Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:43, 19 September 2021

Did you know

• 13 Dec 2024 – Frankfurt silver inscription (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Renerpho (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 23 Dec 2024 – Transgender health care misinformation (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (t · c); start discussion
• 15 Dec 2024 – Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Dan Leonard (t · c); see discussion
• 14 Dec 2024 – Flying saucer (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Rjjiii (t · c); start discussion
• 23 Aug 2024 – Epistemology (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Phlsph7 (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

• 21 Dec 2024 – Avril Lavigne replacement conspiracy theory (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Avril is dead by Kailash29792 (t · c); see discussion
• 19 Dec 2024 – Sowa Rigpa (Traditional Tibetan medicine) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Traditional Tibetan medicine by Seefooddiet (t · c); see discussion
• 19 Dec 2024 – 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to 2024 United States drone sightings by Very Polite Person (t · c); see ]
• 16 Dec 2024 – 2024 New Jersey drone sightings (talk · edit · hist) move request to 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings by Very Polite Person (t · c) was closed; see ]

Articles to be merged

• 02 Dec 2024 – Amulet (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Ta'wiz by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion
• 24 Nov 2024 – Omphalos hypothesis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Last Thursdayism by Викидим (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 08 Jul 2024 – List of common misconceptions (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by WhatamIdoing (t · c); see discussion

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

History of the Jews in Egypt

More eyes needed upon History of the Jews in Egypt: several IPs, some now blocked, delete this statement: .

If you wonder, it is from the handbook of a course taught at Harvard by a full professor, a conservative Jew, published by Beardsley Ruml under a copyleft license. It is published at https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/free-hebrew-bible-course-with-shaye-cohen/ tgeorgescu (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not the person to decide the facts of the statement; offhand I do not know and do not care. However, what source is it that they are saying is unreliable? Because it is copy left? Copyright can’t be a concern? Asking for History of the Jews in Spain, where I did not review for reliable sources. Elinruby (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Superstition

Our superstition article is currently seeing a lot of activity from a few users. Unfortunately, this isn't for the better: I'm noticing a lot of poor quality sources being introduced into the article and a heavy POV slant that makes it read like a diatribe from the early 20th century rather than something one would expect from folklorists on a folklore studies topic (and where superstition is often referred to as folk belief). I've tagged it for a rewrite from scratch. It's needed it for a while. This page could use a lot of eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Due for an overhaul, if the first sentence is any indication: A superstition is any belief or practice considered by non-practitioners to be irrational - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: :) The part of sentence you are pointing out seems to have been restored by Bloodofox themselves. Already Inputs requested: @ Talk:Superstition#Update synopsis of Superstition#Definitions in the lead to find consensus about synopsis of Superstition#Definitions for the article lead. Through out the article history some how most users do not seem to adhere to sourced content.

The second strange amusing contradiction is in the 21st century fringe theories in the so called folk beliefs are being justified @ Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. For taking care of folk belief side article folk belief already exists. The matter of fact is topic of superstition is supposed to be in the domain of Skepticism and science, isn't it?

Now users are deleting even mention of word science in the 21st century and inadvertently claiming ownership over topic of superstition for religious and folk belief point of views?

One can use one source or other, fundamental question is whether Skepticism and Scientific point of views deserve better weightage in the article superstition or opposite unscientific point of views to defeat purpose of the article superstition?

For example, when a child gets discriminated (or even killed) for being unlucky third child (in some community) or a woman faces literal witch hunting does it just remain domain of folk belief and religion or domains of Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science supposed have any say in the topic of superstition?

What is supposed to be role of an encyclopedia? calling Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science as fringe theory and undermining their weightage in the article superstition? Not intriguing one?

Pl. do think, Rgds.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, "superstition" is a term that inhabits a particularly Western and Christian concept about what faith-based ideas are "serious" and which are not. As such, it's a term that is generally problematicized as a lot of the literature that uses this idea will often refer to religious beliefs that are not Christian as "superstitions" while assuming that ideas such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ are not. In the context of certain skeptical movements in the 19th and 20th centuries, the idea of "superstition" seems to have been imported from that religious persuasion. It would be nice to encourage some scholar to write a full accounting of the use of this term much as Gordin did with The Pseudoscience Wars. jps (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: See topic which needs expansion Draft:Irrational beliefs is pretty neutral but I reached that term while researching for Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies. as you rightly say, even primary researching on topic Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies shows not only agnostic but pre 20th century theist christian scholarship itself was a lot introspecting and open minded but now things seems to have changed and they might be feeling unease and discomfort. History indicates in Roman times itself Christianity was very well criticized for superstitions.

But with new atheism topic of superstition is just not battle in between beliefs but there are genuine concerns from side of human rights and sciences etc. Secondly one won't be surprised if any tribal going on defensive and claiming folk culture defense but if one scratches a bit one finds apologists of majior religions are piggy backing concerns of tribal folk cultures. That is how I feel. Probably that is the reason of so much alarmist defenestration.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you please stop cluttering up pages with the meaning of the word "encyclopedia" as well as chattering about everything from "defenestration" to "alarmism" and instead restrict yourself to reasoning which has an actual connection to the articles you want to change? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, It is fallacious propaganda misleading public at large to think that topic of Superstition ought to be limited to domain of folklore; as if fields of Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science have no concerns at all.(pl. read again)

What is mainstream is being defined conveniently benefiting to one field of study and ignoring others. Without discussing concerns one by one in detail, only alarmist monopolizing claims are placed on talk page, convenient notices flashed article page and forum shopping on this board without informing article talk that one is raising a point here!

I used the word 'defenestration' for strongly emphasizing that concerns and authority of domains of Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science are being thrown aside and usurped for.

And oh ya on Misplaced Pages has a undeclared culture of uncomfortable sources cited by opposite side to be thrown out of window in similar manner word 'defenestration' connotes. Where such culture of soft censorship persists people need to be reminded what encyclopedia is supposed to be about.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I had not really expected that request to work. So I will just regard your contributions as white noise and ignore them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I do believe in giving space to all, I do not have habit of ignoring voices which do not agree with me. For example it is not even hours I have made contribution request to users who contribute to cultural relativism for Draft:Irrational beliefs I write. Thanks any ways and happy editing. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Since the beginning of this discussion, I have the impression that it's possible that a communication problem is at least partly responsible for the conflict (with exaggerated metaphores not helping)... Also, there are many definitions of what an encyclopedia should be, in the case of Misplaced Pages, it has its own policies, applied by its community as possible. Someone else also mentioned the activism statement as part of your signature. WP:NOT makes clear that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information (then again, I'm not sure that it is what you are suggesting). I'm sympathetic to the fact that superstition is a fitting description for things like the extreme fear of demons that some Christian denominations are promoting. —PaleoNeonate – 18:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Widom–Larsen theory

Widom–Larsen theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Widom–Larsen theory

Please comment. jps (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was relisted and no one has come by with a brilliant-enough analysis to break the juggernaut. jps (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

TCM

Hi - would editors experienced in assessing sources for medical topics please take a quick look at Talk:Chinese herbology and Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine? A relatively new user, who describes themselves as an an undergraduate neuroscientist and Qi Gong practitioner on their user page, is eager to add information about the efficacy of traditional Chinese herbal remedies to treat COVID19, and remove statements about pseudoscience. Thank you. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Lada (mythology)

Hello. I have been working on Slavic mythology for almost two years now. I generally write articles from scratch because the articles on the English wiki contain fakelore or are too short. For the time being I focus on deities, as it is difficult to find reliable and scientific information about them in the English-speaking internet, and many people are interested in it. So I recently wrote a new article on the pseudo-goddess Lada from scratch. The article describes the sources, briefly describes the history of the development of the concept of this goddess, is neutral in that it presents famous/influential people who supported her historicity, but focuses on a critique of that historicity, since practically all modern scholars reject her historicity. To support this thesis, I cited the opinions of 6 professors/doctors of history/slavic studies/religious studies and 2 linguists. Besides, if necessary, I can spam more academic researchers who reject her historicity: Stanisław Urbańczyk, Jerzy Strzelczyk, Henryk Łowmiański, Leo Klejn, Evgeny Anichkov, probably also Radoslav Katičić and others. So I copied the article from my sandbox to actual article, and in the discussion I pointed out serious factual errors and unreliable sources. Despite this, the author of the old article (Sangdeboeuf) reverted my article, and then split it up and restored it in pieces. I disagree with this because the article not only spreads obvious factoids, it presents them as the mainstream view in academia, which is absolutely not true. Now lets look at this:

1. I checked: this Wikipedian is not familiar with the topic he wrote about, Lada is most likely the only article from Category:Slavic mythology that he touched (except the list, to which he added a fakelore 4 years ago)
2. This is confirmed by the fact that the main sources there (the ones spreading misinformation) are free sources or with free partial previews (Google Books/Archive.org). Thus, the author probably googled informations about Lada and posted random information from random books on Misplaced Pages without knowing if that book is up-to-date or is reliable source.
3. These sources are very unreliable. First, they are "dictionaries" - they do not contain any source material or analyze it, they just copy residual information about some character from old, non-critical or even romantic sources, e.g. "Lado is the god of love". No reasons are given here for such an interpretation, no information is provided that, however, most researchers reject the historicity of this goddess. There are only two sentences in which the author of the book tells us to believe. These books are written by Americans who are not experts in Slavic mythology (during the communist era the contact between western and Slavic, especially Russian, researchers was very limited), so they copy songs from older books without reading any critical analysis by Slavic scholars.
4. These sources contain reprehensible, even childish errors: "the twins Zizilia and Didilia" invented by Joanna Hubs and Mike Dixon-Kennedy are actually spoiled records of another Polish pseudo-goddess Dzidzilela. As for the "deity" Kupala, 100% of modern scholars believe that they were divinized by mistake. Probably the same with the "deity" Kostroma. There is more false information, e.g. in David Adams Leeming one can read that Baba Yaga was a goddess, although she was just an evil mythological figure.
5. Article states, that Lada was also worshipped among Baltic peoples. From what I know, also most of Baltic scholars also reject her historicity.

As the only active Slavic mythology expert on English wikipedia at this point, I say that parts of the old article contain serious problems with WP:RELIABILITY, WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. As if that wasn't enough, the author was confident enough to submit the article for a "good article," and since no one on the English Misplaced Pages knew the subject of Slavic mythology, the article was awarded without any problems. Although he was probably doing it in good faith. So I motion to completely replace the current article with mine, which is still in my sandbox. Sławobóg (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ping Bloodofox. This editor is also an expert in folklore and has spoken out about how Misplaced Pages's coverage of the topic has often been very bad. Crossroads 16:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Can we do something about articles being awarded good article status without sufficient review? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Take it to WP:GAR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that Sławobóg doesn't know the difference between "dictionaries" and "encyclopedias", so their mistaken assertion that the article relies on dictionary sources is troubling. The statement about David Adams Leeming is also false. Leeming says that "some have traced Baba Yaga to a prehistoric European goddess", and gives very plausible reasons for this as well. Sławobóg has certainly cited a number of scholars who reject the historicity of the fertility goddess Lada (most of whom are not religious scholars or historians), but how do we know these represent practically all modern scholars? (I'm assuming the citations are accurate, since I don't have access to English translations for most of them.) Nor is it actually shown how this conflicts with the existing sources, which generally acknowledge this rejection by certain writers yet conclude there is sufficient evidence for a cult of worship. These sources, including Ivanits (1989), Struk (1993), and Coulter & Turner (2013) , are published by generally reliable academic publishers. The idea that they are non-critical is an assumption, not a fact. Perhaps Sławobóg could provide some relevant quotations from their preferred sources to substantiate their claims? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

1. I said "dictionaries". I said that, because I know dictionaries with more content per entry than your encyclopedias. Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities has 31 words for Lada, and The Oxford companion to world mythology has 9 lines of text on page with 2 columns. Again - without any criticism or references and. These are sources mindlessly copying from romantic authors, primary sources or self-proclaimed researchers.
2. Mother Russia: The Feminine Myth in Russian Culture is another bad book, and you can find informations about it in the internet. Not only author is trying to push some feminist ideas, she also is not authority on Slavic religion in any way, she studied cultural studies.
3. Encyclopedia of Russian & Slavic Myth and Legend is another bad book, I found it when I was working on Zorya. Informations about Zorya can't be confirmed by any scientific publication (like Zorya being wife of Perun). Author also used some random, unknown sources or mindlessly copied informations from primary sources. When he is writting on Lada he uses as references: de:Felix Haase (1939) - random German theologist xD, Ivan Snegiryov - early 19th century scholar, it was time before historicity of Lada began to be criticized by the scientific community, Alexander Afanasyev - very important Russian etnographer, but he was often criticized, again, for being uncritical towards the source material. Due to incomprehension of some words/traditions, he invented many deities, e.g. Koliada - you can read about that on Russian version: ru:Коляда (мифология), George Vernadsky - on his page we can read about manipulating about history. Another random, unrelated to Slavic mythology schoolar. Only good and critical reference used here is Myroslava T. Znayenko and her The Gods of Ancient Slavs: Tatischev and the Beginnings of Slavic Mythology, but... I can't find any claims that Lada is real goddess. xD All I found is well documented history of how "Polish pantheon" and Lada developed and mention of old, unimportant scholars' interpretations of Lada. This book basically said what I said in my article.

• I debunked your sources in like an hour of research. Your "sources" 1) Are super short, 2) don't explain this very controversial topic in any way, just make you think such thing as Lada existed (unlike my sources), 3) Don't focus on Slavic mythology at all - "encyclopedia of worlds deities" 2x, "feminist activist book", "encyclopedia of Ukraine" (unlike my sources), 4) are written by people who are not authorities in Slavic mythology (unlike my sources). Also funny, how most of these books are writted after fall of Soviet Union but none of these books cite Vladimir Toporov - probably most influential and most important Russian scholar who worked on Slavic mythology, it is simply not possible to not know him. Ivantis also doesn't work on Slavic mythology, she is another "random" scholar, who repeats stuff after Boris Rybakov - probably most controversial impactful scholar of 20th century who was and is heavly criticised by other scholars (you can read short here).
• "but how do we know these represent "practically all modern scholars"?" - because unlike you, I am familiar with the subject of Slavic mythology. I have read books from different eras, different countries and authors with different views. I have a general awareness of the subject and I know that the views presented by your article are WP:FRINGE and pretty pseudoscientific, because yes - scholar can spread pseudoscience too and this is perfect example. My article, for balance and historical context, presents views contrary to those of the mainstream. Additionally, my sources are better because they have influenced history in this context and are known by scholarship, while no one knows about your sources because they have no merit.
• "The idea that they are "non-critical" is an assumption, not a fact." - that is fact. They literally copy from non-critical primary sources and I explained it before (see Afasnayev). For now, there is no good, scientific, up-to-date book in English. Only relatively good English book was The Mythology of All Races vol. 3. There is only 1 new (2019) English book that might be good (New Researches on the Religion and Mythology of the Pagan Slavs), but I didn't read that yet. French book Perun, dieu slave de l'orage: Archéologie, histoire, folklore (2015) also states that Lada is not supported by historical records (possibly quoting someone else).
• "Sławobóg has certainly cited a number of scholars who reject the historicity of the fertility goddess Lada (most of whom are not religious scholars or historians)" - are you serious? Most of scholars I brought before are historians: Jerzy Strzelczyk, Henryk Łowmiański, Leo Klejn, Evgeny Anichkov, Aleksander Gieysztor. Others are linguists - and that is also very important, because Lada is not supported by any historical records, lada is just word appearing in songs that was deified - because of that linguists' opinion is extremly important (etymology, semantics, source criticism and more). I can't believe I have to spend hours to discuss that instead of working on another article. Sławobóg (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  Most of the authors you cited in the article are not historians. Would it be too much to ask for you to elaborate on how the scholars you listed here support your claims, instead of just name-dropping them? I for one would like some independent confirmation that your sources represent the majority, rather than blindly trusting in your general awareness of the subject. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Just as a side note, when it comes to folklore topics like myth, commentary from folklorists and philologists (the two are historically closely entwined) is ideal. A background in folklore studies and historical linguistics is crucial for analysis like this and historians often lack it. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oh and I forgot to answer to "The statement about David Adams Leeming is also false." - it is not false, you just switched books. In book you used in the article he says: "Another popular goddes to emerge from folklore is *Baba Yaga". Two paragraphs below your part from the link in the article. Sławobóg (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  It's the same book. Nor do I see how the latter quote disqualifies Leeming is a source. You seem to have decided that any author who disagrees with your preferred view is unreliable. Rather, we evaluate reliability according to a source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which OUP certainly has. Leeming is also a recognized authority on mythology. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds convincing to me. Sławobóg gives lots of details from reliable sources, and the main point is compatible with what I know of mythology: it is indeed a subject where the popular literature abounds with amateurs copying from each other. (To me as an atheist, the question whether Lada is a "real goddess" still sounds weird, although I know that "real" has a different meaning here.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sławobóg:, please go ahead and start drafting a rewrite of the article in a sandbox. Most of our coverage of myth and related topics is absolutely abysmal on the site. This is primarily due to a lack of specialists investing time in getting them up to snuff. The Slavic and Baltic stuff is particularly bad, no doubt due to the lack of English language sources out there on these topics. That said, if you do prepare a total rewrite, please be cautious to separate primary and secondary sources—it will ultimately save you and our readers a lot of headache over time and allow for the article to grow. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Um? I did rewrite it in a sandbox. It is still there. I always do that. Then I just copy it into actual article. Author of old article reverted it and then massacred it. ATM I'm working on adding scholars on Baltic part of this topic. Sławobóg (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank goodness that someone is finally trying to do something about the Slavic mythology articles! Kudos!--Berig (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitely areed, @Berig:. I'm happy to see it. @Sławobóg:, your article looks like a major improvement—I missed your sandbox mention. Let me know if I can help. I would really like to see more of our myth articles improve. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If blatant WP:NPOV violations are a "major improvement", then sure. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

There's an easy solution to these things: Simply write it all out. If there's doubt about a source, this needs to be clear in a "scholastic reception" section, separate from the attestations. There you can chart out what scholars have said over the years. We do this all the time with our Germanic mythology-related articles. Nonetheless, it's important that this discussion is there and that we don't take any particular side, instead going with academic consensus and presenting all arguemnts in a neutral manner. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this is the best approach, thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where do you see violation of WP:NPOV in my article? Big part of the article is dedicated to 2 influential authors that supported her historicity. I'm removing your books not because they support some side of the conflict, I'm removing them because they are insignificant on this topic and I've explained pretty thoroughly why. Can you substantively address my accusations and explanations? Because so far you're accusing me of ruining the article by replacing weak, meaningless authors with meaningful authors with similar POV. Sławobóg (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

See my earlier comments. We have yet to see any proof that your sources represent the majority. (Oddly, given your complaints about authors failing to critically examine sources, you appear to want other users to uncritically accept your bona fides as a self-declared expert on the topic.) I explained the NPOV issues on the article talk page. My main problem with the proposed "Historicity" section is that it states the opinions of scholars (or simply your own) as plain facts. On the English Misplaced Pages, our NPOV policy specifically forbids this. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

If this boils down to which scholars to use, simply stick to the specialists on Slavic mythology. This also concerns statements on what is the majority view. In Germanic mythology topics, we are lucky to have a good supply of prominent specialists, and I suspect that you have some of those in Slavic mythology topics as well. I suggest that you two discuss and try to reach an agreement on what constitutes the most reliable secondary sources per WP:RS.--Berig (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

How can I prove it to you? I have listed 14 scholars from Slavic countries who have written books dedicated to Slavic mythology and who clearly evaluate this topic. One of them simply ignores her existence in his publications. I used only a few of them so as not to spam the article unnecessarily. You want me to use them and insert 14 references in a row to prove what I'm saying? (WP:CITEKILL)

If that still doesn't convince you, how about being convinced by Myroslava T. Znayenko, whom you list in the "Further reading" section? Let's see... "Most modern scholars agree with A. Bruckner that Długosz created his Polish pantheon by interpreting freely old ritual texts...". Bruckner? Oh, I have him in my article!

"My main problem with the proposed "Historicity" section is that it states the opinions of scholars (or simply your own) as plain facts." - these are not opinions, these are facts. Medieval historians/writers copied informations from each other pretty often. And Polish historians have long established who copied information from whom. You are just ignorant. I just forgot to add references, which I already did in my sandbox. To show again that you are ignorant, I will again use Znayenko, who described the relationships between primary sources, some examples: Miechowita, Kromer, Bielski, Stryjkowski, Synopsis. Deal with it.

More amusingly, your article didn't even mention Dlugosz, who is the most important source/element of the article here, until someone added that information 3 years after article got "good article status". And you say something about neutrality? You're the one I have to prove I know better than you on the subject? Cherry on top is that in the "Further reading" section you mention the work of some random priest from Germany (de:Felix Haase) who, according to the German Misplaced Pages, supported the NSDAP and "his publications, for example on the Russian Orthodox Church or the Slavs, were unobjective and nationalistic.". You are ridiculing yourself. I see no room for any compromise, your article is frivolous on many levels. Sławobóg (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Is 14 scholars a lot or a little? Without independent sources to evaluate the disagreement, we just don't know. You're simply asking us to take it on faith that you haven't left out any relevant sources or overlooked any. I'm happy to mainly cite specialists in Slavic mythology, so I do find the quote from Znayenko more convincing than your bald assertions, thank you. However, based on this short quote, we can't imply that "Contemporary scholars overwhelmingly reject the authenticity of the deities Lada and Lado"; see WP:SYNTH. Nor can we imply anything based on the one writer who completely ignores Lada; that would be the epitome of original research. I gave two examples of POV wording on the article talk page: "The only 'authentic' sources mentioning the deity of Lada/Lado are the Gniezno Sermons" and "East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either". Another one is "We should therefore assume that Długosz's Lyada corresponds to the Old Polish form *Łada". These are all statements of opinion that need attribution. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: and @Sławobóg:, let's take a step back for a second. From what I've seen, everyone here simply wants to improve the article. From my experience, this is unfortunately all too rare: Misplaced Pages's coverage of folklore topics has been in the gutter for a long time. We really need more contributors working on these topics.

Slavic folklore is notoriously difficult to approach for English language audiences. This is primarily due to a lack of coverage. There are comparatively few works by English language scholars touching on the topic. Much of what is available in English language scholarship can be found in comparative analyses from philologists and folklorists, but these works are often far too brief and few in number.

Now, I recommend that we work together here. I detect no malicious intent, just what I suspect is simply miscommunication. It's easy to get annoyed on Misplaced Pages—the revert cycle system almost encourages it—but all we have to do is keep the attestations separate from the analyses and chart out what scholar said where and when, with particular emphasis on specialists like folklorists and philologists. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Bloodofox, and I was about to ask you why you are discussing this here. You should get back to improving articles and discuss sources on a case to case basis.--Berig (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, this is exactly what I was asking for when I asked for some relevant quotations from preferred sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"Contemporary scholars overwhelmingly reject the authenticity of the deities Lada and Lado" this statement is supported by quote from Znayenko and scholars I mentioned, most of whom published their works after Znayenko's book and are critical. I also know that as expert. That I know more about the subject than you I have proven in this discussion by listing leading researchers that you have not even heard of and using specialists' opinions in my articles - you use some random, free American sources and books that don't focus on anything. I also debunked Dixon-Kennedy. Besides, I have experience in this topic on Misplaced Pages - I have written over 20 articles in this field, while you have 1. Also, if one were to accept your constant repetition of "but how do we know that's the majority" it would be impossible to write anything on Misplaced Pages. I have also been supported here by other Wikipedians, including admin...

"The only 'authentic' sources mentioning the deity of Lada/Lado are the Gniezno Sermons"" and ""East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either" - no POV here - this is already referenced. Plus, it's not the researchers' "opinion" on these sources - footnotes and bibliographies were already used in middle ages.

"East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either" - again, no POV, referenced since the begining.

"We should therefore assume that Długosz's Lyada corresponds to the Old Polish form *Łada" - I don't even why do you think it is POV here. Whole paragraph is explained and sourced since begining. Possibly bad wording?

So, I've expanded my article to include an analysis of Lithuanian scholars (the latest I've found) and corrected typos, references, minor factual and language errors. I am moving article from my sandbox to the mainspace. And I repeat once again: my article does not violate NPOV anywhere because it presents different points of view (2 most popular Slavic researchers who assumed its historicity, and one Lithuanian). Your researchers are insignificant. Additionally, mine present some argumentation. You probably also don't understand that Slavic or Baltic mythology is not as obvious as Greek or Roman and a lot of information about it is false, and the English Wiki can't handle it. I recall that the list for many years included information from the 18th century Prillwitz forgery, for example - I was the only one who made a point of it. Sławobóg (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Phantom vehicle

Phantom vehicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm sure that some reliably-sourced folklore about this topic exists, but the article doesn't appear to contain any. Instead, it's filled with "examples" of vehicle malfunctions that have been WP:SENSATIONALized, and non-notable superstitious rumors. (Pinging the overworked Bloodofox...)- LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this article ought to be deleted. There's definitely a theme in folklore of phantom or ghostly things and some of them are vehicles. This article attempts to synthesize a bunch of vaguely related stories into a coherent article, but unfortunately fails. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Given the lack of reliable sources that describe anything except anecdotes,  Done: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Phantom_vehicle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Creation Ministries International‎

• Creation Ministries International‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I reverted three times and will stop doing that now. Getting tired of people who do not listen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

In connection with that, several of our articles use "creation.com", their website, as a source. I removed some of the stuff sourced to it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking at one of your edits, I can see you tried to add "pseudoscientific" before "Young Earth Creationism". Pseudoscience is mentioned right below, in the second paragraph. No need for the redundancy of having it higher. It's obvious that it's a pseudoscience, and if it's not obvious to someone, then it should be as soon as they read the second paragraph. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not "try to add" something, I just reverted an obvious profringe edit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you not add the "the pseudoscientific concept of..." to the lead where it wasn't before, in this edit? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I have warned User:Joeltay81 for disruptive editing plus edit warring (together with the IP which is obviously used by the same person, compare Misplaced Pages:We were not born yesterday). Bishonen | tålk 20:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC).

I repeat: I just reverted an obvious profringe edit. If the profringe edit removes something, then, yes, my revert results in adding that thing. Why do I have to explain that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that was added before. Still, it's better without "the pseudoscientific concept of...". It's an obvious pseudoscience Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Amos 1 and Zechariah 14 quote an idea by creationist geologist Steven A. Austin, whose mere existence was sourced to creation.com (I removed that part): widely separated archaeological excavations in the countries of Israel and Jordan contain late Iron Age (Iron IIb) architecture bearing damage from a great earthquake. I do not know how to handle that. Is it legit and relevant? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Considering that no reasonable interpretation of "widely separated" describes Israel and Jordan's relative geographic or geologic positions, I suggest it's not especially relevant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Not Evil Just Wrong

• Not Evil Just Wrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems unbalanced to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have an example? I'm happy to help balance the article if you do. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Right after reading this I removed an undue and POV section about a non-profit founded after the movie premiered . I think there are likely other UNDUE sentences. There's a lot sourced to WP:PRIMARY here— Shibbolethink 22:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I also think the second paragraph of the lead should go, as well as the "review" from "Online Opinion" as it's not even a film review site, let alone RS. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What you removed looks a lot like creationist attempts in classrooms (with typical "we only want them to be informed and to think critically", when in fact the conflicting material presented is false and misleading). It could be mentioned in that optic, that of ideological activism, if described as such by sources that debunk those claims. —PaleoNeonate – 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Interactions of actors theory

• Interactions of actors theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was a redirect for a long time. It's now a page with sources that look very primary and text that is not easy to follow. XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It was all copyvio; I've restored the redirect and tagged it for copyvio revdel. Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a copyvio. The blog from 2009 is a direct copy of the 2008 version of Gordon Pask. I've reverted and canceled the revdel. The editor indicated on the talk page that he moved it from the bio. Whether the material should have its own article or be returned to the Gordon Pask bio is a different question. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I tried and failed to deal with Gordon Pask eons ago. If anyone can make heads or tails of this stuff, I'd be most grateful. I am not even sure whether the subject material is broader than information science or not. There was some quote from Pask tsk-tsk-ing atomic theory, for example, which seemed to me to be rather astounding. But the jargon is so impenetrable and the ideas so opaque that I cannot tell whether it is my own ignorance that is preventing me from making sense of the sources and text or whether it is gobblety-gook. jps (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Polygraph

• Polygraph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The only mention of "pseudoscience" is the pseudoscience template. Older versions, such as , still contained the sourced sentence In 1991, two thirds of the scientific community who have the requisite background to evaluate polygraph procedures considered polygraphy to be pseudoscience. I guess it was removed because such things are not decided by voting. In any case, either the word should be in the article, or the template should be removed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's the edit that removed the sentence, for the record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The polygraph has been explicitly discussed in notable surveys of pseudoscience, like , and , so it shouldn't be too hard to source and attribute who calls it pseudoscience and why. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a note about why it's considered pseudoscientific, despite relying on signals that can be recorded and that can fluctuate: the signals are not optimal, and the main problem is their motivated interpretation, with conflicting studies demonstrating that they cannot effectively determine when someone is lying or not (to reliably know would require technology way beyond what current neurology allows, or verifiable facts that contradict their claims, the traditional way)... —PaleoNeonate – 18:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It's reasonable to question the degree to which "pseudoscience-ness" should be emphasized in the article, including template and category. If you only quote or overly rely on professional Skeptics, then everything looks like pseudoscience. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You're fallaciously misapplying the adage. Skeptics spend time on the pseudoscience that the rest of the scientific community ignores. As such, they often represent the best sources we have on pseudoscientific subjects. If everything truly looked like pseudoscience, then why don't skeptics list everything as pseudoscience? jps (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, pseudoscience is what skeptics specialize in. By the same reasoning, you could say that since entomologists write only about insects, everything must look like an insect to an entomologist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: Debunking pseudoscience is not a scientific discipline, though. On Misplaced Pages, many (if not most) of the pseudoscience statements are sources to skeptic blogs, podcasts, and books in the commercial market. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

All this is true. I don't see why any of that, however, indicates that we should look askance at sources produced by skeptics. WP:PARITY is the guiding light. jps (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Because pseudoscience is nearly always added to the lead of those articles, with the argument that the "scientific community" has called it so. But as you've said the scientific community "ignores" the work of debunking of pseudoscience. So by definition, the "debunkers" are operating on the fringe of science, not speaking for the scientific community. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Your attempt to cram skeptics into the fringe-pusher pigeonhole is pretty transparent. It will not work. Skeptics are on the side of science. They agree with the scientific "mainstream" or "orthodoxy", as you would probably call it, on every subject. They propagate the scientific POV.

Pyrrhonic skeptics, on the other hand, are useless nowadays. They are history. All they know is that that they don't know anything, and all they can propagate is their belief that nobody else does either. Their POV is that of WP:FALSEBALANCE and of postmodern know-nothingism. You will convince nobody here that skeptic sources should not be used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Why would a "skeptic" be an appropriate source for the Polygraph article? As Generalrelative pointed out, but removed for some reason, there is not a lack of quality published literature for the subject. While WP:PARITY allows for "alternative venues" in cases where more reliable sources do not bother to speak to a subject, in this case real researchers have submitted to peer review and been published.

A skeptic may be a wonderful science educator, a role sorely needed these days. When they become the self-anointed bearers of the light of science, tribal members, rejecting all criticism of themselves as criticism of science itself—they are just blowhards. fiveby(zero) 14:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow, no. I deleted my comment because I had misconstrued the issue here –– assuming that the APA statement sealed the deal against Fiveby's POV (when the issue at hand is apparently just about the word "pseudoscience", which that statement does not use). Saying that my comment was removed for some reason when I stated the reason in my edit summary is disingenuous, as is trying to trot me out in support of their argument. Generalrelative (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you consider my "POV", but ...how much weight to assign skeptics publishing in the popular press appears moot in this case seemed to be the question presented, and the best response. Apologize if you think i misrepresented your edit in some way. fiveby(zero) 15:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

If you agree that the point is moot then why debate it? Your previous comment certainly did not give the impression that you think the point is moot. Generalrelative (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Er, probably an aversion to fanboyism. fiveby(zero) 16:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Then you're certainly barking up the wrong tree. Characterizing any of the statements above as "fanboyism" is 100% inappropriate. Take it elsewhere. Generalrelative (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Because pseudoscience is nearly always added to the lead of those articles, with the argument that the "scientific community" has called it so. But as you've said the scientific community "ignores" the work of debunking of pseudoscience. It is important to get the wording right. If the source is reliable and it indicates that the scientific community has, where it has commented, indicated a certain idea is pseudoscience, then that is an appropriate framing. If that's not what the source indicates, then different wording can be had. In the context of this article, I am pretty sure that every scientific study that has examined polygraphs and the claims as to what their effectiveness may be has determined that there is essentially no evidence for polygraphs working in such a fashion. This is a hallmark of pseudoscience and the sources we have seem to indicate fairly plainly that this is a fair summary of the opinions of scientific consensus. Precise wording can be hashed out at the talkpage, but suffice to say that it can both be true that the scientific community has determined an idea to be pseudoscientific and that the bulk of the community ignores an idea as a matter of course. jps (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: You say "skeptics" as if it's one big institution. Literally anyone can call themself a skeptic, unlike a scientist. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

... but few of us can spell it. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages comes from this side of the pond, or as you would say, WiCipedia. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, literally anyone can call themself a "scientist" as well. There is a consistent definition of scientific skepticism that functions more-or-less as a cohesive group and does distinguish itself from certain examples of self-proclaimed skeptics that don't fit the bill. Compare global warming skepticism, for example. jps (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point, I appreciate it. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't ping me. I live here.

Calling yourself a scientist (or a skeptic) will have the consequence of skeptics calling your bluff. And that is because they know where the border is.

It sounded like you were trying to treat skeptics as one big ball of unreliable, so this "big institution" is not my doing. Users who try to disqualify skeptics for being skeptics, as sources, are just engaging in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Of course, we should treat them the same way as other sources: determine their reliability for a subject and then use them or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

All good points, thanks. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

National League for Liberty in Vaccination

I came across the article for National League for Liberty in Vaccination because the Commons MOTD today was a French antivax protest for which we (until an hour ago) called it a demonstration for "freedom of vaccination" (sigh...separate issue). Anyway, I took a look at our article about this organization and it was pretty sparse. I read the sources included and made an edit for more context following WP:FRINGE. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find much else. Perhaps there are French speakers here who may be able to find more material if we're going to have an article on this organization. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Pentagon UFO videos

Pentagon UFO videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Additional eyes would be welcome at the Talk page, where a RfC is addressing the description of ufology as a pseudoscience. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

More eyes definitely needed

Now at Pentagon UFO videos a POV tag has been added and a third opinion request regarding alleged NPOV issues has been made, both while the RfC and a VPP discussion directly concerning the RfC continue. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

DNA Evidence of a Croatian and Sephardic Jewish Settlement on the North Carolina Coast Dating from the Mid to Late 1500s

I just removed this from Lumbee. It's at Doug Weller talk 19:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A genetic study published in a social studies review. That is quite fringy.--Berig (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The sad thing is that this is not just a social science journal getting 'tricked' into accepting poor material that is outside their expertise - the social science in the paper is abysmal too. Agricolae (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The paper is cited a least once—in another paper by Hirschmann, which is even cringier (yes, you can beat Eupedia-dervied graphics!) with its Coon-ish gallery at pp. 19–21. –Austronesier (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It is a pity this is not pre-Colombian.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hypnotherapy

• Hypnotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently added: "evidence supporting" the use in menopause and irritable bowel syndrome. I am not sure how WP:MEDRS that is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the North American Menopause Society does in fact recommend it for menopause, according to primary and secondary sources. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Organic farming – "health" benefits?

The Organic farming farming article strikes me as problematic. In particular, this sentence in the lead, "Organic farming advocates claim advantages in sustainability, openness, self-sufficiency, autonomy and independence, health, food security, and food safety." There is no counterpoint to these claims in the lead. Isn't it a violation of WP:FRINGE (or at the very least NPOV) to prominently feature rhetoric claiming that organic food has health benefits over non-organic food? The other purported benefits also strike me as dubious and poorly substantiated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin was removed as an allowed parasiticide for organic livestock in the U.S. in 2018. fiveby(zero) 02:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Just looked there. You're probably right. I also reverted this removal. As a review article, it is a top quality secondary academic source and should be covered. Crossroads 04:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I noticed that the article appeared overly promotional, but have only added that to my endless notes, —PaleoNeonate – 05:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

But organic farming 'advocates' actually do claim those things. Why does there need to be a counterpoint to those claims? The claims are what they are. The lead presents them as claims, not facts in Misplaced Pages's voice. All of those claims are believed by the large population who create a demand for organic products by buying them. Farmers, on the other hand, would say that organic farming is more lucrative (larger profit margins) due to that demand, provided you get past the approvals, which a few organic farmers have told me is easier to do outside of California than within it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a counterpoint to those claims? Per WP:FRINGE. Imagine if the homeopathy article or its lead just said the claims of proponents - attributed as claims, mind you - and left off all criticism. That would be a huge problem. Now, organic farming isn't as fringe as homeopathy, but the point stands. Crossroads 05:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to provide an overview of the body text. A counterpoint would be a summary of the "issues" section of the article. WP:SOFIXIT. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It would probably be best to find a reliable secondary source that reports what advocates claim and see what qualifications there are. There should also be clarification of who these advocates are. I haven't seen any organic producers that claim their products are healthier for example. If you provide a claim that hasn't been made then rebut it, it's a strawman argument. TFD (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The two sources given: "Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues" and The New Organic Grower do not support the claims at all. fiveby(zero) 13:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

More important than what advocates say is what consumers think about the product they are buying. It's the proximate cause that makes an industry large. Could be that consumers got their view that "organic is better" from advocates, could be that they came up with that on their own, got the view from their circle of friends, or wherever. When advocates say this product is better for this and that reason, as long as consumers don't believe them it doesn't really matter. --Distelfinck (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ostrich Egg Globe redux - basically uses only one author

See Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 69#Da Vinci Globe. The article has 15 sources, 10 of which are by Stefan Missinne publishing in the predatory journal Advances in Historical Studies - see ] and Cambridge Scholars Publishing (note their article has promotional material sourced to them). I haven't found much commentary on him. There's this which has no author, and this blog which is just a brief recent comment on him.. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

also back in Hunt-Lenox Globe diff. fiveby(zero) 20:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I ran into this a while back, and couldn't really decide what to do with it. I left things in because it's the 'original' paper, which was commented on by other sources.

It's still a garbage publisher though, just possibly allowed under WP:PRIMARY in this very narrow case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

btw, here's the article from The Portolan couldn't find last time around, if you haven't seen it. fiveby(zero) 22:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Journal of Archaeomythology

We use this journal a lot as a source.

Interestingly, I can't find any impact factor for it at SCImago Journal Rank. Its ISSN is 2162-6871. Have I missed something? I've searched by title and here's the SJR search using the ISSN number.

It claims to be peer reviewed but Stel Pavlou has had a paper accepted by it. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There are peer-reviewed journals not included in the SCImago Journal Rank, such as the Sussex Archaeological Collections and the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

The Journal of Archaeomythology's website claims it's peer review, but I've not managed to find reviews of the journal which you can sometimes find for early volumes of a new series. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: why would a journal that seems to want to be considered seriously not want to be in SJR? Or is it SJR that decides what to rank? Doug Weller talk 09:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Scopus/SJR decides what they cover or not. There's plenty of reliable journals not in SJR, and there's some unreliable that are in SJR. The question here should be is JoA mainstream or fringe? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Headbomb: thanks. As I suggested, Stel Pavlou is concerning. JSTOR only has one article referencing a journal article that I can find, but it does have a scathing review of a book published by the Institute of Archaeomythology. I'd guess that views vary between supporters of Gimbutas who would of course support the Institute and Journal, and others who are likely to ignore it from what I've seen. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Fringe theory regarding Pratapaditya

• Pratapaditya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The fringe theory of Raja pratapaditya being just a zamidar is put forward in the course of an edit war by an user who have cited a source which is not of a history book but rather a citation of a historian's critique of another historian's work about whom the concerned article is dedicated to. The picture templete was deliberately removed there are several other historians who have worked on this particular person and the academiciqans have afairly mainstream view but that is not taken into account by the last editor of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samx don (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That was P's picture? Provide sources in support. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:RSN concerning a paper about COVID origins and bioengineering

There is a discussion at WP:RSN concerning this paper by Yuri Deigin and Rosana Segretto in Bioessays which may be of interest to those watching this noticeboard. See discussion here.

Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.

Thanks.— Shibbolethink 23:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Derrick Lonsdale

Derrick Lonsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just came across this article today; it seems like this man is a nutritionist who thinks various vitamins, excesses of hormones, and other stuff that seems psuedoscientific (from my perspective as a layman) is the true cause of diseases. Looks like it's being written in a somewhat promotional way; I added a criticism of one of his studies, but I imagine more are out there. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The article violates WP:MEDRS, and WP:BLP. I seriously doubt that it would survive an AfD if this was rectified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

He actually did some work in thiamine precursors which is frequently cited; my personal feeling is that he isn't important enough for an article, but in any case the article is almost entirely junk. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Si.427

Si.427 is a Babylonian tablet depicting a land survey, one of many dating back to thousands of years earlier, with a hyped-up media campaign claiming it to be the first use of the Pythagorean theorem and the first-ever use of applied geometry. Both claims are demonstrably false, but editors Infinity Knight and Selfstudier have been systematically removing any countering opinions from experts in Babylonian mathematics (both peer-reviewed publications providing long-known evidence of more explicit knowledge from the same time, and self-published material criticizing the hype and falling under the "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" clause of WP:SPS). Thease edits leave only the hyped-up churnalism claims, violating WP:NPOV. Less-credulous opinions welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. Mansfield claims the tablet shows Babylonian knowledge of theorem, and the counterargument is that Babylonians already knew of the theorem? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not the first ever use of applied geometry, which is the headline claim of the hype campaign. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I've looked over all the media and the criticism and the only claim I see the media making is that it's possibly the oldest known example, not the oldest use. Maybe I'm missing some of the evidence with examples of use that predate it? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The headline picked out for criticism by Robson was Mathematician uncovers the origins of applied geometry and land surveying after the rediscovery of a 3,700-year-old clay tablet. Which is, as she says, absurd. (Side note: given the vagaries of dating ancient documents, it's possible that the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus, Berlin Papyrus 6619, and the Lahun Mathematical Papyri are even older, and all of them include examples of applied geometry.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Lemuria

71.82.105.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and VeryRareObserver (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (who I presume are the same person) are slow edit warring to remove the word disproved from phrase "disproved theoretical continent" in the Lemuria article. It obviously doesn't exist, look at any bathymetric map of the ocean floor. That said, would some other phrasing such as "discredited" be better? As this was a legitimate scientific hypothesis at one point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why not just simplify and say "a theoretical continent" or "was a theoretical content"? It immediately goes on to say it was disproved from continental drift theory. Putting "disproved" seems clunkier and not as clean, in my opinion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Or better yet, fictional.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why not proposed.--Berig (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Because there is less evidence for this than Atlantis, it is "proposed" or "theatrical" in the same way the N rays were (and is just as disprooved).Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. "Fictional" to me implies that it was created by an author or artist, like Atlantis, and featured extensively in works of fiction. "Proposing" a continent sounds to me like something Elon Musk would do on Mars. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

And the basis of that proposal has been shown to be false, thus disproved. So either it is a failed theory or it is fictional.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems clear that it started as a hypothesis and lived on, after being scientifically discredited, as fiction. That does leave us in a tricky situation re. how to describe it in the opening sentence. Perhaps the first sentence should read: "...was a hypothesized continent proposed in 1864 by zoologist Philip Sclater to have sunk beneath the Indian Ocean." Using "was" rather than "is" indicates that it is no longer a current scientific hypothesis. We can then go on to describe Blavatsky's appropriation of the idea in a separate, 3rd paragraph in the lead. Generalrelative (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Might work, though I feel we still maybe giving it too much credence. MAybe include in the first line "latter used by Occultist", as that really is all it is now. We need to reflect what it is, not what it was.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps: "...was a hypothesized continent proposed in 1864 by zoologist Philip Sclater to have sunk beneath the Indian Ocean, later appropriated by occultists in fictional accounts of human origins." Generalrelative (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, covers all the bases.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

That's great. There are plenty of examples like this: Flat Earth, Humorism. No reason to change the way we talk about theories and hypotheses. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Cool, I went ahead and WP:BOLDly made the change. Generalrelative (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit late, but Lemuria is clearly watchlist-worthy (as if life isn't hard enough...) –Austronesier (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yahshua

What do you think about ? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

And... most evidence for the name Yahshua has been removed from the article? Are you kidding me? What evidence can there be for a WP:FRINGE name of Jesus, concocted by a bunch of cultists in the 20th century? Misplaced Pages is WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, so it admits no such evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like classic WP:YESBIAS against WP:PROFRINGE. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be a pattern: In Citer has declared You Jews make me sick. Yet how many Jews have been responsible for creating this trash site of a page. (At Talk:Yahweh.) tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Service: Link to that one --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Given the previous ban, perhaps bringing this to the attention of the admins would be in order. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth Prophet

Far to much use of her own works. Church Universal and Triumphant looks better but has two links to "WhoSampled" which is just an app - weird, and at least one blog. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth...Or Convenient Fiction?

• An Inconvenient Truth...Or Convenient Fiction? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sounds like a great film, if you look at the reception part of that article... Is it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Even if it got some good reviews when it came over a decade ago, a lot has changed since then in our understanding of climate change so I would vote for removing most of that section and adding a counter review or two. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

a lot has changed since then in our understanding of climate change Not so sure about that. The IPCC reports look remarkably similar from then and now. jps (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Alina Chan

• Alina Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New AfC published from draft. About a COVID lab-leak origins proponent. In general I think it could just use more eyes. See:

Chan became known during the COVID-19 pandemic for suggesting the possible lab origins of the virus in a BioRxiv preprint coauthored with Shing Hei Zhan which she sent for consideration to multiple journals but the editors decided against sending for peer review. The preprint attracted criticism from prominent scientists such as Jonathan Eisen, with whom she interacted constructively, but also the head of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, in a more contentious exchange that Chan was regarded by some as having the upper hand, e.g. Nicholson Baker summarised this 'it was enough for one Twitter user to muse, “If capital punishment were as painful as what Alina Chan is doing to Daszak/WIV regarding their story, it would be illegal.”'

There are a few other instances where the article cites a preprint for some commentary about that preprint, and does not cite a secondary source.— Shibbolethink 01:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I've trimmed that away by removing the subjective words ("suggesting", which implies as though she was the first one to support this) and by removing the rest since it was based entirely on the papers being used to support their own existence (so in essence, a primary source the same way a book is a primary source for it's text) and likely therefore to include copious amounts of WP:SYNTH and other subtle NPOV problems. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there a good reason why the lab escape theory is not referred to as a fringe theory in the lede? Basically, we have an article about a postdoc who is only notable for spreading fringe theories, she would not be notable for her research.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit the article to clarify. But note the word "fringe" not even found at COVID-19 lab leak theory (honestly a bit of refreshing surprise, since Wikipedians seem very fond of that term). See also {{Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus)}}. "Fringe" can be a pejorative (see both Fringe science and Fringe theory), and there are often more sophisticated ways to convey that an idea is a minority view. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Fringe is only a pejorative because of the euphemism treadmill. It etymologically refers to the edges of a tapestry which is a very neutral way to describe ideas that are not part of the mainstream. The fact that people find it pejorative when applied to their pet ideas is because they don't like other things that are objectively fringe and hate that their idea is in the same category. I do agree, however, that the term is overused on Misplaced Pages. Fringe festival, fringe benefit, etc. jps (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think a big issue is with defining where the fringe starts and stops. That it's a broad term, it can lead to interpreting its use as referring to pseudoscience and quackery, even if it's actually just a minority perspective. Is the fringe on a rug just the tassels, or also the stitched border? It's almost always worth using a more precise term for that reason. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, sure, people like to argue incessantly about such details. Demarcation is not easy and never is. But that doesn't mean fringe has to be pejorative, and sometimes there aren't more precise terms in the offing. I'm not saying that's not the case here, but "fringe theory" may be a better way to describe ZOMG! LABLEAK! than "minority report". Or maybe not. How's that for precision? :)jps (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've taken ancientorigins.net to RSN

See WP:RSN#ancient-origins.net is surely an unreliable source. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

• Ann Coulter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion about how to handle articles about intelligent design fans. Should it be called a pseudoscience or not? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems more like a MOS type question. I don't think anyone in that discussion is questioning that ID is supported by any type of science. I think all would agree that it's often an attempt to rectify religion to the evidence of evolution. Part of the dispute at that article can be generalized as should we point out as much every time the topic is mentioned in any article where it is even briefly mentioned. That seems to the be crux of the dispute. For example, if Mr Smith's article says, "Smith is a believer in astrology" should we instead say "Smith is a believer in astrology, a pseudoscience " or "Smith is a believer in astrology, a pseudoscience that claims X ". Would the answer change depending on the ? For example, if the source specifically says astrology is a psuedoscience vs if it only says he believes in it? Springee (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The Nancy Reagan page has about a dozen references to astrology and how it ran the US White House, but none of them contain any additional word like "pseudoscience". Nancy is dead and there is no political value in trashing her, but Coulter is involved in contentious current politics so she gets the shaft at multiple points in her article. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Springee, it is not about the FRINGE or pseudoscience status of intelligent design, which everyone currently involved in that discussion seems to agree on. Other than some stuff that is specific to Coulter, the discussion is about whether references to FRINGE material require mandatory warning labels --- as the initiator of the discussion I argued that this practice is gratuitous, patronizing to the reader, and in Coulter's case, politicized. These are MOS or NPOV issues, FRINGE does not come into play since the particulars of the fringe viewpoint are not being presented, only the fact of Coulter having some connection to it. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The people here know how to handle articles that are related to fringe subjects. Now they already know about the subject, so it is pointless to try to keep it from them by claiming it is not related to FRINGE.

Whether the particulars of the fringe viewpoint are not being presented is one of the questions here, not a fact. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

What does try to keep it from them mean? Keep what from whom??

Does writing the words "X advocates intelligent design", with the link, as the sole description of X's connection to ID, constitute a presentation of the fringe viewpoint? Nobody at the Coulter talk discussion has claimed that, but if that's part of what you think is being debated, please say so. In the generality that you have framed this ("intelligent design fans"), we aren't just talking about the Coulter article specifically, where there is some (unrebutted) presentation of her closely related views on evolution, and what is said about ID immediately after could be seen as part of that. The more general framing seems to be (the ID special case of) the same question I raised, about negative labels on references to fringe material. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE covers all treatments of fringe topics on Misplaced Pages, not just those that go into detail. Indeed, a significant part of that guideline is advice on when and how to go into detail. So, it doesn't matter if particulars of the fringe viewpoint are not being presented. XOR'easter (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Which passage of FRINGE applies to this case? I share TFD's concern that the disparaging tone isn't helpful. It also, importantly, isn't encyclopedic. If simply calling it ID isn't sufficient perhaps calling it the creationist belief of intelligent design. That description makes it clear this is a subset of creationism while avoiding beating the reader over the head with the fact that it doesn't pass the scientific sniff test.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I would leave it out. It sounds overly disparaging and as jargon we would have to explain it. Disparaging writing actually creates doubt in readers' minds. They say, "This article is obviously intended to disparage Coulter, so why should I believe anything it says?" TFD (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I rather suspect that people who are eager to leap to that conclusion will do so regardless of whether we include a few particular words or not. XOR'easter (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

+1 to this. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED. We should not be tiptoeing around the subject of fringe in order to cater to the potential pearl clutching of partisan readers. If they don't like what reliable sources say about the subject, they have safe spaces on the internet they can go to such as Conservapedia. Generalrelative (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

While that may be what you suspect, lecturing and patronizing people often turns them off. People don't like to be told what to think. That's one of the reasons the COVID-19 vaccination rate in the U.S. is so low. Of course it's easier to blame listeners for not being persuaded. TFD (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

No one is blaming listeners for not being persuaded. And yes, lecturing and patronizing people often turns them off. Generalrelative (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, few people like the feeling of being lectured at. But Coulter's fans will regard Misplaced Pages as a hotbed of cultural Marxism, critical race theory, and general leftist moral degeneracy no matter what adjectives we insert or remove. (Which is pretty funny, because our gold standard for news sourcing is The New York Times, a publication whose editorial practices please roughly zero leftists. But I digress.) There's no pleasing the mentality that regards the tamest, purely factional description as a slanderous subversion of real American values. There's such a thing as spending too much time trying to satisfy the unsatisfiable. I think Generalrelative's suggested phrasing below does a good job of being clear and direct without coming across as overly forceful. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb in these scenarios is, does it help to explain the prose? Good to look at what we're actually considering here. As of this timestamp, prose reads as follows:

So, does the word "pseudoscientific" add to the prose here? I think it does, but I can see why others might think it is brow-beating. I find it a bit weirder that the text avoids the obvious reference to creationist here which is the umbrella term that, granted, a lot of ID proponents balk at due to believing in their own sophistication but was identified in the most famous court case on the subject to be just that. Well, that's maybe beside the point. The fact that Coulter advocates for intelligent design means that she positions herself in opposition to mainstream science. That is pretty remarkable for any pundit. How we indicate this is a good question, but I do think it reasonable to say we should try to do more than just assume that the reader will click on the relevant wikilink and that we should shrinkwrap our sentence to something like "Coulter advocates intelligent design. End paragraph."

jps (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Other pages use phrasings like "the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design" (here) or "the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design" (here) or "a pseudoscientific creationist argument" (here). The phrasing in the Ann Coulter article is in line with community practice in this regard, though doubtless it could be tweaked. XOR'easter (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I prefer "the pseudoscience called intelligent design". Use of adjectives (like "pseudoscientific") give the impression of being inherently POV. It's a noun: pseudoscience. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with you both. The current language needs tweaking. How about: "Coulter advocates for creationism, the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is bogus science. In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, contrasted her beliefs to what she described as the left's "obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death."? Generalrelative (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Not bad. XOR'easter (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually about to go back and change out creationism for intelligent design since the latter is actually what Coulter seems to be arguing for and is more unambiguously associated with pseudoscience. So my suggested text would now be: Coulter advocates for intelligent design, the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is bogus science. In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, she contrasted her beliefs with what she described as the left's "obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death." Generalrelative (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The word "bogus" sounds a little informal. Maybe just "bad science"? I'd be happy enough with your suggested sentences, though. XOR'easter (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point. We could even go so far as to say the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is unsupported by or at variance with existing evidence. Generalrelative (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I like that a little more. But perhaps "unsupported by or at variance with" is a more elaborate construction than we need. What about just "disproved by"? XOR'easter (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That phrasing is much better in terms of using impartial language but wouldn't it be better to say a bit more about what it is vs isn't? To be honest I confused Theistic Evolution with ID. I guess as someone who has spent most of my life avoiding religion it's easy to confuse various religious based beliefs. Still, based on these descriptions I'm not sure how I would see ID as different from Theistic Evolution or simply creationism. I guess creationism is meant to be accepted purely on faith while ID tries to rationalize. Would "a rationalized version of creationism" be just as informative. I would hope any reader who sees "creationism" would understand that is a religious based explanation vs one based on science. Springee (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: I agree, it's a bit tricky to unpack. I wasn't at all clear on the distinction until reading the articles Creationism and Intelligent design in response to this discussion. This board in particular is such a great place to come to be challenged to learn more. Generalrelative (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: That would work. Or perhaps just "incompatible with"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalrelative (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"Disproven" and derivatives of the word "proof" are words to avoid, in my book, when talking about science just from the epistemology of the subject. If this were pseudomathematics instead of pseudoscince, then maybe "disproven" is okay, but the formal term for proof confuses people into not understanding the way in which pseudoscience is at odds with science in the proper context. Better to get across the idea of "lacks empirical evidence" or "at variance with known scientific facts" and simple, clear alternatives to that.

In terms of the confusion of ID with evolutionary creationism, theistic evolution, and so forth, this is (excuse the pun) by design. The group of people in the mid-nineties who put their heads together to think about what could be done about Edwards v. Aguillard thought that because there is difficulty in solving the demarcation problem as it pertains to anti-evolutionism and people's personal beliefs, they could come up with a vaguely named concept like "intelligent design" which would capture the confusion and predilections of many religious believers with respect to the subject while maintaining some sort of plausible deniability as to the identity of any "designer". The problem, of course, was that the arguments themselves were all just repackaged from the creation science of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s with, perhaps, a few of the more ludicrous proposals quietly abandoned (ID proponents rarely argue that the Kelvin-Helmholtz time scale for the Sun is evidence of a "young Earth", for example). The fact that you confused ID with TE is exactly what this Center for Science and Culture group was hoping would happen, so this explains a bit why being a little clearer about what Coulter is specifically aligning herself with is so important. The task is not easy, so it's good to think carefully about the best wording granting that there actually may not be a "best wording" owing to this political and rhetorical mess created, again, by design.

jps (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

For those arguing that calling pseudoscience what it is disparages or patronizes, the WP:PSCI policy says that it must clearly be described as such. The reason why ID is pseudoscientific, while also creationism and religious apologetics, is that it attempts to pass as science. A history of it is outside the scope of this discussion, but in brief, it's an adaptation of Creation Science with the name of denomiations and deities gradually removed with more pseudoscientific arguments added that attempt to discredit important findings of science including discoveries and conclusions in geology and biology supported by overwhelming evidence. A main goal was to insert it in classrooms in the US as an alternative to standard biology curricula with the excuse that "students need to be informed and make their own decision". It's textbook pseudoscience and described as such by most reliable independent sources that discuss it. A valid policy-based argument in this case could be WP:SYNTH if the sources that talk about Coulter don't mention that it's not science but attempts to pass as such (or is pseudoscientific). Some current sources appear to be close and a minimum of synthesis may be acceptable for facts like that the sky is blue (and that ID is pseudoscientific)... Pseudoscience is not just a label but an accurate and useful description. —PaleoNeonate – 20:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Are there objections to my proposed language? Coulter advocates for intelligent design, the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is incompatible with existing evidence. In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, she contrasted her beliefs with what she described as the left's "obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death." Generalrelative (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, that really is an improvement. One of my original concerns was the article simply said ID is pseudoscience but really nothing more. I suspect that is why a number of us felt it was a dismissive label rather than actually telling the reader what we are dealing with. Your revised sentence is both more informative and impartial. It doesn't read as if we are applying a dismissive label but are afraid to explain the details. Instead it say, it hits a critical point, these people think the theory of evolution doesn't fit the evidence. They might be wrong but it's hardly the same thing as claiming the whole thing came from an Arkleseizure. It also provides some context for why she brings this up and why it's relevant to the article by putting the ID before the mention of evolution etc, vs after where it seems like it was mentioned as an after thought. Springee (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been following the discussion but haven't weighed in. This wording looks good to me as well. –dlthewave ☎ 04:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thunderbirds

• Thunderbird (mythology)

Any thoughts on this edit and sourcing edits to this author Paulette Steeves? Heiro 21:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Was the edit in "Supermarionation"? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF

I don't see anything wrong with the source or the author. This is apparently the author's area of expertise "Steeves research focuses on the Pleistocene history of the Americas". Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That is what her Misplaced Pages article says. It also says she is the Canada Research Chair in Healing and Reconciliation, which does not sound like a branch of paleontology or paleoanthropology. And you can "focus on" things outside your expertise. That's where many fringe ideas come from. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Reading the citation on her article, it seems like the grant is in fact for research and truth as it pertains to the First Peoples of Canada and their history here on Turtle Island, the funding coming from a Canadian initiative supporting Truth, Healing and Reconciliation with indigenous Canadians. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm iffy on this. Teratorns have likely been extinct for on the order of ten millenia, cultural memory generally doesn't go back that far. Some native american groups believe they have always had horses as that's been true as far as cultural memory goes, but horses were only re-introduced to the Americas 500 years ago. It's similar to the claims that the bunyip represents the cultural memory of the giant marsupial Diprotodon, despite it being extinct for probably 40,000 years, which also gets breathlessly repeated in layman sources without much critical examination, as it's essentially an unfalsifiable claim. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

From what I see she has her own pet theories that may possibly be presented as opinions if it's notable (i.e. has been discussed enough by independent sources that put them in context). The current text is at least WP:ATTRIBUTEd, that is consistent with presenting opinions. —PaleoNeonate – 23:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Her pet theories seem pretty WP:FRINGE from the academic mainstream (such as "Indigenous people were in North America more than 130,000 years ago") and I was just wondering if we should be using it at all, especially without some kind of disclaimer. But if everyone else is sure it's ok. Heiro 00:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Wade, yet again

An IP has been mildly edit-warring to remove a sentence from the lead. Additional pairs of eyes are welcome. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This should probably be summarized and posted to a BIO RfC to gain a consensus, otherwise this looks like it could drag on. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead of Communism: "The USSR was not communist"

I have problems with the Communism lead because it has a section of the lead that advances the proposition that the USSR was not a communist state. The sources for this claim include Noam Chomsky, Truthout.org and a heterodox economics journal. This seems problematic given that I'm under the impression that mainstream scholarship firmly characterizes the USSR as a communist state. In other words, it's a fringe theory that the USSR was not communist. The communist state Misplaced Pages article does not have this problem: it clearly describes the USSR as a communist state. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

If we're talking about this section:

Several academics and economists, among other scholars, posit that the Soviet model under which these nominally Communist states in practice operated was not an actual communist economic model in accordance with most accepted definitions of communism as an economic theory but in fact a form of state capitalism, or non-planned administrative-command system.

It is properly attributed as the point of view of some, not all, scholars; explained with more nuance than that (you put "The USSR was not communist" in quotation marks but it is not a quotation and not what this says); and is cited to eight sources, not three. This text is also at the end of a paragraph which starts by describing the USSR as a "Communist government" in an article that extensively discusses the USSR as a communist state. I don't see any fringe problem. – Joe (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Joe here. Political ideologies are defined conventionally, and in the case of communism we have two conventional definitions that are quite at odds:

1) Communism is what Marx & Engels advocated in texts like The Manifesto of the Communist Party.

2) Communism is what the USSR and its allies were.

The lead of Communism needs to make clear that most scholars do not believe 1 and 2 to be the same thing. Generalrelative (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources 24–26 have nothing to do with whether the USSR was communist or not. I cannot access the recently added sources 19–20, so I cannot comment on those. Even if those two 20-40 year old sources do indeed say that the USSR was not communist, they strike me as a fringe minority. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

To add on to this, regardless, Chomsky and Richard D. Wolff are fringey for this topic. The lead also lacks any mention of the criticism that "true communism" is not possible and/or that efforts to establish it inevitably lead to Soviet-style authoritarian Communism. Crossroads 01:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Elvira Bierbach

Elvira Bierbach does not pass WP:LUNATICS. It does not acknowledge the command I will put enmity between thee and Misplaced Pages. Thee meaning quackery. Even if that's legal in Germany, she is still a quack by our book. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution