Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:24, 15 January 2022

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.

Mātauranga Māori

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

The prejudice against mātauranga as science derives from historical attitudes and concepts of Enlightenment science and that it is concerned about the history of science rather than the current scientific method.

There seems to be a kerfuffle in New Zealand, with the Royal Society there claiming that Mātauranga Māori is a "way of knowing" on par with science, and scientists being admonished for disagreeing. Jerry Coyne has been writing about it on for a while, comparing it with the conflict between creationism and science in the US. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems very similar to the "Indigenous ways of knowing" article that was deleted earlier this year, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The quoted sentence should perhaps be rephrased as an attributed opinion. As for the broader concerns, well, American young-Earth creationists never used Biblical literalism to navigate the Pacific. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually the statement is true - European science does tend to unfairly discredit the knowledge of any other cultural group, without any regard for whether there's truth behind it. You've also not included the citation in your quote - it's not entirely clear from the way the paragraph is structured, but the citation at the end of that paragraph also supports the sentence you quoted. As XOR'easter said, it's no mean feat to navigate the Pacific (or, as another example, wipe out the moa). I can't comment on the modern rigour of testing in mātauranga, but I'll note that the Royal Society is hardly a fringe source, and that Jerry Coyne's blog, or the opinions of a small group of assorted scientists, aren't exactly RS. Don't be so fast to discredit other sources of knowledge - unless the goal is to begin believing a book (or a journal) knows everything. In summary, find some reliable sources and don't guess. This is a complex topic. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What is "European science"? Homeopathy, maybe? That would be one European equivalent of, say, Traditional Chinese Medicine. Science is not continent-specific, and that any discrediting is "unfair" is just your opinion.

The logic "someone who knows how to build and use a ship and how to kill animals must be right about everything else too" does not really hold water either. "Other ways of knowing" are like "alternative facts", and please refrain from all those strawmen. Nobody said Coyne's website was RS. Coyne links to other sources though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, science is not continent-specific. No, practical survival skills don't imply empirical correctness about all things. The point is that a body of cultural inheritance that includes actually empirically successful knowledge isn't analogous to American creationism in a straightforward way. (As Carl Sagan said in The Demon-Haunted World, Certain kinds of folk knowledge are valid and priceless. Others are at best metaphors and codifiers. Ethnomedicine, yes; astrophysics, no.) There are ways that "indigenous knowledge" could fit into a science class taught with a historical perspective, just like introductory college physics explains Ptolemaic epicycles. In turn, it is very easy to portray neutral-to-helpful efforts to do that kind of thing and make science more culturally engaging as nefarious attempts to devalue science. At a distance, through the haze of culture-warring, it can be hard to tell the former from the latter. This is particularly true when the efforts to do the former are described in public-relations pablum, in which the Royal Society Te Apārangi indulges as much as any Society. Coyne, who is willing to cite the Daily Mail on this, seems a poor starting point for a genuinely messy topic. XOR'easter (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing about comparisons: if Mātauranga Māori were 100% identical with creationism, it would be a synonym and not a comparison. Every time somebody compares A with B, there will not only be similarities but also differences, and somebody else will unfailingly point out that there are differences, as if that would invalidate the comparison. Must be a natural law or something.

I just wanted to draw attention to the subject and say where I got it from, as a starting point. Coyne has a certain POV, but he quotes lots of sources in lots of blogposts, not just the Daily Mail. I had never heard about Mātauranga Māori before, but the conflict does remind me of Vine Deloria's creationism as well as of Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese medicine, and the claim European science does tend to unfairly discredit the knowledge of any other cultural group, without any regard for whether there's truth behind it surely reinforces those associations.

You are right: without concrete examples, the question "who is right?" cannot be answered, but that is not the point here anyway. The point is to draw attention to the articles connected to this, with ensuing improvement thereof. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I was also thinking of "allopathic medicine" vs "European science", strawmen to present a flawed description of "science", to disregard actual science, —PaleoNeonate – 21:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth checking out the articles on the authors of this letter, most of which were seemingly created by one editor as coatracks for criticizing them: Kendall Clements, Garth Cooper, Michael Corballis, Doug Elliffe, Robert Nola, Elizabeth Rata, John Werry. JoelleJay (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Now those links are useful. The articles about the signers seem to be in large part identical. Copy-paste job. That is not how Misplaced Pages works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The lede sentence about science was a bit garbled. The paper it references is actually quite good and identifies more than a few instances of the scientific method being applied in the context of this topic. I rewrote the sentence to align with this source, at least. jps (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Coyne's comparison with creationism is clumsy. A better comparison would be to the Bible. I mean, we all (with the exception of the literalist fundamentalists) agree that huge swathes of the Bible are metaphor and lore and fanciful and unreliable, but it's also used as a reference point in scientific endeavors such as archaeology and the more science-y parts of ancient history, for certain. The critical theory being applied here isn't that all of Mātauranga Māori be accepted *uncritically*. It's that the tradition be given the same careful consideration that governments, academics, and so on give the traditional lore of the West. jps (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, the source for the sentence quoted in the OP of this thread does not support that sentence at all! I changed the sentence to better fit the source. jps (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin consolidation

I have consolidated all the COVID-19/ivermectin content, which was spread across 2½ articles, to:

• Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Please add to your watchlist. This will likely soon need to be protected. Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn. Well done. It was an enlightening read. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Definitely worth an article, and will watch. Merry Christmas! — Shibbolethink 16:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

And now the pushback

Encyclopædius has removed the FDA tweet (and the lovely horse photo) on the grounds it is "propaganda" and launched a source-lite Talk page thread on that theme, claiming they're "seeing the same couple of editors putting out this propaganda", while repeating some talking points (ironically) that are propaganda from the quacks pushing this stuff (e.g. that that ivermectin is "approved" in Japan). More eyes would help. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

"The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro". Antiviral Research Volume 178, June 2020

Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study National Library of Medicine. "Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis at a dose of 300 μg/kg with a gap of 72 hours was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following month. Are NOT quacks...₪ Encyclopædius 17:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The first source is the one which kicked the whole thing off (as cited in the article). It's not WP:MEDRS and completely outdated by everything that followed. The second, in the PLOS ONE megajournal, is primary research so unreliable per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Gosh. I dont think I've ever seen somebody with such a history here on the project with so little WP:CLUE about WP:MEDRS -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

My most bursting question right now is: how has this user not been subject to discretionary sanctions about this? How long can you go pushing a POV absent sources and ignorant of MEDRS in a scientfiic DS area and avoid a TBAN? — Shibbolethink 18:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Now I know what it's like to have an idol like Linus Pauling and then see them devolve into Vitamin C pseudoscience. Very disappointing and disheartening. Silverseren 18:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, in-vitro cannot be used to support any in-vivo associations/claims, obviously... —PaleoNeonate – 18:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

We have an admin with exactly the same amount of CLUE though. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Just the one? Alexbrn (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A friendly reminder to be WP:NICE and keep the discussion about content, not personal feelings about individual editors. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Report them, or stop with the wp:pa.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I suspect Encyclopædius is a compromised account, given the degree of fuckwitedness on show. The idea that an editor with over 600,000 edits doesn't know how to WP:INDENT and is utterly clueless about policy, seem improbable (or is otherwise one of the saddest indictments of Misplaced Pages ever). Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, it's very different to write about films and places than to evaluate sources for medicine, —PaleoNeonate – 20:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Now at AE, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Encyclopædius. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

He says he's retired after 15 years here, and it'a all our fault for holding medical articles to WP:MEDRS when there's all this great stuff about ivermectin that we won't let him use. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

As they have reitred, and as it looks like they may be TBANed, let's stop this about a user stuff?Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Should ICR Discovery Center for Science & Earth History be a redirect to Institute for Creation Research?

I don't want to do it unless it makes sense. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I fails to see how it would be independently notable. Even if it somehow were, it would still be best as a section of the ICR, rather than a seperate article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It has made its way into a footnote of an academic RS, but that's not really sufficient per SIGCOV. Merging it into the main ICR page is a good option. –Austronesier (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I oppose merging and will contest it (note: I am the article creator). The article cites three reliable and independent sources (including The Dallas Morning News and WFAA, and these articles focus on the museum, rather than mention it in passing). I also found this source (citation here) that briefly discusses the museum. The coverage meets SICOV. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

There's material, but not a lot of material, and it seems like the content would be better organized if it were a section in Institute for Creation Research. Having lots of tiny pages isn't always the most informative way to present the facts (though it's often not really harmful either). XOR'easter (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Since it's part of ICR and that it's not particularly independently notable (there's not much to write about it using independent sources), I agree that a merge/redirect would be reasonable, —PaleoNeonate – 12:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources in the article meet WP:SIGCOV without a doubt. The cited sources are reliable, independent, and secondary, and there's no original research required for this article. I've seen many WP:GNG articles with far worse coverage than this.desmay (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, per the comments on the necessity to use original research, it does not seem to need that. It has coverage in independent sources. Plus since the article is young it may need more time to be expanded further. Also perhaps it would be wiser to discuss the matter on the talk page than here too.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

"It might have more content in the future" is not really a persuasive argument against folding it into another article now. If that section of the Institute for Creation Research page then grows too big and unwieldy, it could be split off, but that strikes me as unlikely. XOR'easter (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that there is any significant disagreement that the article has reliable sourcing to justify its existence. The main argument for merging seems to be that the quantity of the content is insufficient. Is there a policy that provides guidance on the preferred length of articles? In monitoring new Kentucky-related articles, I see an awful lot of short articles created about (for example) Negro League baseball players who only had a few at-bats in their careers. These are just as unlikely to ever grow beyond stub status as the ICR Discovery Center article - perhaps even less so, as most of these players have died, while the Center has just opened and has the potential for additional coverage of related events. An appeal to precedent may sound like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but saying it should be merged despite sufficient sourcing just because it's short sounds a lot like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT to me. If, as XOR'easter (talk · contribs) contends, there's nothing really harmful about leaving it as a short article, then I'm inclined to leave it as-is. There's some marginal benefit to having the facility show up in its related categories, imo. YMMV. Acdixon 15:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Muslims discovered America, etc

I wouldn't be surprised if this or something she writes shows up at some time in our articles. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, given that Misplaced Pages still contains claims that Columbus 'discovered' America, It probably wouldn't be surprising if that bit of ignoring-the-inhabitants boosterism gets in too. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't, but I don't follow all the related articles. Where do we say that? Doug Weller talk 16:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I was mostly relying on my memory of the Christopher Columbus article. Having looked at it again, it seems more nuanced than it used to be, though maybe I'd misremembered. It does however say this: "Between 1492 and 1504, Columbus completed four round-trip voyages between Spain and the Americas, each voyage being sponsored by the Crown of Castile. On his first voyage, he independently discovered the Americas. These voyages marked the beginning of the European exploration and colonization of the Americas, as well as the Columbian exchange, and are thus important to the Age of Discovery, Western history, and human history writ large." Of course, 'independently discovered' can be interpreted in several ways... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, the paragraph I've just quoted is sourced to the 1993 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Which now has a much more nuanced take on Columbus itself, and probably shouldn't be cited for something it no longer says, given the date, and the subsequent reassessment of Columbus and the merits of his claims to 'discovery'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I avoid the Britannica like a plague. It certainly shouldn't be used there. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I've tweaked the text and was reverted with the edit summary " the phrasing as is should stand. It makes clear that his voyage was not based on earlier European voyages)". I'm not sure that we can state that as a fact, although it's likely, in any case. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Sarmatism (pseudohistorical theory)

• Sarmatism (pseudohistorical theory) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fresh article, ex nihilo. I don't know anything about the subject, but maybe someone could have an eye on it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the disambiguator could be shortened to Sarmatism (pseudohistory), akin to Torsion field (pseudoscience). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Just moved it to (pseudohistory}, because I agree and it should be uncontroversial. If there's any pushback I will just move it back and start an RM. As for the article, it looks pretty NPOV to me, but I am no expert in Lithuanian history! — Shibbolethink 21:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Maria Trzcińska as a source for her own claims to provide context for later refutation

On the talk page of the Warsaw concentration camp article, concerns have been raised about using this source's WP:ABOUTSELF usage to merely describe the main tenets of the conspiracy/fringe theory that the person propagated (her work was the seminal one to spread it):

Trzcińska, Maria (2002). Obóz zagłady w centrum Warszawy. Konzentrationslager Warschau (in Polish). Radom: Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne. ISBN 83-88822-16-0.

K.e.coffman said that WP:FRIND forbids us from citing info directly to Trzcińska at all; on the other hand, I believe that citing the pages where her assertions about the camp may be found is only to provide context for the following sections, Refutation and Reactions+the article with that text passed the GA review on PL Misplaced Pages back in 2016, from which it was translated to English in September (though admittedly PL WP's policies don't include precise language of how to handle sources such as this for WP:ABOUTSELF purposes).

Is the framing and usage of this source in the article appropriate? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF says, Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities

So, this would be an unusual application of ABOUTSELF, justified by what?

I would dump that source. ABOUTSELF applies to the article Maria Trzcińska, but not to the Warsaw KL article. Why would we need details on the fringe theory there? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the whole (pretty long) section should be moved to the Trzcińska article, leaving a much shorter section in the KL article. That way, the source can be used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Trzcińska's activity was directly connected to the article's topic (she rallied for commemoration of the victims according to her theory of events), so I think it is included in "their activities".

As discussion in independent sources show, there are enough of them to establish notability for a section of their own, and the camp is primarily known to the Polish public precisely because of the conspiracy theory, and, to English readers, mostly due to the presence of Trzcińska's theory for 15 years on this Misplaced Pages and the whole controversy that came thereafter. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Putting aside ABOUTSELF for now, I think issues of WP:UNDUE apply to any usage of Trzcińska as a source. The theory may be notable and well covered in independent secondary sources, but if any aspect of the theory is not then I don't see a reason we should cover it. In other words, if the only source is Trzcińska, well then no one else cares about some specific aspect of what she said, so we don't either. Anything we cover should also be covered in reliable secondary sources. If editors just want to add it as an additional source since some readers may prefer it "direct" so to speak, personally I'm not fussed provided the source itself doesn't have BLP problems i.e. makes claims about living third parties. Others may not feel the same thought. I'd note that IMO using someone's self published source to cover their theories even if it doesn't affect third parties tends to violate the not unduly self-serving criterion anyway IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, ABOUTSELF is for basic BLP article details and it's the analysis of more reliable independent sources that should be presented. When those are lacking about some primary material it's an indication of WP:UNDUE (and sometimes failure to meet WP:BLPN, but not in this case)... —PaleoNeonate – 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The theory may well be fringe globally, it was (in effect) both mainstream in Poland and even here for a while (indeed that is kind of the point). So yes we should mention it there. But she is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• WP:FRIND is clear: discussion of fringe theories requires independent sources. Otherwise, we are giving undue weight to the elaboration of her theories. Not clear why cites to Trzcińska are needed for later refutation either; her conspiracy theory has already been refuted, by third-party sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  I hope it's better now? I've left the Trzcińska cites but coupled them with independent reliable citations, and deleted text to which I was not able find any RS citation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is not really helpful and arguably makes things worse since now the fringe source is intermingled with a better source. In any event, there's no support for using Trzcińska -- either in this discussion, nor on the article's Talk page: . --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Global cooling

• Global cooling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• insource:"https://science.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138"
• insource:"10.1126/science.173.3992.138"

Two fresh December WP:SPAs (or maybe one wearing two socks) try to WP:WAR WP:FRINGE text into the article. The next revert should come from somebody else. Maybe they both need a bit of coal in the sock too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I was too impatient and reverted it myself.

That article traditionally attracts accounts that edit only it, or almost only it: Special:Contributions/Entropics, Special:Contributions/A fresh avocado and Special:Contributions/Chenzia wanted to add exactly the same fringe source as Special:Contributions/Pi_Variant and Special:Contributions/The Canonical Project, and Special:Contributions/Climate expert deleted the same sentence. Looks like a massive sock farm. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Watching now. A good candidate for page protection if it continues. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding: Special:Contributions/2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:0/64 (blocked as part of range 2600:387:b:7::/64 since July), Special:Contributions/2A01:B747:16D:344::/64 (blocked as part of range 2a01:b747::/32 since September), Special:Contributions/2600:1700:4810:1490::/64 apparent WP:BE, like those accounts who are most likely the same person... It's been going on often enough recently that page protection may indeed be a good idea, —PaleoNeonate – 01:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Request filed at WP:RPP... –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It was already at RFPP, where it was declined as a content dispute. I noticed this and filed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pi Variant, which is currently pending a checkuser response. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RFPP is finished, both new accounts blocked together with User:Stemwinders, and Global cooling is protected. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth Loftus

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

Somehow, Loftus' appearance in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial is more important than her main work now. The lede says she was "criticized by the prosecution" but not that she is "a cognitive psychologist and expert on human memory". I removed this UNDUE stuff before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

2350 BC Middle East Anomaly another comet/airburst claim

The source is published by British Archaeological Reports which should mean its reputable, but as it is a collection of papers from the Second Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Cambridge Conference, and SIS is a Velikovskian group I'm pretty dubious. I don't see the term used in mainstream publications or at least with reference to SIS, and I'm not convinced it's used in mainstream academia. For instance, Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse doesn't seem to mention it. This introduction to the publication is useful. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have never heard of any substantial climate anomaly at that time, only around 4.2ka and 5.5ka. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This introduction to the publication is useful Benny Peiser? Does this mean the climate change denialists have gone Velikovskian?

I see, Peiser's article even cites "Reconsidering Velikovsky: The Role of Catastrophism in the Earth Sciences and the History of Mankind". He seems to be a real poly-innumerate (if that is the opposite of a polymath).

I think that stub should be deleted. It does not really do anything except maybe lend credence to wacky fantasy pretending to be science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a citebomb in Umm_al_Binni_lake#Climate_change_and_impact_effects about this. Without assessing the merits or non-merits of these claims, I suggest to redirect the poorly-sourced stub to that section. It seems to me that no-one talks about the "anomaly" except in the context of the impact claim, which means that 2350 BC Middle East Anomaly is not an independent topic. –Austronesier (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redirected the article to the lake per the discussion here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect reverted, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2350 BC Middle East Anomaly. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, that might suggest I reverted, which I didn’t. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

List of possible impact structures on Earth

Such a lits seems ok, but I'm not sure about the sources used as criteria: "The list below includes those features which remain unconfirmed, each of which is ranked according to a three-step confidence level as indicated by the Russian Academy of Sciences, by Anna Mikheeva: 1 for "probable", 2 for "potential", and 3 for "questionable". Level 4 is given to discredited structures, which hence represent geological features other than impact craters. Structures with confidence 0 are considered "confirmed" (EID) or "proven" (Mikheeva) and should be placed in the lists of confirmed craters according to continent." Umm al Binni mentioned above is in note 1 said to be proven by Mikheeva, although the recent source don't agree. In fact, one of the two sources, Sissakian, V.K. and Al-Bahadily, H.A., 2018. The geological origin of the Umm Al-Binni Lake within the Ahwar of Southern Mesopotamia, Iraq, which I have, concludes:

1. The study of the Umm Al-Binni Lake using the available geophysical data and remote sensing techniques did not support the meteorite impact crater origin for this Lake as believed previously.

2. It was found that the Lake rather has a tectonic origin as indicated; for example, the straight NE and SW Lake rims coincide with the general Zagros Thrust–Fold trend (NW–SE). Doug Weller talk 14:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have had a problem with this list also. I agree that Mikheeva's list is unreliable, she doesn't appear to have any major expertise in the topic area, and what rankings she assigns to certain craters seem arbitrary. The problem with a list like this is that it becomes a dumping ground for all sorts of fringe impact claims, even if they are not credible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

We should remove her as a source, leaving us with a criteria problem though. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I've gone and removed the confidence parameters from the table. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: thanks. Did you mean to leave Note 1 in? And I'm still wondering about including Umm Al-Binni Lake with two sources, one of which people might think supports it being an impact structure even though it strongly argues that it's not. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson – COVID-19

There is a discussion on the Tucker Carlson page about whether we can include an attributed Media Matters analysis of the show's COVID coverage. Some editors are disputing whether the rhetoric on Carlson's show actually undermines vaccines or otherwise downplays COVID. More eyes would be helpful. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Organ theft

Organ theft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user Beansohgod (talk · contribs) prodded this page with a concern about giving undue weight to the credibility of certain accounts, mostly supported by mainstream media and books of dubious reliability.

The page is unencyclopedic and documents an urban legend as if it was a factual occurrence. The source material is questionable at best, and all of the relatively factual information can be transferred to other pages. Moreover, the article seems to be torn as to the credibility of its own subject, first asserting that the subject in question (organ theft) does not occur before presenting several examples of when it did.
— User:Beansohgod

I deprodded it because the Snopes and Skeptical Inquirer references are likely reliable for statements about the incredulity of claims, and Encyclopedia of Science Fiction for statements regarding its use in science fiction. Beansohgod also failed to specify a potential merge target for the remaining potentially WP:DUE material. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I keep trying to read this article, but every time I do, I wake up in a bathtub full of ice...curious. Well, Happy New Year, everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I added some sci-fi related material that I think is relevant and reliable. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Just as an aside: related articles are

• Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Organ theft in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The second one is a redirect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not think of a merge at the time (more so confused at the stilted page as a whole). In retrospect, a merge sounds like a really good idea; either way, the Organ Theft article requires the cleanup equivalent of trying to clear up the Kuiper Belt of asteroids. Also, if I had seen that Snopes was amongst the sources I called bunk, then I would have retracted my statement and replaced it with something a modicum more intelligent. Beansohgod (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Marty Makary

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

Another COVID "critic". May need more knowledgeable watchers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the guy who said "we'll have herd immunity by April", referring to April 2021... Other than the blanking of paragraphs, what concerns are you seeing here? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

No specific concerns. I just point it out as an article that would profit from a few fringe-savvy watchers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Vaccine shedding

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

Opinions on renaming? On removing the "erroneously termed" in the lede? (See Talk:Vaccine shedding#Rename? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Chronology of Tamil history

Two Ips inserting material claiming a deep prehistory for the Tamil, which even that page doesn't claim. First version was sourced to media and not all of them mentioned Tamil, second version left out all but one source. Some was copied from Adichanallur without attribution, and that article does not claim Tamil origin either except for some urns dated ca 1500 BCE. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting source dealing with the development of the concept of race

Also deals with the subject of race and intelligence. This link is actually to a review of The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium, by Joseph L. Graves, Jr. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner

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

Complaint on the Talk page: This article presents Steiner's work as wildly accepted and does not ground it in a wider scientific or philosophical contexts where his work has largely been dismissed

I must say that complaint has merit. The Reception section contains nothing about his adherence to - at the time already - obsolete scientific ideas and all the crazy stuff based on his clairvoyance, and the "Judaism" part is a mix of reception of other ideas by him and his ideas by others - including Nazis. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Great catch. Important for us to fix this, given Steiner's ongoing reach in 21st century education. Feoffer (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Relatedly, just glanced at the opening of Waldorf education, which still reads like a brochure. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Same goes for Biodynamic agriculture (though it does have a 'Reception' section that is critical of the whole thing). I suspect the majority of the articles in the Anthroposophy Category will have similar problems but i have the same depth of understanding of agriculture and education as i do of philosophy so i can't really say with certainty—blindlynx 19:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Anthroposophic medicine seems to be more or less OK, but Anthroposophy suffers from the same problem. BTW, if you write ], this page is added to the category, but ] links to it. I corrected your link. Maybe you already knew how to do it; I forget it sometimes too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  thanks! i had no idea. Comparing anthroposophic medicine to the section on it in the Steiner article is a big difference. Would copying the lede into the Steiner article be appropriate?—blindlynx 22:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think copying longer text is not appropriate, though I am not sure about the exact reasons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Fair, well either way the article needs to be much clearer that the overwhelming majority of his work is fringe. I'll try to up add some stuff in when i get some free time. But any help and guidance would be appreciated—blindlynx 20:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

David Finkelhor

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

Sociologist who wrote about Satanic ritual abuse. See last section of Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• I had a look, it appears that some work has been criticised by legitimate sociologists like Mary de Young, but also be Bruce Rind (of the Rind et al controversy). 172.195.96.244 (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

As in all cases, the question should not be "has this person's work been verifiably criticized?", it should be "is criticism appropriate to include, and if so, is it given proportionate emphasis and appropriate context?", per WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:VNOTSUFF. "Has been criticized" is not an invitation to include all criticism, and academic disagreements should not necessarily be framed as implying the critic is more correct. I don't know enough about the situation to weigh in yet, but from my experience criticism is too often over-emphasized and unduly framed as a negative or "controversy". It is apparent that Mary de Young has criticisms of Nursery Crimes. It is not yet apparent to me that Finkelhor's work has been "discredited", despite a passing assertion in North & South magazine. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That it is "not apparent" to you does not mean we should not have that quote about his discreditation. It does mean that context is missing and should be added. As I understand it, Finkelhor helped incite the Satanic panic back then and refutations of his work should be included, but that is not apparent from the article. If I just look at the article text, he could just as well have pointed out the weaknesses in the recovered-memory idea and been attacked (or, as the article puts it, "criticized") for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Dysgenics

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

Thoughts on how to improve this article? As it stands, it's sourced entirely to dictionaries and primary sources, drawing heavily on the work of WP:PROFRINGE author Richard Lynn.

It seems to me that the topic is notable (and it withstood two AfDs in the past ). A search on Google Scholar, for instance, yields numerous genetic studies on fruit flies, etc., along with a heavy sprinkling of pseudo-academic dross by the likes of Lynn. But as it stands almost nothing in the article appears to meet our standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The only exception seems to be the “In fiction” section. Generalrelative (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The “Further reading” section does contain at least one relevant scientific ref, , which speaks to the lack of evidence for dysgenics in the US population. The key takeaway from that study is that increases in assortative mating at the phenotypic level for education are not matched at the genotypic level. Perhaps the whole idea of dysgenics at the level of human population groups is FRINGE? Does anyone know of mainstream contemporary geneticists who have argued otherwise? If not, perhaps this article needs to be rewritten either to focus on fruit flies or else to conform with WP:FRIND. Generalrelative (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Further digging shows that there is a substantial difference between the terms dysgenesis and dysgenics, which I hadn't realized. The former is indeed a legitimate scientific concept, including with regard to humans (see e.g. , , , and ), but that shouldn't be confused with evidence of scientific support for the idea of dysgenics in humans. Generalrelative (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I've begun making WP:BOLD changes. If anyone thinks I'm going too far, I invite you to revert and discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Jeremy Narby

Anthropologist who wrote The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge where he "hypothesizes that shamans may be able to access information at the molecular level through the ingestion of entheogens, specifically ayahuasca". Doug Weller talk 14:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce

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

Unnecessarily detailed boring stories of the sleeping prophet's daily life. If you like to delete entire paragraphs because they do not belong in an encyclopedia, this is for you. I only removed a few of them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Coherent catastrophism

I'm trying to work on William Napier (astronomer) and Victor Clube who have written about this and who Ed Krupp described Clube and Napier as "thoughtful, credentialed scientists" but went on to demolish their argument on this view of comets. I've got a review by Ed Krupp which I can provide the text fo if you can't read it. I've used this a bit already in Clube's article. This might also be useful although we'd need the final version. I've done something with my back and in too much pain to do much, so any help would be useful. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Jack Sepkoski and David M. Raup claimed the same thing in the eighties, but with a 26 My period instead of 30; they are mentioned in Michael R. Rampino, who is linked in Shiva hypothesis. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Also . Doug Weller talk 20:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: This 2021 paper by Ignacio Ferrín and Vincenzo Orofinomay may be of interest:

• Ferrín I, Orofino V (November 2021). "Taurid complex smoking gun: Detection of cometary activity". Planetary and Space Science. 207: 105306. arXiv:2011.13078. Bibcode:2021P&SS..20705306F. doi:10.1016/J.PSS.2021.105306. ISSN 0032-0633. S2CID 227210565. Wikidata Q108888402. This high percentage of active asteroids gives support to the hypothesis of a catastrophe that took place during the Upper Paleolithic (Clube and Napier, 1984).
• Romero J (2021-09-30). "Swarm of Near-Earth Comets Linked to Recent Ice Giant Breakup". Discover. Archived from the original on 2021-10-14. Retrieved 2021-10-14. The findings are welcomed by those who believe Comet Encke and the other products of this astronomical event are responsible for many of Earth's most violent and consequential impacts over the last 20,000 years.

Unless they're being used to describe the history I'd be slightly hesitant to draw too much from older sources, things have come a long way in the last 40 years. Sorry to hear about your back, I'd be more than happy to help out where I can. Aluxosm (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

NESARA

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

Pretty garbled, lots of connections to about everything else, including Ascended masters from theosophy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Slavery in ancient Egypt

I'm uncertain about this large edit. It's actually not much about slavery but mainly about the Exodus, adding text from Richard Elliott Friedman and changing "Modern archaeologists do not believe the Israelites were ever in ancient Egypt in significant numbers and were indigenous to Canaan." to "Some archaeologists and historians doubt that Israelites were ever in ancient Egypt in significant numbers, and most archaeologists agree that the ancient Israelite culture was indigenous to Canaan." @Aminomancer: it's the word "some" that bothers me, as I believe that the mainstream view is that they were not there in significant numbers. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Even if it were true, one could set a WP:WEASEL on it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and read the revision and it does not seem like WP:WEASEL words or undue. The prior version entirely discredited the events of Exodus and while there is a majority view there is also a significant minority that affirm it in some way or another Viktory02 (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I must say I have qualms about describing the source's "the consensus of archaeologists" as "some archaeologists." Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That "significant minority" are not mainstream archaeologists or historians. Here's what a mainstream treatment of slavery in ancient Egypt looks like: . The Israelites / Exodus story do not even warrant a mention there. Any mention we make of them in this context needs to be consistent with WP:FRIND. Generalrelative (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GR that The Exodus, a mythic narrative is not really relevant to the actual topic of slavery in ancient Egypt, and should only be mentioned briefly if at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Viktory02 reverted User:Hemiauchenia restoring the “some” version on the basis of this discussion. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Generalrelative reverted User:Viktory02 removing the inclusion of other points of view on the basis of the discussion.Viktory02 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Then it was probably a bad idea by User:Viktory02 to revert the revert. WP:BRD does not mean "I said something on a Talk page somewhere, now I can restore the BOLD edit again." See also WP:WAR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The first concern raised about my edit is that "some" is too weak a term for what some have described as a consensus. I can add sources where other scholars have described it as not a consensus, or as a weak consensus, so I think that term can be justified, even though I should have referenced it; but I'm willing to compromise on this point to ensure the overall view that there were Semitic slaves in Egypt is adequately represented.

For example, this article overall wants to dispute the Biblical account of Israelite slaves in Egypt, but in doing so, it implies to the reader that there were no Semitic slaves in Egypt. After all, the validity of the Exodus account is relevant to this article only insofar as it proves or disproves the existence of slaves in Egypt whose descendants would be called Israelites. I think there's a good argument to be made for the Exodus narrative describing a real event, in line with Friedman's hypothesis, but at the same time, it's possible for the Exodus account to be totally, 100% legendary (fictional), and for there to have still been Israelite slaves in Egypt.

And indeed we know from several sources, both Egyptian and Near Eastern, that there were Semites in ancient Egypt, both slave and free. So I think either 1) the consensus that there were Semitic slaves in Egypt should be stated clearly, 2) the alternate viewpoint on the validity of the Exodus narrative should be fairly represented, or 3) the entire topic of the Exodus should not be broached at all, since by excluding affirmative opinions, we're tacitly endorsing the claim that the Exodus narrative is of little consequence to our understanding of slavery in Egypt, and since there are other ancient sources (that haven't become religious scriptures) that prove the Egyptians owned Semitic slaves.

To avoid going in circles I think it would be best, for the moment, to just say "most archaeologists consider Israel indigenous to Canaan and doubt that Israelites lived as slaves in Egypt in significant numbers." Reverting my whole edit because of a single word is obviously a pretty extreme response compared to just changing that word.

The other concern raised is that the Exodus account is not relevant. But other mythic accounts that constitute a primary source for ancient Egyptian slavery are discussed in the article, and many more would be relevant. The article is a bit sparse with regards to references that cite or analyze ancient sources. Of course, an ancient text does not stop being a primary source just because it retells a myth. Manuscripts of the Iliad are well accepted to constitute a primary source for ancient Mycenaean (and possibly Trojan) culture. (Maybe one of the best sources we have, even though the oldest remaining manuscripts are many centuries removed from the date of composition) The sources I cited specifically discuss the ancient book of Exodus as a primary source for the conditions of slaves in the Nineteenth Dynasty. That's definitely both relevant and notable.

Now, another option would be to add some nuance with respect to consensuses in disciplines. I should have done this in my first edit. Actually, Friedman goes into a lot of detail on this in one of his books: Since the 1990s, archaeologists are (generally) much stronger than textual critics on the argument that the Exodus is almost entirely, if not entirely, legendary. This has become increasingly controversial in archaeology in the last decade, but the issue is much more controversial in textual criticism and history in general. And needless to say, the consensus in theology runs in the opposite direction.

Because the article makes a pretty significant and extreme claim, (viz. perception of its veracity has a major influence on people's perception of ancient Egypt) balance and disciplinary representation is especially important here, even if it requires devoting more words to this narrow subject than are devoted to other narrow subjects. The fact that other parts of the article have inadequate detail shouldn't be used to argue against adding necessary detail to this part.

So I'm in favor of characterizing it as "most archaeologists" considering the Exodus either legendary or very small, while adding that textual critics are split on the subject. And then restoring the specific secondary sources I added to help characterize the conditions of slaves in ancient Egypt during 19D. By the way, there's some editorializing further down in the same section that apparently has flown under the radar. Aminomancer (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I should add, WP:FRIND is not applicable to this edit since none of the references I added was written by (or cited) a fringe scholar or endorsed a fringe theory. Didn't I wikilink all the authors of all the sources I referenced? These are well-known, well-regarded, notable specialists with positions at major academic institutions and numerous, often-cited publications. They more than pass the muster for citation on Misplaced Pages, and my citations are of much higher quality than several that remain on this article. Presumably, the main reason they are being maligned as "fringe" is because they seem to endorse a view that is congruent with religious claims, and in so doing, attract disproportionate scrutiny from otherwise reasonable skeptics.

As I see it now, the best arguments against my edit are 1) that I didn't provide enough citations for refuting the often touted claim that a "consensus" of archaeologists disregard the Exodus as legendary; and 2) that the topic of the Exodus narrative is not relevant or notable enough to be discussed in detail in an article about ancient Egyptian slavery.

But like I showed before, if we accept the claim that there's an academic consensus (at least in archaeology) against the historicity of the Exodus, that means the entire topic is totally irrelevant to ancient Egyptian slavery. So you can't have a paragraph dedicated to discrediting the Exodus and simultaneously disallow a paragraph that presents the opposing viewpoint.

Either it happened in some way and therefore reflects historical conditions of ancient Egyptian slaves, or it didn't happen and is completely irrelevant. If it didn't happen, then its discussion here, in the current edit of this article, is pure editorial. Its only purposes seem to be to attack the religious story and to protect the reputation of ancient Egyptians from the allegations in the sources for the Exodus narrative. That is why I chose to edit this section, it just smelled of the kind of thing that happens all the time on here, sneaking religious or anti-religious polemic into technical articles.

By the way, we really ought to have a talk about what constitutes "significant numbers." With all the accusations of weasel words flying my way, I should think you guys would be more self-conscious about it.

If anyone is interested in this subject, I would recommend the book I cited (The Exodus by Friedman) as a good place to start. It helps to contextualize the claim of a "consensus of archaeologists" by first outlining the evidence (or lack thereof) that was analyzed by archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein (whose work I greatly admire) and Neil Silberman to arrive at the aggressive argument that the Exodus narrative is purely mythological.

It's a very different kind of consensus than, say, the "consensus of medical doctors that obesity is associated with type 2 diabetes," because it's based entirely on a lack of supporting evidence, not based on any physical or textual evidence that falsifies the legend. This represents a kind of prejudice too, because similar legends from ancient China, such as those of the Xia and Shang dynasties, are presumed (especially on Misplaced Pages) to be at least moderately credible historical sources until proven otherwise. Statements about those dynasties that are only attested in ancient, very legendary sources (and derivatives) are used to make unreserved factual statements in Misplaced Pages articles all the time.

Which is good — with history I tend to believe where there's smoke there's usually some kind of fire. But if historians can use the Bamboo Annals or the Shujing as historical sources to support non-supernatural claims about wars, politics, or the regnal dates of kings, then surely they can (and do) use the various manuscripts that recount the Exodus story to support non-supernatural claims about slavery in ancient Egypt. Which should mean WP editors are welcome to reference articles and books that analyze these primary sources. Aminomancer (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with your comment about the Illiad- if that's the case, then our article needs rewriting. So far as our articles containing statements of fact based on Chinese legendary texts, we shouldn't be doing that. Nor should historians. It's worth reading page 99 of this book by Redford. Among other things that might be more relevant (eg the dates), it's interesting that the Bible never mentions Egyptian rule of Canaan. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Also probably worth noting here that later chronicles of the Shang dynasty have been corroborated by extensive archaeological finds. See e.g. or . Nothing like that exists to corroborate the story of the Exodus. Generalrelative (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Dhu al-Qarnayn

Why me, oh Lord? I keep running into things I wish I hadn't seen. See , some or all of which was reverted earlier by User:Wiqi55. I'm a bit concerned also that the page was protected on the 10th of December after an AN3 complaint, in part because of probable socking. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Bechor Zvi Aminoff

Can some people here take a look at Bechor Zvi Aminoff, Aminoff Suffering Syndrome and Aminoff Entropy definition of Human Happiness and Suffering. It all seems extremely fringey to me, and probably not notable at all, but I might be missing something so I prefered to ask here instead of tagging for deletion immediately. Apart from the lack of independent references, warning bells included "He was awarded an Honorary Doctor degree of the Yorker International University" ("a for-profit unaccredited institution": "The institution has no professors and, on the basis of life experiences, issues Master's degrees and even PhDs in several fields.") and " awarded a Research Professor Degree from the International Biographical Centre, Cambridge, England." ("Government consumer advocates have described it as a "scam" or as "pretty tacky".", "The International Biographical Centre creates "awards" and offers them widely. In 2004, an award was said to cost the recipient US$495 or £295,") Fram (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

At a bare minimum, there doesn't need to be 3 separate articles about this. From a quick check, I can't find anyone other than Aminoff discussing the syndrome, let alone journal reviews - not a good sign for WP:FRINGE. The entropy thing is... bordering on WP:Complete bollocks. It's certainly not notable. I'm not great at checking notability for biographies, but absolutely there's some red flags. You probably already know, but the article is also affected by the notability guideline for academics - although I wouldn't say there's any credible claim of significance against those anyway. --Xurizuri (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait a bit to see if someone else here chimes in, and otherwise I'll put the three articles up for deletion, and we'll see what happens. Fram (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Tall el-Hammam, clickbait, Steven Collins (archaeologist) and looting

See Interesting conclusion:"Demand-driven looting matters, and archaeologists, scientific journals, media outlets, and the public should never blindly and blithely support or foster these activities through clickbait claims based on pseudoscience." And earlier in the article, "when Boslough noted on Twitter that “pottery shards from Sodom and Gomorrah would have a much greater market value than shards from some random unidentified site,” Collins dismissed this salient concern, against all evidence. He responded, “Poppycock.”" Doug Weller talk 11:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Steven Collins. This one does not have an article, only a redirect to a section of one: Steven Collins (archaeologist). --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: agh. Fixed it as it was unfair to the other one. I'd forgotten about the AfD. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Net Zero Watch

Is this really a separate thing from GWPF? Its article suggests it's just a "rebrand". Anyhow mentioning it here because "he group says that they should be called "climate change sceptics", not "deniers"." --JBL (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The new article was converted to a redirect in this edit. --JBL (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Precognition

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

Recent edits seem highly dubious to me.

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

is connected. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Firestorm at WP:COIN about editor Susan Gerbic and GSoW

See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Rp2006 and something at RSN about Skeptical Inquirer. 12:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Doug Weller talk 12:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"Firestorm" is an apt description, I think, and rarely has such a brouhaha made me universally think less of those involved (including myself). Cheers, and Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Just read through all of it. Yuck.

@User:Alexbrn: I recommend the term McCarthyism instead of witch hunt. The element of publicly denouncing people for having contacts to others who have contacts to... and so on, is present in all three cases, but a comparison to McCarthyism fits better here since nobody is being imprisoned, tortured or killed.

@Nobody specific: I myself am happy when fringe people accuse skeptics of witch-hunting because that is an easy-to-refute weakness in their reasoning. Sorry if I sound like a wiseass, but if we are the good guys and in the right, then we have good reasons and do not need bad ones. With that attitude, when we suddenly notice that we do, then we know we are wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, also, I wanted to say thanks to you (and the others) for that reasoned defense of so-called "backward editing." I had such an outsized and visceral reaction to that bit (I drafted a response using the term "thoughtcrime") that I ultimately decided discretion was the better part of valor. The calm responses that came from others were better than I would have done. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't regret my meagre contribution so far, but I will refer to gatherings of editors/villagers carrying flaming torches, scythes and pitchforks, rather than mobs, in future. I dont like the admin hounding of Rob very much though. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a shame that all this commotion will likely detract from a larger issue: regardless of who wrote them, a lot of BLPs of skeptics are written in a laudatory, chummy, showcasing tone, with lots of choice quotes, heavy reliance on primary sources, and compilations of podcast appearances, conferences, and other minutiae. As I've argued earlier, this same type of article would be swiftly chopped to bits if the subject was a conspiracy theorist, fad-diet author, or UFO enthusiast. It's fine to have pro-skeptic proclivities in real life, but it should not permit unequal scrutiny or enforcement of policies and guidelines. I don't know if the galaxy of skeptic-related articles is more prone to this type of subtle boosterism than others (certainly some obscure but marginally notable academics get more effusive and detailed coverage from fans than some Nobel laureates), but it would behoove the community active on this board to be more vigilant against double standards or turning blind eyes. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That point will probably be easier to make in a week or two, especially if a couple of the bulls currently rampaging in the china shop find something else to do in the meanwhile. MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:PROFRINGE South Africans Rejecting Name Changes

Main Question: Are South Africans and international media rejecting name changes?

There has been a debate on Misplaced Pages for years as to whether or not South Africans are actively rejecting place names. All evidence I can find points to this being a South African conspiracy theory directly related to dissatisfaction following the end of apartheid. No other countries have had this many problems with name changes on Misplaced Pages. This post is for all renamed places in South Africa.

List of renamed places in Namibia and Nur-Sultan are just two examples that do not have this same issue.

A good starting point is List of renamed places in South Africa. Virtually every place on that list has had discussion about whether the new name is in use or not. Some names were changed over a decade ago and still do not have their page updated because it is not the WP:COMMONNAME. It does not make sense for Misplaced Pages to not use the name on street signs and used by media.

These articles highlight the protests from white Afrikaners who feel like their culture is being erased. All of these articles highlight the fact that these protests are almost exclusively voiced by white South Africans, who are a small minority within South Africa.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2002-03-02-0203020118-story.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4584211.stm

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/28/southafrica.rorycarroll

These are all academic articles highlighting the debates in South Africa over name changes.

https://journals-sagepub-com.libproxy.unm.edu/doi/pdf/10.1068/d2112

https://eds-p-ebscohost-com.libproxy.unm.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=1f56e06b-cc62-4bfa-8edd-2dba483cda46%40redis

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02572117.2007.10587293?needAccess=true

Significant evidence supports an understanding that these name changes are here to stay and in use by reliable, English language sources. These are all videos of South African media using the new names.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBVAAMGYBZo&t=99s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdzan5g9A9M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqnFQckkH0 - Afriforum leader opposes name changes

There is no reason to debate all 500+ name changes when it is clear that the only significant opposition these names have are from a small minority of South African society. If an English speaking South African uses Misplaced Pages, then oftentimes the name on the Misplaced Pages page won't match the name used on street signs and in media. Letting these fringe views proliferate makes Misplaced Pages worse. Desertambition (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am confused… you say that the “new” names are commonly used by the media… but you also say that those who argue for keeping the “old” names do so based on WP:COMMONNAME? Surely if the first is accurate it would negate the second. So which is it? Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Blueboar That is a fair question. I am saying that WP:COMMONNAME is being used to stall this change when that's not a real issue. Some of these are tiny towns with 90%+ black African populations with very little written about them. The majority of South African society, as supported by my sources, either doesn't care or supports the name changes. This idea that the name changes aren't being used has been pushed by Afrikaners for years now. WP:TOOSOON has also been justification for years on these articles. It's clear that it will never be the right time for some people. Desertambition (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Not a WP:FRINGE issue. Names are conventions and not theories, so, I'd try Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hob Gadling I do believe this is a WP:FRINGE issue because it has to do with conspiracy theories and interpretation of facts. This is a political position being advertised as truth. No evidence these name changes are being rejected by South African society, which is what the issue is about. Desertambition (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  You don't need to ping me: 1) I have a watchlist, 2) I live here, 3) I had my say anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  There may be motivations that are WP:PROFRINGE for certain naming conventions, but getting the naming conventions right requires getting consensus at a different place than this noticeboard. If you want a centralized discussion that can measure consensus, try something like the village pump. jps (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

About twenty imaginary bodies

• Subtle body (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anybody want to comb through all the articles about astral, causal, etheric, subtle, mental, and illusory bodies and their relations to each other? Do we need to map the fantasies of Blavatsky, Steiner, and some Asians from pre-scientific times (or later, but with the same attitude) into an interconnected web? If yes, how should it be organized?

Do we use the signs of the zodiac from different cultures as a precedent for this, with one article per body, or more obscure fantasy worldviews where we omit details of this granularity?

I fall asleep after half a sentence of anthroposophic gobbledigook, so I am not the right person for this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between being a type of subtle body (which these presumably are) and being called a subtle body, so this disambiguation page is invalid and has been prodded. Contents were:

• Body of light, a concept in Western esotericism
• Causal body, a syncretic development in Theosophy
• Etheric body, a syncretic development in Theosophy
• Illusory body, a concept in Vajrayana Buddhism
• Mental body, a syncretic development in Theosophy
• Subtle body, a concept in Eastern esotericism

Same with Astral body (disambiguation), which is identical in content except for also including Astral body and a redirect to Septenary (Theosophy). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It was deprodded by creator Skyerise (talk · contribs), who offered an explanation at Talk:Astral body (disambiguation). It can be summarized as that the terms have degrnerated from their original meaning, and are applied diffferently in different spiritual belief systems. Any third opinions about the disambiguation pages and the listed articles? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael Cremo

New editor plans to add authors supporting him. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

If 'new editor' does, we can look into it. I don't think there's much point in starting a new thread at WP:FTN every time a new purveyor of woo turns up on an article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

As I don't watch my watchlist that much, I thought it might be useful to mention it. If this is a misuse of this board, apologies. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

David Paulides, Bigfoot and mysterious disappearances

Might be worth a look or adding to watchlist if the subject is of interest. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not much interested in the subject, but it reads like an article desperately trying to reach a minimum word count. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC) --Animalparty! (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19

Could use more eyes on this one. Lots of newer editors arriving on the talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone find out the cause of death for Paramahansa Yogananda?

The source is a tripod link which doesn't seem to back it up anyway. I couldn't find anything except woowoo. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hell, looking at the edits of User:Subhobrata Chakravorti it looks like we need more cleaning up of articles such as Vedanta Society of Southern California which is entirely self-sourced, Swami Sarvapriyananda etc. But I don't blame anyone for not wanting to touch any of this. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed the statement. Many of the other sources and statements in Paramahansa Yogananda#Death are also dubious, including claims that he died immediately after his speech and that his body showed no visible decay for about three weeks after death, and I may remove those as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That’s already been dealt with. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

These kind of claims are typical enough and part of many traditions (predictions, incorruptibility); If a better source mentions this in its context it would be better. There also was the Divine Interventions book, but it seems to present claims and folk beliefs as fact. Unless I'm mistaken, the publisher seems to be popular health oriented and the authors not particularly recknown for the evaluation of such claims. —PaleoNeonate – 22:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

SI at RSN

Just noticed this: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Columns at Skeptical Inquirer

From past experience, there will be people who WP:CLAIM that my posting this here is canvassing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm more annoyed at your use of here to be honest... ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting article on pseudoarcheology, with added comets

It discusses how much social media is spreading these ideas, and this is also interesting: "researchers like Miami University’s Card fear that for some people, alternative history — especially the belief that archaeologists are conspiring to hide the truth from the public — can be a gateway to other kinds of misinformation." Doug Weller talk 17:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: James L. Powell's contributions to the debate around the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis has made this even more interesting. Hopefully his prior work changes the minds of some the climate deniers in that crowd!

References

1. Powell, James Lawrence (25 September 2020). The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (Video).
2. Powell, James Lawrence (2020). Deadly voyager: the ancient comet strike that changed Earth and human history. ISBN 978-0-578-66677-8. OCLC 1241981179.
3. Powell, James Lawrence (5 January 2022). "Premature rejection in science: The case of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis". Science Progress: a review journal of current scientific advance. 105 (1): 1–43. doi:10.1177/00368504211064272. ISSN 0036-8504. PMID 34986034. S2CID 245771840. Wikidata Q110444998.

Aluxosm (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but that’s a minor point and was made as a joke. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I just ordered Professor Card's book. I may go on a (non-promotional) backwards editing spree in the near future. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

COVID pandemic in China

More attention is needed on COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China where a couple of editors are outright censoring the fact that China deliberately underreported the covid-19 statistics despite the sentence being standing for 2 years.

They are relying on a study largely written by Chinese employees who work under Chinese government.

The discussion can be seen at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#The “2021 academic study”. TolWol56 (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

PMID:33627311 is primary research and so not WP:MEDRS. The Chinese origin of the source which addresses "Chinese" issues is also a documented problem, which is why (e.g.) Misplaced Pages avoids Chinese research on TCM. AIUI COVID-related research in China requires govt clearance prior to submission for publication. Alexbrn (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Somewhat of a related dispute going on at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19#Zero-COVID. Specifically we're wondering if Zhong Nanshan's research is unsuitable. ––FormalDude talk 09:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This "China fudged their COVID statistics" issue reminds me of the COVID-19 origins issue. Scientific consensus says one thing, the mainstream media says another, and it confuses people. I'd argue that we must always go with the scientific consensus (relevant policies: WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:MEDRS), and I think most experienced editors would agree. However sometimes it can be challenging to convince newer editors of this. I think Thucydides411 lays it out very nicely in this post, and I appreciate them taking the time to do the research and type everything out on multiple talk pages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it as anything more than whitewashing and betrayal towards WP:RS that the CCP controlled studies are not reliable sources, let alone using them to dispute the mainstream sources. TolWol56 (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you stumbled over too many negations here: don't, more than, not reliable. Surely you mean "it is whitewashing that the CCP controlled studies are used as reliable sources"? And when you say "mainstream", you mean "US mainstream journalism" and not "worldwide scientific mainstream", right?

The scientific mainstream is a stronger source than the journalistic one, so, no whitewashing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

But the research in question is meant to whitewash CCP's handling of Covid-19 thus it is not WP:RS. TolWol56 (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Meant"? So you can divine the intention behind research? Do you use tea leaves for that, or horoscopes, or I Ching?

Sources are not defined as reliable or unreliable by checking whether you agree or disagree with what they say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:IRS. It is not possible to provide a fact based research if the study is CCP controlled. Unless you want to say that TCM is wholly scientific, you should apply same standards for this faulty research as well. TolWol56 (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:INDEPENDENT is evaluated separately from WP:RELIABLE. A source not being independent does not automatically make it unreliable, though it sometimes makes it unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. ––FormalDude talk 12:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, "See WP:IRS" is something you tell a newbie who has never heard of reliable sources. RS has about 6000 words, and I will not check each one to find out if it says something related to what you say. And you seem to want to duplicate the Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China discussion here, which would be inefficient. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That is how content dispute is resolved. See WP:DR. TolWol56 (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Please quote the part of WP:RS that talks about CCP controlled studies and fact based research.

Please quote the part of WP:OR that says content disputes are resolved by having similar conversations in two places and by linking a whole giant guideline without quoting the part relevant to the question at hand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR? I said WP:DR. Noticeboards are used for finding more views. TolWol56 (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Then, please quote the part of WP:DR that says content disputes are resolved by having similar conversations in two places and which overrides the sentence in the lede saying, Discussions can be advertised to noticeboards and WikiProjects to receive participation from interested uninvolved editors.

And please quote the part of WP:DR that says content disputes are resolved by linking a whole giant guideline without quoting the part relevant to the question at hand.

Face it: Your reasoning was bad, and you can't defend it, so you are deflecting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the claim for a comet air burst at Tall el-Hammam

There is a request for retraction of the paper cited there "A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea" Some of the details are here which is of course not an RS, just bringing it here for information. Interesting that Trinity Southwest University is located in a strip mall. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I have mentioned this before -- ironic that Trinity Southwest University is 15 minutes from the home of Mark Boslough, whose work was (erroneously) cited in the paper, and who is no fan. Again, just for information purposes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A fair amount of discussion has already taken place around a Skeptical Enquirer article from Boslough where he covers this. It's been in the article for a while 👌.

Relevant discussion at

→ User talk:Aluxosm#Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Aluxosm (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Mass formation

This new article, Mass formation, born out of a discussion here, seems to argue that supporters of COVID vaccination are a angry mob who are not acting rationally. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted to the redirect to Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Nearly the entire article was relating to fringe claims by Mattias Desmet, and there's apparently also a redirect discussion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_8#Mass_formation_psychosis without a mention on the page to send it to Robert W. Malone. Seemed like a pretty simple WP:COATRACK to treat the COVID-related claims as the primary thrust of the article. Personally, if there's a discussion to be had, it's probably best to point to COVID-19 misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I got into a tiff at Robert W. Malone with a user wanting to include a somewhat long quote about this very thing. jps (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

To wit: . jps (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, he really went full Godwin's Law? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That has occurred to me too. Of course, none of the reliable sources spreading Malone's new "theory" seem to have noticed this redflag indicator. I have a hard time imagining Anthony Fauci as having fascist tendencies, but maybe I'm just stuck in my mass formation psychosis bubble, right? jps (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And this has gotten dragged into the mess: Draft:Mattias Desmet jps (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I almost filed an edit warring report, one more chance (and I may not have to do it myself)... —PaleoNeonate – 06:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hiding an off-topic discussion is labeled "disruptive editing": . jps (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, awesome, found the people I'm looking for. It was puzzling me why your actions seem to be so coordinated. Anyways, it's not a long quote, and it's barely even a theory in the sense that Malone's language can't really be proven or disproven (and also happened to be presented on an entertainment talk show). It was off-hand conjecture which happened to use intellectual phrasing. That's not equivalent to a fringe theory. The quote in question is noteworthy because it involves a neologism ('mass formation psychosis') that's been reprinted extensively in secondary publications. I'm super open to people contextualizing it with third-party commentary and hope someone will. My point is that it's clear from existing coverage of the interview that the quote is the primarily noteworthy asset from that event and its inclusion is necessary. This hasn't been contested on Talk to an extent that's produced consensus. I would absolutely appreciate it if this were worked out using the tools available to us (you know, the Talk page), so that consensus do the work.

Also, yes: single-handedly closing an on-topic thread is disruptive. There was an attempt to edit-war something that was already included in the article, and it was done in a way that ignored review or Talk consensus. To follow that up by smothering attempts at Talk consensus by unceremoniously closing threads (jps) was underhanded and unnecessary. Bleepenvoy (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems you've mistaken Misplaced Pages for a pub-based discussion group or a collegiate debating society. We are here to coordinate the creation of a public-facing website with a goal of providing summaries of reliable sources. We don't need to have drawn out discussions about topics that are so prima facie marginalized as to be ridiculed more-or-less without comment in WP:MAINSTREAM sources. Nor do we need to discuss endlessly about how people feel about the noteworthy-ness of this or that. You either start producing sources and explain how we can write the article based on them or you should find a topic where that is something you can do. jps (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Now that you've eloquently established that this is not your blog, act as such. Please use the Talk page instead of forcing edit wars over content you dislike. Bleepenvoy (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You were reverted by 3 different editors, none of whom forced you to edit war. MrOllie (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of using the talkpage according to the rules we have for how to use them! In fact, I note that since this edit, you seem to have contributed nothing to the conversation. I am still waiting for a source -- any source -- which talks about the quote you are in favor of including at length in the article-space. I am happy to see what you come up with. jps (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Some article about a book

Hello, Fringe Theories Noticeboard,

I apologize if this is an awkward choice of a first question for me to ask here, but: some months ago, I came across an article on a book, I thought the article seemed problematic, and I thought that I was too inexperienced an editor to diagnose exactly what its problems are and then fix them but, I recall thinking, the regulars at WP:FTN likely would have a better idea. I recall thinking that, if the book were fiction, one could say that the article's problem was that it appeared to be written from an MOS:INUNIVERSE perspective. I don't remember that the book was promoting any specific "known" fringe theories per se, but it seemed to be criticizing "science" as an institution and a worldview, and the article seemed to be restating the book's arguments uncritically, which seemed like the sort of thing that gets taken to FTN.

In the intervening time, I've forgotten the name of the book; I think its author was a man, British I think, whose name started with the letter 'E'. In case I do find the article again, does that sound like the sort of thing that belongs at this noticeboard?

—2d37 (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe WP:NPOVN might be more appropriate? I guess it would be helpful if I find the actual article again. —2d37 (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The Brit who comes immediately to mind is Rupert Sheldrake, but there are doubtless others who have argued similarly. jps (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Some quick sleuthing also reveals A Guide for the Perplexed which has many of the features you identified, though it doesn't seem completely in-universe. jps (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And, yes, both of these subjects are relevant to this noticeboard. jps (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

If it was Edzard Ernst, then he is now very much a sceptical writer. His name starts with an E and he has worked in Britain, but I don't see which article you might mean. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

Turns out that User:Aluxosm (see above) has now written 57.4% of this page. A lot of it is now based on James L. Powell, a respected geologist who sounds like a really good guy, but he seems to have gone off-piste here. His book Deadly Voyager: The Ancient Comet Strike that Changed Earth and Human History is self-published and the praise of it here is from someone's personal website. And I guess no surprise, Hancock is also used as a source in that paragraph. I have no idea why Powell is used as a source for the first sentence in the lead instead of the earlier reference. Younger Dryas is if anything a bit worse I think. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I have not written anything near to that amount. The reason for the high percentage is because I've filled out almost every single reference on the page with wikilinks to authors and journals, as well as making sure they're all formatted correctly (WP:CITEVAR). As I mentioned in the conversation I linked above, I've added arguments from both sides. You can use WikiWho do see where I've actually edited.

I did add the the reference to "someone's personal website"; I assumed that it would be okay after seeing Joe Roe recommend it him. The book itself is self published but the paragraph is about the source itself. You yourself have said that using a source is okay if they've "had a book published by a university", Powell has certainly done more than that.

I changed the reference for the first sentence because it had a more accurate date and contained the most recent description of the hypothesis. As with every one of my edits, this was thoroughly described in the edit description. If you have any specific issues I'd be happy to work through them but would appreciate it if you could use the talk page for the article so that others have a chance to respond. Aluxosm (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I was a bit confused by the ping here since I don't remember ever recommending (or even reading) markdefant.com as a source, but I see you mean that I recommended a review written by Defant, published in a reliable magazine, as a reliable source on another topic. Not quite the same thing...

On the general question I think you've done great work with this article but the topic is a really tricky one to write about and Doug is right that we need to go over it with a fine-tooth comb, ensuring that the sources are the best possible. The citation to Hancock in this paragraph is an immediate red flag (why do we even need a second citation for a direct quote from the first?) and makes me wonder about other references to fellow travellers like Sweatman. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Apologies for that, I had meant to say "him" but only caught it after posting. I appreciate the confidence in my edits and agree that adding Hancock wasn't my best idea (it was a very early one, not something I'd do now), thanks for removing it and your help elsewhere! Aluxosm (talk)

I intend to at some point. I used the "Who wrote that" extension for Chrome, and that did highlight a lot of text that you wrote. The bit about "book published by a university" is about a case where the book and the other writings are in the same field. Powell is not an expert on comet bursts, and he's much more prestigious than Colavito. Hard not to conclude that even his prestige wasn't enough to get a publisher to publish his book. Wikiwho looks interesting but I don't see how to use it directly with colour, etc. Xtools uses Wikiwho of course and that gives you 54.3% with 220 edits, the first being in 2020 when you added a COI tag. You are by a long way the major contributor to the article. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Powell is a well credentialed geologist who has written extensively about the history of other hypotheses. He may not be an expert in "comet bursts" but neither is someone like Boslough in geology, it doesn't mean we shouldn't reference them. I'm not surprised he couldn't get the book published, it's still a very controversial subject (as he describes in his latest paper).

I wasn't saying that I'm not a significant contributor to the article, I was just trying to point out that my contributions are not as sensational as you made them seem.

I do regret adding the COI tag, I think I assumed that Hoopes had authored works on the topic; it was misguided and I apologise for it. I do, however, think that the bias tag (which I added after) was more than justified and should have been there for a good while. I could point to numerous examples (take a look through the history), but something that stands out is my correction to this, surely it was just WP:SYNTH and an obvious attempt to discredit the hypothesis? Things like that haven't been a surprise; a significant proportion of the article (before my edits) was written by people who believed that this debate has been settled.

The WikiWho color thing requires you to run a Greasemonkey script., let me know if you need a hand, it's really useful! Aluxosm (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aluxosm: How about Tampermonkey? Looks easier to use with Chrome, but I may be wrong. Or I could use Firefox. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I hadn't heard of that one, should be fine though. Looks like there's also one called Violentmonkey 😂. All three of them should apparently run the script but only Greasemonkey and Violentmonkey are open source (if that's an issue). I've only tried it with Greasemonkey on Firefox I'm afraid. Aluxosm (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Lynne Finney and Martha Beck

• Lynne Finney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Martha Beck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another repressed memories thing. As these are fringe, the articles should written accordingly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed a bit from the Finney article, as it was in direct contradiction to the source, then I nominated it for deletion, as she doesn't seem notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm also looking to rewrite the whole section on her book and the controversy, cutting out all the primary and SPS stuff. NYT says Recovered memory, in which a suppressed traumatic incident is recalled years later, has been one of the most disputed topics among mental-health professionals in the last 15 years. The American Psychological Association states that while "there is a consensus among memory researchers and clinicians that most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them," most leaders in the field also agree "that although it is a rare occurrence, a memory of early childhood abuse that has been forgotten can be remembered later." Would language along those lines be sufficient to get across the fringeyness of recovered memories? Since it's in the source, I can just quote the APA without running afoul of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That section is rewritten, and makes it clear the controversy was about the allegations of sexual abuse, as well as the recovered memories. I excised all the random cruft and primary/sps back and forth. Hob Gadling, does that address any fringe concerns? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution