a best sources argument. Find the best source(s) for the topic, see if they include the view, how contextualized, and whether those sources call them evil. Really very WP:PROFRINGE myself tho so throw in all the views and cites to whatever, just write non-fiction and don't confuse the reader. fiveby(zero) 04:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So shamelessly ripping off that MEDRS_Evaluation template as a basis, and using a recently challenged PROFRINGE source, something like User:Void_if_removed/sandbox/TemplateTest which changes the end to give eg:
    • Independent commissioning: check Independent sources are best.
    • Independent authors:check Sources written by independent authors are best (80%).
    So you can specify number of authors vs which ones have a conflict of interest, and evaluate the independence of the commissioning and the authors in more detail? (edited to give dummy output because sandbox template breaks indentation) Void if removed (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is the edit you are referring to, then, I would characterise it as saying a few more things than just that acupuncture is not pseudoscience in China. I'm also not really convinced that there's an academic consensus in favour of traditional Chinese medicine even in Chinese academia, even if MEDPOP and government sources tend to be more favourable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't live in a moral void. We live in the Free World, and we should be proud of it while it lasts. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's not try to invent problems to solve before they arise. GMGtalk 18:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's too late for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then the burden is on you to provide specific examples of intractable conflicts that need resolved. GMGtalk 21:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Since I'm asking whether we have any existing general advice that would be widely applicable, then proof that specific examples exist does not seem really relevant to me. If you only choose to participate in discussions when you can deal with what's sometimes called the low-level details of an exact situation (Exactly which words were used to describe that Trump nominee, and exactly which publications, with what reputations, have used those exact words how many times?), then that's fine. Anyone who is interested in the general case is still welcome to share any advice with me or point to any essays they're aware of. Surely after all these years we have something. If not, maybe we should write it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've seen specific examples that fit the profile WAID is describing, do not believe that the problem doesn't arise in significant cases, and agree that discussion in the general case could be helpful. (We already see below how a general discussion can be derailed by what looks like a specific re-hashing of a previous talk discussion.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing Would I be remiss in assuming that this thread is an allusion to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM)? The ones the SPLC not only list as a hate group but describe as the "hub of the anti-LGBT pseudoscience movement", who are described by various RS explicitly as a "fringe group", called out by more for misinformation, who push unevidenced theories and work with people famous for conversion therapy (and are in fact famous for creating a new kind: gender exploratory therapy)? The ones referenced as a key example in nearly every peer-reviewed article on trans healthcare misinformation for the past 3 years? The ones who have been repeatedly called our for evading peer review by producing copious numbers of letters to editors? Or is there another group this is alluding to? I've seen you defending them recently so I'm applying occam's razor, but I'd like to be wrong. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to where SPLC sit on the MEDRS pyramid? Void if removed (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SEGM is, unfortunately, only one of several disputes that I see a similar theme in. The others are mostly WP:AP2 subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The general problem you point out is certainly on display in the SEGM article. Citing A.J. Eckert at Science Based Medicine to say they are mistaken. Picking and choosing the sources based on what they say to define fringe rather than looking to the best sources. The best might indeed say the same but i can't really trust that from a quick look at the article. fiveby(zero) 16:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From another quick look at Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, it seems that a deeper dive is needed on how there came to be what looks like a preponderance of unattributed or cherry-picked opinions in the lead. But again, by focusing this discussion on SEGM, diversion from the broader discussion has already resulted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One problem is possibly the confusion of "we can tell these are fringe views because they are only in unreliable sources" with "we know these views are fringe therefore the sources are unreliable".
    Disregarding a source that we would ordinarily consider reliable on FRINGE grounds should be a high bar. Void if removed (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case neither source would be fringe since they have equal or similar support. EEpic (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support from whom? If it was a source you'd never heard of, what would you check first to find out more? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support from reliable sources. If there's no clear winner, the mainstream view, then nothing would be a clear fringe. If there is a clear winner or a clear group of views that are well supported in a variety of sources then the less supported ones can be called fringe. EEpic (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As others have said, if the majority of RS say it, it's not Fringe (though here we may well restrict this to "qualified RS"), if a minority of RS say it, it is harder, but here we then would go with what is the mainstream opinion. If only a very few RS support it, it's fringe, if no RS support it's fringe. So really the only time there should be any don't is when there is a (more or less) a 50 50 split between relevant RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So 'HIV causes AIDS' is the mainstream POV, and therefore the AIDS denialist views of Kary Mullis are fringe.
    But for any new claim, 'this new drug cures this cancer' or 'this policy will solve this problem', there might not be any FRINGE views under this approach, because there might not be enough RS to evaluate it.
    What's your approach to multidisciplinary subjects? Imagine that moral philosophers, feminists, and disability rights activists disagree over, e.g., something about abortion or embryo screening. Which field is the mainstream field? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be the fields in this example besides philosophy? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Women's studies and Disability studies are academic disciplines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A feminist is not someone who engages in Women's studies nor is a disability rights activists one who engages in Disability studies. If we take the question as simply practicing professors in the three fields you've named I think we would include all of them at least in some contexts (none would hpwever likely qualify for the more MEDRS aspects of that issue) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MEDRS's ideal source is a good way to determine tangible outcomes: What percentage of embryos with this mutation will be severely disabled? How many people need to be vaccinated with Pneumovax to prevent one death from pneumonia? It shines when the question is primarily statistical in nature.
    MEDRS is not suited for determining human values or morals. For example, if you're working on Sex-selective abortion and need a paragraph on the hypocrisy of (e.g.,) US politicians condemning this practice in other countries while making no move to ban it in their own country, then you need ordinary RS on WP:SCHOLARSHIP instead of MEDRS. If you're writing about Down syndrome#Ethics, you need non-scientists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but in that example is it really interdisciplinary? That seems to pretty clearly fall within political science. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some individual points about (e.g.,) Sex-selective abortion may fall more into one field than another, but this one could be poli sci ("these politicians are responding to domestic pressures about..."), or could be feminism ("more evidence of anti-female bias"), or could be ethics ("about this 'do what I say, not what I do' stuff..."), or could be other fields. Each field will have its own focus on why the observed phenomenon happens and whether it is good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can sources even be WP:PROFRINGE? The way WP:PROFRINGE is written its editors who are PROFRINGE. How it talks about actual sources doesn't match what you're saying here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but the edit that introduced it can be. So then it boils down to issues like wp:rs and wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So both editor A and editor B are incompetent? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No they may well just be misusing pro fringe as a shorthand for "this failed wp:fringe wp:undue and wp:rs, and maybe wp:or", it would depend on the edit (and the sources being objected to). This is the problem with hypotheticals. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Misuse is either a competence issue or a malicious one. In this sort of case (especially a hypothetical) we generally assume incompetence not malice per AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the wrong WP:UPPERCASE is exceedingly common, so I don't think we can even call it incompetence. Using precisely the correct word/link/advice page is important in a few instances (e.g., if you are writing a notability guideline, you should not write secondary when you mean independent), but it's usually just a vague wave meaning "policy says I win" or a honest mistake (the 'mistake' in question often being 'believing experienced editors who said this during prior discussions'). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you call it? If its wrong then it wasn't used in a competent manner. Precision is competence, someone making honest mistakes is lacking in competence (even if in a very minor way). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Precision is competence" is a viewpoint that I associate with autistic people, and the opposite (e.g., the tactful hint, the vague wave at the gist of the thing) is one I associate with neurotypical people. In the spirit of FRINGE, I'd say that neither of these viewpoints are FRINGE viewpoints, and also that neither of them are the sole True™ way of understanding what other people say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That "Everyone has a limited sphere of competence." seems to be consensus. Personally I find writing it off as autistic incredibly offensive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not dismissing it or "writing it off". I'm saying that in my own experience, these two viewpoints exist and are associated with two groups of people. If you are familiar with the Double empathy problem, then you already know why communication between these two particular groups of people is difficult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe give it another try without calling me Autistic (which is the clear implication of your association)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that many of our Autistic editors would be offended by anyone talking about their identity and their way of seeing the world as being anything other than a desirable thing, and certainly nothing to apologize for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You suspect that people in a given class would not be offended by you asserting that as a class of people they see the world in a specific way? "Autistic editors" don't have a unified identity or way of seeing the world, thats stereotyping and its offensive even when the stereotype is a positive one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be interested in reading about Autistic (identity), which is actually a thing, and it is based in part on seeing the world in a specific (i.e., non-allistic) way.
    It is true that some people with autism have internalized shame around this, but you will notice that I said "many of our Autistic editors" and not "every single human with autism". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is like arguing that "Asian editors see wikipedia primarily in mathematical terms" its just offensive no matter how you want to justify it... And implying that any editor who approached wikipedia in mathematical terms was Asian would also be offensive, despite the stereotype being a stereotypical example of a positive stereotype. You're acting like I'm the one offending people here, you're the one making stereotypes and implying that I fit them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Autism is defined as a difference in how people experience and respond to the world. It's like saying "Asian editors are from Asia". It's not a stereotype; it's the definition of the word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder, people on the spectrum experience and respond to the world in a wide variety of ways. What you are presenting is a stereotype and it is an offensive one... I've now made that clear in both a precise way and a tactful/vague way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: As a person who has never been called "autistic" (I don't remember hearing the term until I was in my 40s or 50s), but who has recently been called "Leonard" by a friend and who loved to browse through the encyclopedia as a child, your comments have made me very uncomfortable. You are stereotyping people who have a broard range of means of dealing with the world. While I have concluded that I may be somewhere on the spectrum, I would never suggest that my way of engaging with the world is typical or representative of any group. Donald Albury 23:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donald Albury, I'm sorry that you're uncomfortable.
    What I said about "Precision is competence" is an example of the Central coherence theory. Although not universally beloved, it has been one of the most widely accepted descriptions of how autism contrasts with neurotypical thinking (in people without intellectual disabilities). The autistic style is "It is good because all the details are exact". The non-autistic style is "It is good because the overarching picture is pleasing". Neither style is better than the other, and both groups are capable of using both styles when it suits them.
    It is true that "if you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism". It is also true that researchers have found similiarities in cognitive patterns and that there are some "typical" cognitive patterns in both autistic and non-autistic people. These patterns are not stereotypes (no more stereotypical than saying "children usually learn to read by age 6"), and they are not just one individual claiming that their own experience is true for everyone.
    Perhaps, though, if you find this off-topic tangent uncomfortable, you would hat it. I suggest beginning with the (unkind, aggressive, tactless) comment above that "So both editor A and editor B are incompetent?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe just...don't speculate on the neurodevelopmental conditions you think someone's behavior resembles?? JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am autistic. Considering autistic people are not a monolith, I obviously can't speak for all of us, but from my perspective? I consider your statements as significantly closer to offensive than HEB's, in a borderline-patronizing and borderline-infantilizing way.
    • First and foremost: equating [my] identity and [my] way of seeing the world with [being] autistic is problematic. Autism absolutely is an inalienable part of my perspective and my identity, yes. That's not the same thing as it being (the whole of) my identity. I am autistic, yes. Just like I am many, many other things, all of which influence who I am as a whole, but do not by themselves make up the whole of it.
    • offended by [...] anything other than a desirable thing - Non-autistic people do not get to tell me that having sensory meltdowns, sensory overstimulation, sensory processing issues, running into various barriers where it comes to failing accessibility even from those services geared towards dealing with neurodivergent people and/or those with disabilities, dealing with frequent patronization and infantilization, having had schools tell my parents (paraphrased) "well yes she gets severely bullied, but the real problem is that she is autistic" and refusing to do shit about bullying, and healthcare and mental healthcare services trying to toss everything on my autism regardless of whether it actually is related to my autism, is desirable. (Non-autistic people also do not get to tell me that being autistic is entirely undesirable, either. There are both benefits and downsides, and I'm really, really tired of allistic people talking over us how desirable or undesirable our neurodivergency is.)
    AddWittyNameHere 06:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    2024 New Jersey drone sightings

    [edit]

    Article: 2024 New Jersey drone sightings. Rapidly evolving and increasingly in the news (local, regional, national and international), and starting to get into/bump toward weirdness with the latest Pentagon revelations and claims of "Iranian Motherships". -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The correct solution is to delete the article until it's established that this isn't an irrelevant fleeting news story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not supposed to rush to create articles... But once the article is created the guidance shifts to don't rush to delete articles. Per Wikipedia:Notability (events) "As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said the correct solution, not the one that will play out. :P Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Touche mon ami, touche Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this "hot news" or just filler? It seems pretty trivial to me. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Answering that question is why we're told not to rush to deletion. You can't really tell until the event is in the rear view mirror (some say to wait ten years before evaluating) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now international news for like 72 hours, and all over the major American networks again tonight. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Horse Eye's Back that regardless of what we should have done, that ship has sailed. The BBC have 2 recent stories about aspects of this [9] [10] and even did a live updates [11] and had a video over a week ago [12]. AP News have at least 7 recent stories [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and one older one [20] about this, and 4 videos [21], [22], [23], [24]. Reuters have at least 2 stories [25], [26] and one video [27]. Perhaps in a few weeks or more likely months we can re-evaluate what to do with the article but there's no point trying now. Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Geez. There's an article for that?!
    I saw mention of it, a couple of posts on social media of pretty obvious misidentifications of airplanes and, in at least a few cases, even planets. And then the bandwagon of highly impressionable people, lunatics and sensationalist journalism (with a ridiculous one on a Fox channel where the story is that these sightings are close to one of Trump's properties, with the comment section of the video leading me to believe that Americans are about to begin trying to shoot down airplanes from up in the sky), but no serious coverage because there is literally nothing to it. Now I see the AP ref and a couple more RS sources covering it, but still too soon and with no sober analysis.
    Looks like an absolute flap. A lot of the article is poorly sourced, it shouldn't have been created and it's currently just spreading misinformation. People see something up in the sky, they have no idea how large or how far it is, or how fast it's moving, and they start making claims. Something that looks obviously like a plane is moving toward them, they say it's a "SUV-sized drone hovering" and WP just replicates this claim? VdSV9•♫ 13:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "UFO flap" article

    [edit]
    I would like to see an article on UFO flaps. That is a phenomenon that is not well known even though I see lots of sources on the subject. jps (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded, perhaps UFO crazes is a more common title though? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that UFO craze tends to refer more to the broader phenomenon of UFO fandoms. A "flap" is a particular localized event in time and space where there is a kind of mass panic about UFOs and sightings go through the roof. In fact, such flaps happened prior to the traditional Kenneth Arnold kick off. Edison ships and other mystery airship sightings were the flaps in the late nineteenth century. jps (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources are you seeing which use "Flap"? I'm seeing more or less 0% use that language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have yet to see any reputable independent sources not affiliated with UFO/skeptic spaces do this. Only Mick West on Twitter, and as he knows as little as apparently even Congress, it would be credulous and absurd to consider him WP:RS (and certainly not WP:NPOV!) on this set of incidents. All of us are in the dark until the government gives up data, it still appears. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to ufology and claims of mysterious things in the sky, scientific skeptical sources are the preferred independent reliable sources we should be giving most weight to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a ufology article. It would be irresponsible to frame it thus. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are perfectly fine sources, but certainly not preferred... And we should not be giving them undue weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking Mick West is a reliable source for this, by WP:PARITY. I also see this as a UFOlogy article. Geogene (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    0% vs 0.1% does not a common name make... What other sources are you seeing use flap? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mick West is quite the expert when it comes to finding out what things in the sky actually are. Doesn't matter if they are being called drones, UFOs, UAPs or alien motherships. So very much RS and NPOV. VdSV9•♫ 13:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How are y'all not finding sources for UFO flap? I see Diana Walsh Pasulka defining here and probably in American Cosmic by Oxford. Lots of results on scholar to look through. fiveby(zero) 05:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was surprised to see the Google search result for "ufo flap" in quotes. Quite a bit more sources than expected use the term, which apparently has a deep historical context going back to the 1950s. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand, we're lacking sources describing the current event as a "ufo flap" (nobody is questioning whether the term is a thing, the question is whether RS are using it to describe the events (or non-events as the case may be) in New Jersey). If for example we want to make a page which lists various "flaps" we're going to need at least some of them to actually be regularly called that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So far the term is being used in places like Substack, Medium and the occasional local radio. It is very likely that after 6 months or a year there will be more widespread RS using the term to describe the flap in retrospect. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm less concerned about the current UFO flap being properly categorized than I am with having an article that adequately describes them as a general idea. If this NJ UFO flap never gets called that, no problem. But we still could have a nice article on this subject. jps (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually surprised that article doesn't exist. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a lot of overlap with topics that do exist like List of reported UFO sightings. One spot I see for improvement is that we don't have a dedicated UFO history article which would more or less be an article on UFO flaps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources seem to indicate that there is something substantively different between a flap and a single sighting. Belgian UFO wave is a flap. Travis Walton UFO incident is not. jps (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh then perhaps it is me who is mistaken... I agree that an article on flaps (whatever we want to call them) is valuable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone familiar with historical UFO lore could easily create this article. @Feoffer: if this doesn't work we could say his name three times. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes.. UFO flaps are definitely something we need an article on -- they show the social contagion aspect to the phenomenon, and of course, all the fringe stuff goes in 'flaps'. Spiritualism keeps coming back in flaps, etc. We have an article on the 1947 flying disc craze, and I keep meaning to expand 1952 Washington, D.C., UFO incident into the 1952 UFO flap. Feoffer (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. UFO flap is a good start. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Electronic_harassment#Introduction_Violates_WP:MEDRS_and_WP:NPOV

    [edit]

    Someone is arguing that the introduction using the word "delusional belief" to describe the idea that malicious actors are transmitting words and sounds into their heads is violating WP:NPOV. Would be useful to get more eyes on this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW, we now have three articles containing much the same content, which are often targeted (no pun intended) by SPAs seeking to introduce language giving credibility to various fringe claims. Keeping track of the disruptions of similar content among three articles can be difficult.
    It would help if a main article could be identified and content from the satellite articles merged to it leaving a pointer link to the main article.

    - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say Electronic harassment and Microwave auditory effect could be merged, but Gang stalking (while including an element of this) is sufficiently unique I'd say it should be a stand-alone article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Microwave auditory effect is a reality based phenomenon, though. Just not one that has a lot in common with how the Electronic harassment folks portray it. I don't think merging the actual physics with the delusion stuff is a good idea. We should remove the 'Conspiracy theories' section from Microwave auditory effect and just have a very brief mention with link to Electronic harassment, though. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gang stalking article has been the object of some confusion in years past (it doesn't help that some of the cited sources use the phrase "gang stalking" to describe physical surveillance as well as fantastic forms of electronic surveillance such as microwave technology). Somebody added a brief and possibly WP:OR etymology that says it is a type of stalking, but the article quickly identifies the delusion is specific to technological "mind-control weapons", which places it far outside reality-based relationship abuse and social media harassment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should the paragraph on Havana syndrome stay, or should it go with the merge? Also, when the conspiracy stuff is worked out, the following redirects need to be re-targeted: Voice to skull, V2K, and Voice-to-skull. Rjjiii (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, is there a reason there's not a separate page for Targeted Individuals at this point? We have two pages (possibly more) talking about them, but no page dedicated to an analysis of the community itself. Amranu (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two is already too many. Content about a single topic should only be split onto multiple pages when they exceed length requirements, and this topic isn't even close to that threshold. MrOllie (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Metabolic theory of cancer

    [edit]

    I lack expertise on the topic so I don't know whether the article gives appropriate weight or undue weight to the idea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Appropriate weight, but very badly written and could easily be misconstrued. I'll get to work, since I do have expertise in this area. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Flynn effect (again)

    [edit]

    Flynn effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Continued IP edit warring to include WP:PROFRINGE content [28][29][30]. This is evidently the same user picking up from where they left off last month [31][32][33][34][35]. Failure to engage on talk here. I'm going to request page protection as well, but more eyes on the situation would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Needs page protection. The IP is likely to be associated with Human Diversity Foundation. The only way to get rid of them is article protection like on the others. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Second need for protection, seems unlikely to die down on its own Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is thata way ––>
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    General comment Is FT/N really the right venue to request page protection? At some point, this just becomes WP:CANVASSING. ChopinAficionado (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what WP:CANVASSING says. This noticeboard is the appropriate place to request additional eyes on a fringe topic. Note that I requested (and got) page protection at WP:RPP. Generalrelative (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The spirit of the law. ChopinAficionado (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gain of function research

    [edit]

    Would appreciate editor input with regards to these edits: [36][37]

    Discussion is here: Talk:Gain-of-function_research#Covid_Section_Update_reverted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is getting so tiring, a self-admitted[38] WP:PROFRINGE editor pushing and pushing lab leak talking points on multiple articles. There are very good sources on this so writing good content is not hard. Bon courage (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pushing a partisan as fuck committee report is WP:FRINGE. I think we should be requiring MEDRS level sourcing on this given how politicised it is with people like Rand Paul pushing the conspiracy theories that leads to hyper-partisan committee reports. TarnishedPathtalk 10:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,

    I am the person who made the edits in question. I am not a "self-admitted fringe editor," the link provided for that claim is to a talk page discussion from an entirely different user.

    I would like to present a succinct argument for my edits;

    1. The United States House of Representatives is not a Fringe source, nor is it a conspiratorial organization.

    2. Reports generated by the US House are not generally considered the "mere opinions" of those politicians who create them, they are generally considered, at the very least, not conspiratorial. (Some even have their own Wikipedia articles)

    3. Testimony from a similar event, a US senate hearing, is presented in the paragraph above my proposed edit without any issue.

    4. The edit which I revised, following feedback from other editors, includes secondary source reporting on the primary source, and presents criticism and negative reception of the report, so as to not unduly push one side.

    5. The report in question was submitted by a bipartisan committee of Congressmen and Congresswomen. Some of the key points received bipartisan support. Other points had disagreement. It is not "hyper-partisan dog excrement."

    6. The 500 page report contains mostly hard evidence, including photographs, emails, reports, transcribed sworn testimony, and subpoena testimony. It is not pure conjecture and opinions of the politicians authoring it, it is based on and provides evidence.

    7. The question of "Was there US-funded gain of research in China" is not a question which requires scientific expertise to answer. It is not a scientific question, in the way that something like "What are the cleavage sites on a protein" would be. It is a logistical and budgetary question. Thus, the fact that the authors of this report are not scientists is irrelevant and, as the body which is in control of the budget, is exactly within their expertise.

    8. Sources which disapprove of the study and respond to it negatively should absolutely be included. But the fact that some secondary sources disapprove of the study is not a reason to exclude it. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    1. The US House of Representatives is full of non-experts touting conspiracy theories. Odd that you would think otherwise.
    2. Reports generated by the US House are representative of the members who produced them or sponsored their production. Since (1) is true, it is absolutely possible for reports from the US House to be problematic and not representative of the best and most reliable attestations to reality.
    3.Testimony is only as reliable as the person giving the testimony. Many people giving testimony before Congress are unreliable.
    4. If a source reports on a primary source with criticism and negative reaction, it may be that the primary source does not deserve inclusion.
    5. The bipartisanship of a committee is irrelevant to whether the points in question are problematic. Just because a committee is bipartisan does not mean that the offending text is therefore beyond reproach or apolitical.
    6. "Hard evidence" in the context of academic science needs to be published in relevant academic journal and subject to appropriate peer review.
    7. "Gain of research" is obviously a typo, but illustrates the point well that expertise is needed to determine whether or not there is any relevant concerns about research funding. The report authors do not seem to have that expertise. Simply being called by Congress is not sufficient.
    8. We have rules for exclusion as outlined in my response to point (4).
    I think this response illustrates that, intentionally or not, you are functioning as a WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSHer. This is not allowed at Wikipedia.
    jps (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Your opinion on the current members of the house is irrelevant. The US Congress is not a fringe source. See my example provided.
    2. You just asserted the opposite of my point without any explanation. This isn't a refutation.
    3. Unless you're arguing any specific testimony in the report is false, that is true, but irrelevant.
    4. Secondary sources reporting on any topic will be both positive and negative, depending on their own biases. The presence of negative reviews is not dispositive to a source's inclusion.
    5. The bipartisanship of the committee is completely relevant to the charge that it should be excluded because it is "hyper-partisan."
    6. "Did the US fund gain-of-function research in China" is not a question which is scientific in nature. Scientific expertise in the field of gain-of-function research is not required to answer that question.
    7. "Did the US fund gain-of-function research in China" is not a question which is scientific in nature.
    8. See point 4.
    And I do not appreciate threats being left on my talk page. Extremely inappropriate. BabbleOnto (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least, it looks like this editor is coming in extremely hot based on the WP:IDHT responses I'm seeing just above my reply to you. With the attitude I'm seeing, it looks like they're heading to the cliff where something at WP:AE or an admin here acting under the COVID CT restrictions due to WP:ADVOCACY, bludgeoning, etc. would be needed. Controversial topics are not the place for new editors to coming in hot while "learning the ropes" and exhaust the community, so this seems like a pretty straightforward case for a topic ban to address that. KoA (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I directly addressed or refuted the challenges levied against my points. In what way can you claim my responses are WP:IDHT?
    Which of my comments did I fail to substantively defend? I will be happy to do so now. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your goal here? jps (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to have the rules, policies, and guidelines, applied.
    The source I've been trying to cite very clearly does not violate WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe" as defined by WP:FRINGE, nor can the reports of it be considered "Unsubstantial," as defined by WP:UNDUE.
    Yet, so long as 2 people disagree with source, more specifically, personally disagree with the findings or have a personal vendetta against its authors, it does not matter that my edit is perfectly legitimate and rule-abiding, it will be removed as "Against the consensus."
    Which is not inherently bad, I'm willing to change the edit in response to criticism. But, despite my many efforts to compromise or edit the change, change the wording, add context, add secondary sources, those in opposition refuse to hear any compromise or even provide any constructive criticism.
    There are parts of the article which neither side disagrees are, are as matter of pure fact, incorrect. However, I'm unable to change them, because one side will not approve any source that I use.
    I'm making my case here because I feel I've reached an impasse where the current consensus refuses to listen to any reasonable changes, or any changes at all, even to statements everyone has agreed are just factually wrong. BabbleOnto (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A bunch of politicians certainly can be WP:FRINGE. In every country politicians are known to spout the most arrant nonsense, especially when it comes to science. The burgeoning antiknowledge movement in the USA as exemplified by the current incident is just another example of this. That we have editors signed-up to the same agenda trying to bend Wikipedia that way, is a problem. As always, the solution is to use the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean [39]. While it doesn't deal that much with the science, I'm fairly sure there is probably some science nonsense in it, and there are far worse reports. Then there is United States House Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood which again mostly not dealing with science AFAIK, did deal with it enough to result in this [40]. While not from the house, there was also the infamous Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis#National Cancer Institute demonstrating that even US federal government agencies aren't immune to publishing nonsense due to political interference. 05:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    New user has absolute faith in something that is clearly not a reliable source and insists on including it. This is a WP:CIR issue and a topic ban would be a good idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. We've had more competent editors receive indefs for pushing WP:FRINGE in this topic area. TarnishedPathtalk 11:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that you decided to pull out wikipedia articles which contain, by your own words "far worse reports." Wouldn't the fact these "Worse" reports are still allowed in the articles be evidence for my point? If worse sources are still allowed in under the rules, why would this "better" source not be? BabbleOnto (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This reply I think best sums up what I have to work with; it is the consensus of other editors that the US Congress is a secret, fringe, conspiratorial group which is secretly manufacturing fake evidence and putting out false reports to prevent the REAL TRUTH from getting out to true believers.
    And I'M the one labeled the conspiracist for disagreeing. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody said "secret". That group has been quite openly anti-science for decades. See The Republican War on Science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I directly addressed or refuted the challenges levied against my points. No. You responded. However, in your response, you have displayed the inability or unwillingness to understand what was being explained to you. That's IDHT. You continuing to claim that A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe" shows that you're missing the point. As does the repetition that nor can the reports of it be considered "Unsubstantial," as defined by WP:UNDUE. even though an explanation has been given on how these reports absolutely can be completely biased, politically motivated, and from a "quality of the source" perspective - be it scientifically, journalistic or just factually -, it is deemed unreliable. VdSV9•♫ 13:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe"
    There has been no substantive explanation of this. Only repeated assertions that it is true, and then an expression of an author's personal dislike for Republicans or the government in general. That is not an explanation as to why the statement, an objective statement, is true.
    even though an explanation has been given on how these reports absolutely can be completely biased, politically motivated, and from a "quality of the source" perspective - be it scientifically, journalistic or just factually -, it is deemed unreliable
    Nobody is arguing that the article should be replaced by this report. However, the US Congress's position is very clearly a prominent position. And again, I know you personally believe the US Congress can't be trusted, but WP:UNDUE actually says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." The US Congress's viewpoint is a significant one, and even if you dislike the original source, there are dozens of reliable secondary sources reporting on it. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're blatantly wrong here. Politicians saying "science is wrong" is as FRINGE as it gets. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A question of how much money, if any, was allocated to a certain project, is not a scientific question. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We define what is WP:FRINGE based on the WP:BESTSOURCES. A politician with no expertise in medicine is a terrible source for anything related to diseases, and therefore carries no weight in discussion over whether a particular position is WP:FRINGE or not. There are mainstream politicians who deny evolution; that does not change the fact that that denial is a fringe perspective among the best available sources on the topic. Wikipedia's purpose, as an encyclopedia, is not to be an arbitrary reflection of what random politicians believe or what the gut feeling of random people on the street might be; it's to summarize the very best sources on every topic (which, in most cases, means academic sources with relevant expertise.) Keep in mind that WP:FRINGE doesn't mean that we omit a position entirely; in an article about government responses to COVID, we could reasonably cover the opinions of lawmakers who contribute to that response, even if their opinions are medically fringe. But our core articles on the topic will be written according to the conclusions of the parts of the medical establishment that have relevant expertise; the gut feelings of politicians with no relevant expertise have no weight or place there at all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A politician with no expertise in medicine is a terrible source for anything related to diseases
    The question of 'was there US-funded gain of function research in China" is not an epidemiological question, and is not remotely scientific in nature.
    You're just not addressing why this question is scientific. You're just skipping past that part. Why does an Epidemiologist have to testify as to the US budget? What would they possibly know about Congressional funding? BabbleOnto (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question what constitutes 'gain of function research' is very much is a scientific question and thus by extension the question "was there US-funded gain of function research in China" is also a scientific one. TarnishedPathtalk 07:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a nonsense point. By that logic, the JFK assassination report could not be used to support the claim that JFK died unless a journal by the American Coroner's Association agreed with it. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Member Magazine Of The American society for biochemistry and molecular biology quotes Nicholas Evans as saying "No one knows exactly what counts as gain-of-function, so we disagree as to what needs oversight, much less what that oversight should be". Evans specializes in biosecurity and pandemic preparedness.
    It is a subject of active debate within the scientific community. Therefore politicians are out of their depth talking about whether there was "US-funded gain of function research in China" when scientists don't agree what that is. TarnishedPathtalk 02:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I originally also had an edit which attempts to discuss this which was also removed. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, you don't know anything about what I personally believe about anything. Looks like you're both poisoning the well and mistaking me for jps... Second, and, of course, more relevant here: a report sponsored by members of Congress is not "The Congress's viewpoint". Thirdly, even if they had an assembly where they discussed the matter and voted or whatever it would take to make something "The Congress's viewpoint", it's questionable if whatever conclusion they came to would be deemed a reliable source and IF that warrants being included in an encyclopedic article about the subject they discussed. Explaining it further would just be repeating what I and others have said before. About your other point of there being articles about other, worse, reports. These reports and their coverage are reliable sources for the articles that talk about the reports themselves. The fact that these have been covered by secondary sources means they are notable enough to get their own articles, not that it's a reliable source. What you are asking for is more akin to using the "findings" of the report mentioned by Hob Gadling on something like Use of fetal tissue in vaccine development or other fetal tissue research related article. VdSV9•♫ 14:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that these have been covered by secondary sources means they are notable enough to get their own articles
    This report has also been covered by reliable secondary sources. Why then can this source not at least be mentioned? BabbleOnto (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not the same as reliability. The fact that these have been covered by secondary sources means they are notable enough to get their own articles, it doesn't mean they are reliable to be used as a source of information in articles other than the ones about themselves. That was the whole point I was trying to make above, please read again. VdSV9•♫ 19:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the fact that they were covered by secondary sources doesn't make them reliable, then you never addressed my original point, which is why are other House Reports considered reliable, but this one isn't? BabbleOnto (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    VdSV9's last remark is related to WP:ONEWAY. Article about wackos talking about scientific subjects: Sources talking about wackos talking about scientific subjects are OK. Article about scientific subjects such as this one: Sources talking about wackos talking about scientific subjects are not OK. You need to understand that context matters. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe" Watch me. If it can happen once in an obvious fashion, it can happen again. Ours is not the job to decide it happened, but when reliable sources identify it happening, we aren't in the business of declaring categorically, as though there is something magical about the US Government, that the reliable sources can't possibly have identified something fringe-y being promoted within the hallowed halls of the US Government. jps (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that we have to have this conversation about conspiracism in the US house of representatives regularly. There's a similar conflict at Havana Syndrome because some of the conspiracists in the US house believe the CIA is covering up Russian involvement in the proposed syndrome for vague, poorly defined, reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the key thing to understand about WP:FRINGE is that it is about where a view stands in relation to the best sources on the subject; it's not a measure of what random people think or what arbitrary big names on unrelated topics believe. This is one of the oldest elements of our fringe policies (since a lot of the policy was hammered out in relation to the creation-evolution controversy, where there very much was a significant political structure devoted to pushing fringe theories aobut it); just because a particular senator doubts evolution doesn't make that perspective non-fringe. Members of the US government are only reliable sources on, at best, the opinions of the US government itself, and even then they'd be a WP:PRIMARY and often self-interested source for that, to be used cautiously. The WP:BESTSOURCES on eg. COVID are medical experts, not politicians (who may have an inherent motivation to grandstand, among other things) with no relevant expertise. Something that is clearly fringe among medical experts remains fringe even if every politician in the US disagrees. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      1. There are findings which are non-scientific which the report would be used to prove, namely whether or not the US government funded gain-of-function research in China. This is not a scientific claim, and the US government has the absolute most authority on that issue. There is no reason any given medical expert would be qualified at all to talk about this, as it is a logistical and budgetary question, not a scientific or medical one.
      2. There are also findings which are bipartisan. That is, they aren't just the opinions of one or two, or even an entire party's worth of politicians. They are agreed upon by all members of the committee, Republican and Democrat. That is drastically and categorically different than trying to cite one politician's personal opinion as fact.
      3. The remaining claims are still substantial, even if you or a large majority of people disagree with them, as a documentation of a significant viewpoint as required under WP:UNDUE. As paraphrased:
      If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
      Clearly the US government is "prominent," even if you believe they're secretly a cabal of anti-scientific fringe conspirators who seek to manipulate the fabric of reality to hide the REAL truth. BabbleOnto (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not a usable source. You need to drop the WP:STICK. Bon courage (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. You've made your opinion abundantly clear. But you have never once provided a valid reason, other than "more people agree with me, so our interpretation of the rule wins."
      I have, at every turn, proven how the source fits the rules. You are overturning the rules in favor of your own, politically motivated consensus. BabbleOnto (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You have, at every turn, proven that you do not understand the rules. Opposing pseudoscience is not politically motivated just because the pseudoscience is politically motivated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have consistently proven how my edits fall within the rules. The response has been "We interpret the rules differently and we have a majority, so what's actually written means what we say it does." BabbleOnto (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that has not been the response. You do not understand the response or you do not want to understand it. I suggest you should first learn the Wikipedia rules in a less fringey topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Men Who Stare At Goats Is one of Ronson's best works and illustrative of exactly why placing blind faith in the judgements of the government or military on scientific matters is tantamount to intellectually throwing in the towel and giving up on reality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this logic hilarious when just 4 years ago good-faith editors get banned for not trusting the government sources or trying to exclude the government as a source on lockdowns and social distancing. Go and read the discussion boards on social distancing from 2020, as I just have. I hope you understand that WP's new opinion of "Government primary sources cannot be used," was literally the exact opposite just four years ago. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a Strawman. No one is saying that a political report from the legislative branch and the output of public health agencies like the CDC are the same thing. Please try to engage with the arguments others are actually making. MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Amongst other secondary sources, I've been trying to cite to the DHHS report about EcoHealth. How is that a strawman to point out that the CDC is a completely valid source, but I have been prevented from adding a DHHS report? Do you know what a strawman is? BabbleOnto (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It feels like we're dealing with a WP:MASTADON here. You've been warned about WP:AE sanctions and you don't seem to be accepting what others are telling you. How do you want to proceed? jps (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been warned about WP:AE sanctions and you don't seem to be accepting what others are telling you
    I haven't edited anything since being warned. I've complied and haven't tried to edit the article or revert my changes. Don't know what you're threatening here.
    How do you want to proceed?
    I would like the parts of the article which are demonstrably false, and supported by perennially approved secondary sources other than the house report and reporting thereto, rectified. Such as the DHHS barring EcoHealth from receiving funds (Other DHHS reports are cited in the article, and the article still says that EcoHealth was cleared from wrongdoing).
    I would of course think at least some mention of the house report, even if negatively, even if only to highlight the secondary source's reception of it, is worthy. But I believe at this point I think some editors are too unwilling to compromise to consider that but, I'll throw it out there. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Well, if you're willing to WP:DROPTHESTICK, I'm sure we can happily help you find other places at this massive project to invest your volunteer time. Maybe give it six months and see if the landscape has changed. After all, there is WP:NODEADLINE. jps (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't edited anything since being warned. I've complied and haven't tried to edit the article or revert my changes. Don't know what you're threatening here.
    Conduct on noticeboards and talk pages is actionable by WP:AE in WP:CTOPs. TarnishedPathtalk 23:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please watch

    [edit]

    Please consider putting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force on your watchlist, or subscribing to the talk page, so you can get an Echo/Notification of any new topics created on the page. It is an under-watched page and gets some fringe-related messages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yakub (Nation of Islam)

    [edit]

    Not sure about the new edits. My watchlist has never been so strange as in the last 12 hours. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have specific concerns? Looking over the changes, nothing jumped out at me as horrifically problematic, but I'm not reading that closely. Feoffer (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted a sanity check. :) Also seems ok to me. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if any edits were problematic! I am interested in strange things. It's a bit awkward writing the... plot? When it's something like this, but it's unavoidable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Black Monk of Pontefract

    [edit]

    Massive reconstruction of a REDIRECTed article places WP:UNDUE weight on a single WP:FRINGE source. Article body loaded with credulous claims in WP voice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Starving" cancer

    [edit]

    Some new accounts/IPs seem unhappy that the "Quackery" section of Lancet Oncology is being cited to call out the quackery in play here. More eyes needed. Bon courage (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas N. Seyfried

    [edit]

    Thomas N. Seyfried is a biochemistry professor who probably passes WP:PROF who seems mainly notable for going on podcasts to tell cancer patients to reject chemotherapy in favour of going on a keto diet. Gorski on Science Based Medicine did a good article on him and his claims [41], which in light of current RfC alas looks unusable. The article has been subject to persistent whitewashing attempts by IPs (one of which geolocates to where Seyfried works) and SPAs, and additional eyes would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think he's notable for doing well-cited work on diet/metabolism and (mainly brain) cancer in mouse models, some of which on a quick glance seems reasonably mainstream (see eg Annual Reviews research overview doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-013120-041149), but notorious for attempting to translate that early research (at best prematurely) into medical advice for people with cancer. We should probably avoid mentioning the issue at all, as none of the sources (either his or those debunking it) fall within the medical project's referencing standards for medical material. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People are looking up Seyfried specifically because he is coming onto podcasts to make these claims [42], and if we omit them then Seyfried looks like a distinguished scientist giving mainstream advice, when he is saying things against the medical consensus. I think it would be better to delete the article than to omit this information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear the problem is that he genuinely is a distinguished scientist, even if he is currently talking in areas in which he appears not to be qualified. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Modern science and Hinduism

    [edit]

    I presume that new article Modern science and Hinduism could do with a thorough check. Fram (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite the head note about not confusing it with Vedic science, most of it seems to be about Vedic science. And quite apart from anything else, most of the body of the article seems to be a paraphrase of reference 8. The headings are pretty much identical. Brunton (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The same editor has also started a draft at Draft:Hindu Science Draft with some of the same content. Brunton (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I boldy redirected to vedic science as an alternative to a WP:TNT. I judge maybe a half dozen sentences/ideas may be useful to incorporate over there. jps (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vedic science itself needs some serious work, particularly given the appropriation of the term by Hindutva. JoelleJay (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. If nothing else, the creator has pointed out a gaping hole in our coverage. We need something along the lines of an article on Hindutva pseudoscience. Maybe a spin-out from Hindutva itself? jps (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    many religions use science apologism to justify faith. best to understand they are mostly means to justify religion to those insecure about it, but pseudoscience might be incorrect term of talking about it.
    I don't mean to say that science proving hinduism right should be taken as a fact (def would break NPOV), but that we would also be wrong to dismiss the beliefs of a worshipper as "pseudoscience" when "religious faith" and "scientific apologism" would be the more correct term to describe this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    an example of an article section covering scientific apologism a bit better Islamic_attitudes_towards_science#Miracle_literature_(Tafsir'ilmi) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When there is a concerted effort to replace certain scientific disciplines with religious-inspired belief, that is pretty classic pseudoscience. There are plenty of pieces from respected scientists who are aware of the current political/religious arguments being proffered against scientific understanding within the context of Hindutva who call this kind of posturing "pseudoscience". Wikipedia need not shy away from this designation. jps (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I trimmed most of the unsourced puffery added on 21 November. Frankly though whether the article should exist at all should be examined; it might be ripe for AfD. Crossroads -talk- 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The creator of the article had the username "HindutvaWarriors" until a bit over a week ago. Brunton (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonna add a reference section to the bottom of the article.CycoMa2 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The main paper promoting hydroxychloroquine as a Covid treatment has been withdrawn.

    [edit]

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-04014-9

    I doubt this'll shut up the pro-fringe users, but now all of their "evidence" can be tossed outright. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:8D86:230:8528:4CDC (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear, the paper was retracted by the journal's co-owners. The word "withdrawn" is often associated with an action taken by a paper's authors, which is not the situation here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Social_thinking

    [edit]

    No clue if it's a fringe therapy for autism or not... apparently theres at least one scientific article discussing it as a pseudoscience [43], but i can't really tell if it falls under that or not. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    David and Stephen Flynn

    [edit]

    There is an ongoing effort at David and Stephen Flynn to remove or whitewash these individual's medical misinformation section. I believe additional eyes would be helpful on this page. --VVikingTalkEdits 15:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    On the noticeboard Biographies of living persons I've requested help because this situation needs a review by neutral, experienced editors to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability guidelines.
    The previous edits are one-sided, hence several attempts have been made to improve the neutrality of the section by adding balanced context and reliable sources to reflect differing perspectives.
    In the "careers" section, edits have repeatedly removed references to David and Stephen Flynn stopping collaboration with Russell Brand, implying continued support despite this not being true.
    Specific concerns with the medical section include:
    1. The section title “Medical Misinformation” is to make it sensational; hence, changed it into “Health Advice and Public Response” instead.
    2. Peer-reviewed studies and mainstream media articles, were added for context but reverted without justification.
    3. Efforts to clarify the Flyns’ acknowledgment of errors and removal of contentious content have also been ignored. SabLovesSunshine (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a convo on the article talk page. Please continue there. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns

    [edit]

    Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Some WP:PROFRINGE editing from an account with <1000 edits. I don't have time to engage with them further over the holiday (and I'm at 3RR on this article anyway). Other experienced editors are invited to take a look. Note this response I left on their user talk page to their most recent revert. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You added a cite and I quoted it verbatim. If it's a fringe source, why did you add it? Hi! (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You quoted it selectively to highlight a caveat as though it were the central point of the piece. This looked an awful lot like WP:POINT, as did your subsequent edits to the page. Generalrelative (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed Turkheimer had this out in November: Turkheimer, Eric. "IQ, Race, and Genetics". Understanding the Nature‒Nurture Debate. Understanding Life. Cambridge University Press. fiveby(zero) 18:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cult whitewashing

    [edit]

    See [44], [45], [46] and [47]. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted them. I see long-term Grail SPA @Creolus: whitewashed the Abd's article two months ago so I just reverted them as well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also noting for posterity that I've managed to find another decent English-language source on the topic [48], don't know if there are any more in German. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, in his Grail Message he distinguished between the Son of God (Jesus Christ) and the Son of Man (himself). The morals of the book was that Christ was a loser, while Bernhardt is a winner. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really feel that if you are to stay objective, then you should look at the evidence to come to a conclusion. It's not whitewashing if you choose to use the author's exact words to represent his legacy whilst stating the interpretation of others which are not really in accord with the author's wishes or actions.
    And worthy of note, I'm not a member of the grail movement but even they shouldn't be banned from editing if the content brought is true and verifiable. 2A00:23C8:E70F:C001:A5BF:3554:E7D:7FCF (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... that's not how Wikipedia works. We prefer WP:IS WP:SECONDARY sources written by real scholars to a WP:IN-UNIVERSE view of the religious believers. See emic and etic.
    Also, religious preachers often state "Go left!" when they go right. We don't take WP:PRIMARY religious writings at face value. We don't take Bernhardt's statement that he preaches the rationally intelligible version of Jesus's message, but essentially the same message, at face value.
    He knew that saying "Let's do like the primary Christians" was tantamount to founding a new sect. Because there were plenty of historical examples of that. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    use the author's exact words to represent his legacy
    No. That's just propaganda, not reliably sourced information. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Service: Grail Movement (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    For those who are already watching the article and do not want to destroy their last-version-seen bookmark by clicking directly on a newer version. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth I've comprehensively rewritten the article on the Grail Movement based on the very useful encyclopedia entry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1265609444"