Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 81

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83→Archive 85

Day-year principle

Huge article detailing exactly which theologian interpreted which Bible prophecy using the technique called "day-year principle", which is a magic idea reminiscent of creationists, homeopaths, Bible-code cranks, Nostradamus exegetes, and astrologers, as well as sympathetic magic and as-above-so-below thinking. Also makes me think of Deutobold Symbolizetti Allegoriowitsch Mystifizinsky.

Most of it seems WP:UNDUE angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin-counter fancruft. I don't even know where to begin. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It was extremely influential in American religion as the basis for the Millerite Great disappointment. A better framing of this historically is definitely possible. I think Ronald Numbers might be a good source. jps (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The day-year principle is both hugely influential in fundamentalist theology (though, obviously, not so much the inerrantist branch), and the core idea behind old earth creationism, the most scientifically valid variant of the notion (note that theistic evolution is more scientifically valid yet, but is generally not considered to be a form of creationism). I think it's appropriate that we have an article on the subject, though for obvious reasons, NPOV could become a problem there. I've watchlisted and I'll give the current state a good read in a bit, when I'm able to focus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
See also to Day-age creationism might be a good thing. jps (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeuroQuantology

NeuroQuantology has come up on this noticeboard before, so this AfD may be of interest. XOR'easter (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The AfD has been relisted for another week. XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
After being relisted and seemingly forgotten, it's officially been closed as "no consensus", which defaults to keeping the page. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Study supporting Ivermectin as a COVID treatment withdrawn for impressive reasons

  • Davey, Melissa (2021-07-15). "Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns". The Guardian. Retrieved 2021-07-15.

A highlight:

A medical student in London, Jack Lawrence, was among the first to identify serious concerns about the paper, leading to the retraction. He first became aware of the Elgazzar preprint when it was assigned to him by one of his lecturers for an assignment that formed part of his master’s degree. He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised. It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said.

It's the cdesign proponentsist of COVID!

The Elgazzar study was one of the the largest and most promising showing the drug may help Covid patients, and has often been cited by proponents of the drug as evidence of its effectiveness. [...] “If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”

Oops. XOR'easter (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Can somebody do Carvallo et al. next? Also, somehow, this study wasn't actually published anywhere other than a pre-print site, yet it showed up in meta-analyses. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Elections in Cuba

There's an IP address who's edit-warring to insert content to promote the fringe view that Cuba is a democracy with free elections. The IP is using sources that are either bad or characterized (and I think there may also be some IP hopping going on). More eyeballs would be helpful. Neutralitytalk 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Bigfoot

I saw this, adding noises Bigfoot supposedly makes to List of unexplained sounds, and then noticed there is a whole section at Bigfoot about it Bigfoot#Alleged_behavior. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

My little yeti makes mysterious noises too, including, but not limited to: chirping, purring, meowing, growling, hissing, scratching, sometimes even snoring; and does throw objects around and eat meat... On a more serious note, while the article can certainly include popular culture material, it also seems to rely on poor sources (even for some of the critical material)... —PaleoNeonate – 17:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Right, this is essentially Bigfoot fan site content sourced to a blog. I’ve removed it, but must avert my eyes from the other ills of the article, which could take many hours to fix. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
wooF. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
That section was probably the worst thing I'll read on Wikipedia today, knock on wood. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Norman Vincent Peale

Has been under a whitewashing attack for a few months. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Bret Weinstein, etc

Apparently a leading light of the Intellectual Dark Web, this gentleman has recently had his Youtube channel suspended after taking ivermectin and proclaiming himself COVID-proof, raising concerns about vaccine safety, &c. The cries of "censorship" has meant his output is now getting wide attention and sharing. Recently there has been increased attention on his article, and particularly on whether anything critical can be said. As always, the eyes of WP:FRINGE-aware editors could be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Related, but not directly is a report at the BBC today -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Roxy, I have updated the COVID-19 drug repurposing research with that source although one fears if that trial (the first really good one) comes up with the "wrong" result for the ivermectin cultists, they will disown it. I should add, BTW, that the Bret Weinstein bio, inevitably, also involves the "lab leak" question; see
Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queer coding

This AfD concerns a poorly sourced section of the article that promotes the fringe theory that certain Disney Animated Canon villains are queer. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Christiane Northrup

Since User:Fitzrex has been CU-blocked, we're probably done here. Feel free to re-open if you disagree. Bishonen | tålk 08:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC).

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

Antivaxxer "Northrup is particularly concerned with reproductive system dysfunction and menstrual cycle irregularities as a result of COVID-19 vaccines, that have been documented by medical anthropologists, pharmacists and others". Is that so? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Is that not so? Isn't she an Ob/Gyn? Don't we need to give MDs the benefit of the doubt in cases which deal with their specialties? Fitzrex (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
No, we absolutely do not ... and that's not the primary objection here. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. -- Jibal (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
What is the point of asking me the same yes-no question I asked, turned into a no-yes question?
Your approach of accepting everything somebody with a specific job says cannot work because people with the same job disagree with each other. Most MDs do not know how to do science because they "only" have to apply science other people did. So, some random MD is not the right source for scientific questions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The sentence in question was inserted by:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User adding fringe language and ethnic supremacy theories

Changeanew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user is promoting language theories about Vietnamese from a folk healing website to linguistics and history articles. [4] [5] [6]. They are also adding ethnic supremacy theories. [7]. This is not supported by any academic material. Please prevent them from continuing. 64.18.10.194 (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User notified of this thread. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Fentanyl

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

I removed a section from this article which accused China of "Non Conventional Warfare" using the drug, while the sources were actually about a drug cartel operating out of a factory in China to smuggle into Canada. I've also requested RD2 for an unsourced conspiracy theory added and quickly removed in late June. Please keep a close eye on this article for conspiracy theories, especially the racist/xenophobic ones. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: User Oshwah (talk · contribs) restored the above two things, plus made a few other tweaks. The conspiracy theory is a bordeline BLP violation, so I can't fathom their reason for doing that. I rolled back again. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this had to come to a noticeboard, and I'm very much not sure why anything is RD2 worthy. The "Non Conventional Warfare" section is obviously bad; Oshwah's edit looks like an edit-conflict trying to revert to a previous version as there is a lot going on in that diff. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Another day, another lab leak essay

And another cross-namespace shortcut: WP:YESLABLEAK. If I didn't know better I'd think a WP:POINT was being made. Alexbrn (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Worth an RFD in your opinion? This is definitely more succinct and PAG-based, but it essentially argues against WP:SCHOLARSHIP. One also wonders about whether this is RFD-able in the same way other redirects were, for targeting a "group of wikipedia editors" in an USTHEM mentality. It's also wild because it's mostly a strawman argument. NOLABLEAK doesn't say we "shouldn't cover the lab leak" it says we should contextualize it with the mainstream view among relevant scholars (that it is "unlikely"). But at the same time, I think bad user essays tend to help the implicated "enemy" more than they harm, because it shows plainly just how bad the argument is. My favorite line is "Just because the wording of some text in support of the hypothesis seems biased, doesn’t justify deleting it." No, but rewriting such biased text to be NPOV isn't too popular among this crowd, either. In the end, weighing these competing forces, I'm not really sure where to come down on this one.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
because it shows plainly just how bad the argument is Only to those who know to judge such things. Most people cannot tell good reasoning from bad. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hob Gadling, Yes, that is a fair point. Reading this, and then reading NOLABLEAK, it definitely muddies the waters considerably and makes one concerned that NOLABLEAK is saying something that it definitely is not.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The essay is essentially OR (at least the "Reasons given for why SARS-COV-2 may have leaked from a lab" section), and completely ignores the real intention of NPOV and FRINGE. To quote WP:FALSEBALANCE: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. [...] Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."... A clear example of the latter (undue legitimisation through comparison to accepted scholarship) is my revert of this RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, WP:OR doesn't apply to user essays. If it did, there basically wouldn't be any WP:NOLABLEAK either. I agree with you that the issue is how we need to contextualize the lab leak in the frame of the mainstream scholarly view, which we currently do quite well in many of the relevant origins and misinformation articles.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
MfD may fail with advocates of userspace blogging, but the redirect is inappropriate and worthy of RfD... As for the essay itself, we've seen worse but it's still conspiratorial, a bit polemic about Wikipedia and pushing GEVAL/FALSEBALANCE arguments... —PaleoNeonate – 19:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Why is "WP:YESLABLEAK" inappropriate and worthy of Rfd but "WP:NOLABLEAK" is not? Neither essays make the case that a lab leak absolutely did or did not happen. As an outsider, I don't consider the essay particularly polemic or conspiratorial. I think harping WP:SCHOLARSHIP as if it forbids or supersedes WP:NEWSORG for non-medical information (it does not) is a red-herring. There is a growing list of literature at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis#Sources (warning: not peer-reviewed meta-analyses, just the mad ramblings of lowly investigative journalists). --Animalparty! (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The redirect is project-space to userspace. Feel free to RfD NOLABLEAK, of course. One is still more usable than the other in legitimate discussions (those shortcuts are for easy referencing). —PaleoNeonate – 23:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis‎

Is back:

Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

So it comes, so it goes. Redirected again, but for how long... Urve (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Back again. What a time to be alive, surely. Urve (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
And that promoted previously spammed dubious sources like BioEssays... —PaleoNeonate – 15:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
BioEssays was willing to publish physicist nonsense about cancer. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
This is totally redundant with Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Yep. I fear it will soon become a POVFORK.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
So FIX it. Like the flat earth theory, Lab Leak theory may be bullshit, but it is NOTABLE bullshit, and so merits an article of its own. The key (like flat earth) is to ensure that the article is accurate and well sourced. Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Blueboar, Yes I get your argument, and that's why I am doing just that. Better to be involved in making it good rather than complain from the sidelines, I agree and have always agreed.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Even as we fix it, it's still just another long-term fringe-happy time sink... —PaleoNeonate – 22:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Now at a AfD, which I did not ask for. ProcrastinatingReader's deletion rationale was a total strawman of what I was trying to accomplish with the merge proposal. I knew that taking it to AfD would result in a massive fucking circus and god damn it I was right. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Blueboar we generally fix POV-forks by deleting them and rolling them back into the primary article... Bakkster Man (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah the AfD has gotten way out of hand. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 04:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The new version will no longer be a POV fork though, contrary to previous ones, —PaleoNeonate – 12:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Height 611 UFO incident

Height 611 UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has only two sources. One source is a link to our Discovery Channel article. The other is to a UFOlogists book. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The article should be put out of its misery. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Kind of a Shaggy dog story in which it is claimed that people saw a glowing light crash into a mountain, metal was recovered that was 'not of this earth', photos taken wouldn't develop, etc. I AfD'd the article 8 years ago [8] but Russian language Wikipedia editors opposed deletion and gave the impression they might improve it, but never did. All the sources given at the AfD are in Russian. I was able to Google translate one, which was an interview with a UFOlogist whose claims were covered quite credulously. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Height 611 UFO incident (2nd nomination) - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
In other news, AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) has archived the AfD on delsort pages twice, with unknown result and closure time 12:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC), despite the discussion still being in progress. The given timestamp is the time when the discussion was opened. The operator of AnomieBOT has not responded to complaints on the talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Should China COVID-19 cover-up be merged with one of the other COVID-19 in China articles?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist)

Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this article would be welcome. FDW777 (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

If it wasn't there already and your concerns are not addressed soon I recommend BLPN, —PaleoNeonate – 17:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

More antivaxx

Becoming prominent, and so attracting attention from IPs and "new" accounts. Could use wise eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I will try and stem the inevitible WP:RECENTISM that accompanies any time someone mentions COVID-19 on TV. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Animalparty: There's one editor persistently adding just that. I've exhausted patience there, and I'm busy watching the opening match of rugby sevens at the Olympics (Fiji currently lead the hosts 24-19). See ya, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Disinformation Dozen

I made a redirect for Disinformation Dozen, but I could see some potential for some spin-out if someone might be interested. Seems like there has been a lot more attention to this lately what with the Mercola profile in NYTimes this weekend, e.g. jps (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This probably doesn't warrant its own article, just as we don't need a stand-alone article for every study, finding or science paper that gets major discussion for a week ("according to a new report, doctors say sugar will kill you"... "according to a new new study, sugar is fine"). This is a single primary report (with apparently, a remix) from a single agency. Just like most primary sources, the findings are what matters, and maybe gets the researchers a stand-alone biography, not the document. It's no more spin-out worthy than if the Southern Poverty Law Center released a list of the 10 Most Hateist Hate Groups for 2020, or National Geographic publishing the Sexiest Snakes Alive (number 4 will shock you!). The disinformation (baker's) dozen are named and discussed in context at Center for Countering Digital Hate#The Disinformation Dozen, and all have, or will likely soon have, their own articles. I think that's plenty good context. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I actually started to draft an article, but when I saw what we had I thought it didn't quite merit a standalone. But if secondary commentary builds then ... maybe? Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Normally I would agree, but in this case the designation is gaining some amount of traction. Still, wait and see is a perfectly acceptable position at this point. jps (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Have you guys seen the standard of many new articles nowadays. It's like a torrent of shite. I'm certain that any article about the disinformation dozen would be an imformative, pleasant change. Please dont give up, just lower your standards a tad, OK? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Funnily, when I see "disinformation dozen" I keep thinking of 12 apostles, Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Twenty-Four Elders, Eight Immortals, Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves... —PaleoNeonate – 15:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
You youngsters! Think back to The Dirty Dozen ! Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Bah. Seven Samurai. But actually, I thought of the other Four Horsemen, Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens and Thingummy. They don't have their own article either, not even a redirect, because they are on the same notability level, only they have been there longer - someone invented the moniker once, and it is used occasionally, but to call them a thing would be reification. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Lets not blether on about all this old stuff, when we can have a freshly minted Gorski post regarding the Telly Savalas of the disinformation dozen. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Lipid hypothesis

A user is adding an opinion piece from the New York Times from 2013 to the lead which fails WP:MEDRS. The reference does not mention the lipid hypothesis [9] so this is also original research.

The "Dissenting views" section cites some serious fringe advocates (known as cholesterol denialists) but I am not so sure that we should be citing these people in this much detail. A line has recently been added that cites Robert DuBroff. DuBroff [10] authored a controversial paper with Aseem Malhotra which has been described as an "extraordinary deception". [11]. It is clearly a false balance to be citing these minority of cholesterol denialists to be claiming in the lead that there is a dispute to lower blood cholesterol levels. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit‎

In light of Slate reporting that "One of the Leaders of the Arizona Audit Says Cyber Ninjas Might Be Cooking the Books", this article will likely need extra sets of eyes on it. The talk page has been a colloquy of IPs insisting that unreliable sources should be added to combat "bias"; it looks suspiciously like this is getting ready to burst into the article itself. BD2412 T 20:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Going to be a fun one, that. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Medical genetics of Jews

At the article Medical genetics of Jews there's a user adding content about Nazis and ranting about the nature of sources used. They tried to get the article deleted through a case request at WP:DRN, which I closed as an improper filing. More eyes on that article would be helpful. I'm not entirely sure what their angle is, though the possibility that they're upset over some legitimate problems with the article seems real, if remote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

How has this gone unchallenged / unmodified? 2001:8003:237D:1100:CC88:E2ED:D8C2:7F7F (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm guessing the article is not watched by many. Hence why I made this posting. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I removed it. It seems to confuse testing of ethnically Jewish people for medical purposes with DNA testing to find out whether someone is Jewish. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I welcomed the user and invited them here if their edits are contested. —PaleoNeonate – 17:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The user has been blocked as a suspected sock. If this comes up again in the future, then the information is on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
When I look at the edits of the suspected previous account (and wow), it indeed seems to be the same person. Thanks for the update, —PaleoNeonate – 23:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Not Evil Just Wrong

Made this a bit more NPOV, but I think they could move more towards WP:NPOV and away from WP:PROFRINGE. Ideas? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Do qi nor meridians exist?

Of rather, should Wikipedia say they don't exist? That is the question being discussed at Talk:Shiatsu#"neither qi nor meridians exist". Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The matter is not whether qi or meridians exist, it is that claims in an article must be backed up by the source. I have no problem stating in Wikipedia that something positively does not exist, like in Benzoquinone where a peer reviewed study makes a statement that a certain chemical compound does not exist because it is impossible. The problem here is that "qi does not exist" is a POV statement not supported by the source.
The Ernst source states that "Concepts such as the qi of Chinese traditional medicine are myths which enjoy the same status as religious faiths" and "the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven". A myth is not synonymous with "does not exist", and if something cannot be disproven, it cannot be asserted to be nonexistent. A basic principle of scientific thought is that anyone making a claim, *either negative or positive*, has the burden of responsibility. It is unscientific to assert that something does not exist without Proof of impossibility.
The Hall source states that "Acupuncture meridians and acupoints are imaginary until proven otherwise", and although a reasonable reader would understand this as an attention-grabbing statement rather than a professional statement, taking it at face value, it still implies that it is *possible* to be proven. After explaining research that failed to find the structures claimed, the author goes on to say "I don’t know whether the structures described as the PVS exist". This is a scientific conclusion consistent with basic scientific epistemology.
In addition, Accupuncture goes into detail about the studies done. We use WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and proper scientific methodology to refute pseudoscience, not POV unsourced statements like "qi does not exist". These cheapen our message and promote the idea that science is merely another religion. As Carl Sagan said, "Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking".
Therefore, I propose that we either 1) keep consistent with the NPOV style of Wikipedia, the sources cited, and with the Accupuncture article and state that there is no evidence for these structures to exist, *or failing that*, 2) add to the Accupuncture article to state that qi and meridians do not exist. MarshallKe (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Basic logic fail there. Ever heard of the null hypothesis, a mainstay of evidence-based medicine?. But in any case we summarize sources, and if something's mythical it doesn't exist in reality. We probably should mention qi etc don;'t exist in whichever articles they come up. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the use of null hypotheses. It's not relevant to this discussion. Hypotheses in science can only be supported or refuted, but never proven or disproven beyond a doubt. This is basic science 101 stuff that should be a prerequisite to editing anything related to science in Wikipedia. Wikipedia describes the science rather prescribing which unproven assumptions the reader should hold on what is possible or impossible. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a place to debate epistemology and metaphysics. We are here to uphold WP:NPOV and WP:V policy, and Wikipedia is not a place for scientific or religious advocacy. Although we are biased towards scientific sources, we do not have a free pass to misrepresent what the scientific sources say, such as cherrypicking attention-grabbing single sentences from articles and then drawing erroneous hyperbolic conclusions from them. MarshallKe (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh it's relevant okay, because contrary to your assertion "science" is not the endeavour of trying to "disprove" unfalsifiable silly stories from the realm of pseudoscience. Hitchen's razor is useful for rational progress. But to repeat: we summarize sources, and if something's mythical it doesn't exist in reality. Wikipedia isn't going to be hedging its bets on whether meridians and qi exists any more than our good sources do. Sorry. Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
We do seem to be repeating our points, so considering that we are the only two participants in this conversation thus far, I'm going to stop here and wait for input from other editors. MarshallKe (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, they don't. For good or ill, we don't live in the world of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Trying to create doubt in the face of a massive amount of scientific evidence by zooming in upon a few turns of phrase in a couple sources and splitting their rhetorical hairs is not the way to be NPOV. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to check for more sources about it later on. The meridians (like nadis) are often treated as "metaphysics" since it's outside of what science can work with. The qi (like prana) or energy (esotericism) claimed to go through these channels is, like them, imaginary. Of course some claim that they have been religiously revealed, but visualization remains an activity and product of the mind (so are visions and hallucinations). It's considered pseudoscientific because it's presented as a "scientific" or rational method that works with an alternative anatomy that has not been verified, and makes medical claims that have not been demonstrated to be more useful than massage and other forms of relaxation or reassurance. About the advocacy claim, by WP:PSCI it must be clear when it's pseudoscientific, but I currently don't see it mentioned prominently. I support the current text about that it has not been verified to really exist. "Has not been disproven" is not really meaningful other than affirming that it's unfalsifiable and not science... —PaleoNeonate – 17:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

To argue that meridians or qi exist in the same way that nerves or blood exist is to adopt a profoundly pseudoscientific approach to reality. But the same way with all variety of religious beliefs, superstitions, and folklore there are those who use the stories about various empirically questionable points as metaphors to help them talk through ideas about the human experience. We don't go on and on about how there is no empirical evidence for miracles in every miracle story. But we sure as hell are not going to pretend in an article on faith healing that the jury of empiricists is still out on claimed mechanisms. jps (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hiding the fact that science has been done on a topic sounds very un-Wikipedian to me. Therefore, I propose removal of the qi statement and keeping the meridian statement (studies have been done looking for meridians, while qi is not studyable by science) MarshallKe (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The article is very clearly talking about qi as a tangible phenomenon, not a concept, metaphor, or myth. If you push it out of the realm of things that science can study, then you rule it out as the basis for any kind of medicine that actually works. XOR'easter (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to promote Qi as a serious concept. We are here to eliminate POV statements that violate WP:V. MarshallKe (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This took me about an hour to figure out, but the actual question here is this. The article on shiatsu currently states, in a separate paragraph and (in my opinion) quite bluntly:

Neither qi nor meridians exist.

Some users would like to change this, either into:

Neither qi nor meridians are commonly believed to exist. ([12])

or:

While existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven since vitalism is not scientifically testable, the concept of a meridian system does create a testable hypothesis. There is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians. ([13])

or:

Anatomists consider qi and meridians to be imaginary; their existence can neither be proved nor disproved. ([14], corrected spelling)

I personally think that all of these options are pretty awful. They seem to be the unfortunate result of an undue preoccupation with either pushing pseudoscience or pushing back against it, rather than with writing an encyclopedia. I didn't read the sources, but I'm quite confident that someone who did will be able to add proper references to something like the following:

The practice of shiatsu is based on the traditional Chinese concept of qi, a type of vital force that is supposed to flow through certain pathways in the human body, known as meridians. Modern research has failed to find any evidence for the existence of these meridians, and their use as a scientific concept has been generally abandoned outside of traditional Chinese medicine.

This could be put before the current paragraph starting with There is no evidence that shiatsu is of any benefit in treating cancer or any other disease [...]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Specific content discussions like this could be put back on the talkpage and probably are best discussed there. However, now that we're here, I'll identify a few issues with your proposal. One, it's not at all clear that qi as the traditional Chinese concept is a type of vitalism which is a distinctly Western school of thought. Certainly in the context of the alternative medicine of today the two are linked (as they are in our article on energy (esotericism)), but it is not a good idea to engage in this kind of blanket and, frankly, anachronistic declaration of what categories these historical concepts from disparate cultural groups fall under. Then we move on to the claim that modern research has failed... which, I think, misses the point that the reason there isn't evidence that these things exist is because there has been tremendous care in documenting what does exist. It's rather much the same with any number of concepts for which there is a lack of empirical evidence. I hate to always bring up Santa Claus, but I will again because I do think the comparison is apt. It's not that modern research has failed to find evidence that Santa Claus exists. Rather it's that the research about all the things with which Santa Claus supposedly interacts does not allow for the existence of such a beast. The difference here, of course, is that there are some stubborn researchers who manage to publish one-off papers to look in vain for qi/meridians, but the larger point is that this sort of research isn't the main stumbling block for, say, modern medicine when it comes to claims about qi/meridians. It's not as though when you mention this to a medical doctor they go running to the journals to look for all the research on the subject. Finally you use the turn of phrase, their use as a scientific concept which is problematic in that with very few exceptions, qi/meridians are not treated as a scientific concept at all, and when they have been, the treatments have been maligned to such an extent that it is debatable whether we should call it properly "scientific" instead of "pseudoscientific".... but to make matters worse the sentence goes on to imply that within the realm of TCM there is a way to use meridians/qi as "scientific concepts". Perhaps that is not the intention of what you are writing, but I think it is an undeniable implication nonetheless.
All this is to say that coming up with good wording is difficult. I think it's fine that you are trying, but a lot of us have been at this for, in some cases, more than a decade, and, while it may be that we are overly entrenched in a rigid style, there is also a lot of work that has been done to try to make the wording as clear as possible. In the case of your proposal, I'm not at all convinced that it is better than the first simple sentence you identify that "some users" (including yourself) consider to be too blunt.
jps (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Is it that, in a similar vein to WP:ANI, we normally don't discuss content here but only conduct? Or just that we use this noticeboard to draw attention to local discussions, without moving them here? In both cases, the above was already not following that convention, which got me confused.
Your first objection is easily met, I think, by not linking vital force to vitalism. It is true that the latter is a specifically 19th-century doctrine, which of course does not negate the fact that qi is a kind of vital force similar in nature to the vital heat and the pneuma of ancient and medieval western medicine (these comparisons are routinely made by historians of science). I'm fairly sure that sources characterize qi as a vital force, so that should pose no problem.
As for your second objection, I think you're ignoring a bit that for many centuries, meridians were a valid scientific concept that was subject to empirical research, and that is it an outdated and abandoned concept rather than an inherently unscientific one (in the mainstream historiographical meaning of 'science' as something that also existed before the 17th-century development of the modern scientific method). It is precisely because it was a scientific concept and because it is still used as such by traditionalists that modern research has been conducted on the existence of meridians. It is the failure of traditional Chinese medicine to acknowledge the results of that research (and modern research more generally) which renders it pseudoscience, a fact which we are also conveying in this way.
I think we have a choice here: do we prefer to be encyclopedic and informative for our readers, or do we prefer to obfuscate all useful information on a topic just to make sure no one could suspect us of promoting pseudoscience? I think your third and last objection clearly speaks to that binary: yes, I was aware of the possible implication of my words with regards to qi and meridians still being used as scientific concepts in TCM, but I did not immediately find a better way to word it, and I just really don't think that it's a problem given the general tendency both of the paragraph and of the article as a whole. It's quite simple really: if your only concern is that every word and every turn of phrase is 100% free from any possible implication of perhaps maybe even looking a bit like what in another context would be fringe, all that's going to result in is a thoroughly unencyclopedic mess.
Really, I suggested something like the following. I think that anyone with some background knowledge of the subject and with their priorities straight could write something similar. It's rather the failure of editors to come up with something instructive like that and their preference to endlessly discuss about God, epistemology and Santa Claus that is utterly amazing. I know it's a lot to ask, and please don't take this the wrong way, but I really think you should reconsider your approach to these things. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there is a consensus on what exactly this page is for.
If you know sources which call qi a vital force, name them, and we can use them. If you don't, we can't.
They were a valid scientific concept not in the sense the word "scientific" has now. It is highly dubious to translate whatever word the ancient Chinese had for the category containing such ideas back then, as "science". "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." is a quote Martin Gardner used in such cases.
So you think that playing such silly sophistic word games is an improvement over actual reasoning, like proving that an argument is utterly useless by applying it to the defense of Santa Claus with the same justification as it is applied to the defense of qi. Well, you have come to the exactly wrong place. We know all the tricks people use to defend crazy ideas, and we will not "reconsider" science in favor of bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Historians of science routinely use the word "science" for ancient and medieval Greek, Arabic, Latin, Chinese, etc. thought. Calling this "highly dubious" is so utterly ignorant that I just don't know where to begin in replying to it. Quite apart from that, my proposal above was not calling Qi or meridians a valid scientific concept in the contemporary sense of "scientific", nor was it implying such a thing in any way (quite the opposite, if read without the undue sensitivity which I argue is taking things out of context, and is obstructing us from being encyclopedic). As for the rest of what you're saying, I clearly have come to the wrong place. It's all just a battleground to you, isn't it? If you're more interested in disparaging your imaginary foes than in building an encyclopedia, I will gladly leave you to it. I will just insist that what you intimate about me using tricks and defending crazy ideas does only exist in your imagination. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Trace the claim that qi is "scientific" back to its first mention on this page, and you find your own claim their use as a scientific concept has been generally abandoned outside of traditional Chinese medicine. This clearly suggests that it is still treated as a scientific concept inside "traditional Chinese medicine". (Since TCM has no business of defining science, Wikipedia should either not care about that or note that their definition of science is peculiar.) Now, the people who treat it as a scientific concept are suddenly historians of science instead of TCM proponents. All right, why not. But since they use the word in a different meaning, we cannot just write "science" because that would cause misunderstandings. We should use a clearer term instead, to prevent readers from going away thinking, "Wikipedia says qi is a scientific concept". And that is one of the purposes of this page: protect articles from being edited in a way that suggests things are science when they are not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I understand that. But I think that it's a really big stretch to think my phrasing here is going to cause misunderstandings or leave people with the idea "Wikipedia says qi is a scientific concept". I think it's quite clear that they are rather going to get away with the idea that "Wikipedia says there's absolutely no scientific evidence for the efficacy of this so-called treatment, nor even of the existence of the concepts it is based on, which are at best of a historical and antiquarian value". That's the tone and tendency of the proposed paragraph as well as of the article more broadly, and rightfully so. I think that what readers of the paragraph as is currently stands are going to take away is rather that "Wikipedia in their typical fashion absolutely denies the existence of these things, but it's not clear to me what this denial is based on, and I'm left just as clueless as I was when beginning to read this article" (I'm of course exaggerating a bit here, but you catch my drift). Again, I understand your worry, but aren't you able then to adjust my phrasing a bit so that it's not a problem anymore? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Just a note about ""Wikipedia in their typical fashion absolutely denies"... we can't really do much if someone's judgement immediately leads to such conclusions without looking at the supporting sources... As for jps' suggested wording below I think it's rather fair. And thanks to everyone for the more constructive discussion versus the tension of the first posts... —PaleoNeonate – 17:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
following that convention This is a place to draw attention mostly. Workshopping specific content is best left to the talkpage, but, as I said, as long as we are here... let's have at it.
Your first objection is easily met, I think, by not linking Maybe? Then perhaps a different word might be better. energy (esotericism) might work, but it is fraught, right? I mean we're trying to apply a modern sensibility to a different language and culture. Still, point taken. We want a category for the definition and it is a hard one to find.
meridians were a valid scientific concept that was subject to empirical research the sources do not indicate that. To the extent that people used meridians as an explanation for TCM, they were no more "valid" than was any other esoteric tale.
an outdated and abandoned concept rather than an inherently unscientific one the sources do not indicate that either. In fact, the concept was not so much "abandoned" as it was either co-opted or contextualized. It's not as if one day people said, "Oh, this is no good any more" because the history of modern medicine does not proceed in that fashion for better or worse. There was a parallel development of TCM to some extent, it was revived by Mao, and now we have a conflict between the claims of TCM practitioners and basic anatomy and physiology. There wasn't any point of "abandonment" per se.
It is precisely because it was a scientific concept and because it is still used as such by traditionalists that modern research has been conducted on the existence of meridians. The sources do not indicate that either. In fact, the reason that there is any modern research at all is because the research itself has been stubbornly introduced and reintroduced by TCM practitioners (and occasionally mainstream researchers feel the need to reiterate the marginalization of the line of inquiry due to clamoring or complaints). No one thinks that there was serious empirical work done to verify the meridian maps produced any more than someone would say that there was serious empirical work done to verify the four humors worked in the fashion they were thought to work. Sometimes there are enormous flights of fancy that get codified away from empirical knowledge. This happens the world over. It is only in retrospect that this is recognized and when it was recognized for meridians it happened in contexts where there didn't need to be the grand stories of disillusionment or rejection that accompanied, say, mesmerism. This is a fascinating story, of course, but it doesn't allow us to pretend that there was some sort of serious science that undergirded meridians any more than any other pseudoscientific concept that is currently being promoted.
It is the failure of traditional Chinese medicine to acknowledge the results of that research (and modern research more generally) which renders it pseudoscience, a fact which we are also conveying in this way. Disagree. TCM is a pseudoscience because of the arguments that it makes which are ostensibly scientific (meridians exist) which are not true, but these points were not identified explicitly through any modern research. There were no results that pointed to the non-existence of meridians because of the way the history of medicine worked out.
It's rather the failure of editors to come up with something instructive like that and their preference to endlessly discuss about God, epistemology and Santa Claus that is utterly amazing. I know it's a lot to ask, and please don't take this the wrong way, but I really think you should reconsider your approach to these things. I think you need to assume some good faith here. I am not opposed to the idea that there may be better wording out there, but it's just not the wording you offered right here. Please feel free to try to workshop better stuff on the talkpage if you'd like. I'm sure critiques will be forthcoming unless and until you get a truly good proposal that doesn't suffer from the problems I outlined (whether you think them worthy of discussion or not).
jps (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I am intimately familiar with the history of western ancient and medieval natural science (especially alchemy or early chemistry, but also somewhat with medicine and physics), and from that I can tell you that empirical work certainly was associated with the development of humoralism, as well as with the theory of pneuma (lit. 'wind', 'air', 'breath', 'spirit'). This latter theory took flight especially after the discovery by early Hellenistic surgeons of the arteries (lit. 'windpipes'), which were thought of as distributing the vital spirit (remember, 'spirit' = 'air' or 'breath'; the theory is obviously based in the fact that the arteries carry oxygenated blood; none of this is conceivable without advanced empirical practice, in casu dissection and vivisection). I assumed that something similar would hold for qi and meridians, and that the relation between these as historical concepts and TCM would be a bit like, say, the relation between Galenism and Unani medicine. Perhaps that assumption is mistaken, but actually I have to say that I would be quite surprised if that turned out to be so. I know that just like western alchemy, Chinese alchemy (which itself was closely linked to Taoism and Taoist concepts like qi) had a strong focus on empirical research. Early chemistry and medicine were in their own time more often seen as technical crafts than as sciences, precisely because of their (supposed) empirical and non-theoretical nature. This is all generally treated by historians (e.g. by Joseph Needham and his school) as falling under the category of science. Yes, in the premodern period science was always mixed with fancy, but there was very little that was purely fancy or entirely un-empirical.
Moreover, it becomes pseudoscience not when or because it is untrue, but when and because it comes into contact with better science and fails to acknowledge that. This is of course a complicated historical and sociological process, and much of the most recalcitrant pseudoscience exists precisely there where adherents of outdated or long-abandoned paradigms are partially adopting the methods of newer paradigms in a doomed attempt both to save or reintroduce their favored paradigm and to bring it in line with newer standards. I would say that such interactions between science and pseudoscience surely are part of the history and sociology of modern medicine. But we don't need to engage with this complicated process here, nor to discuss its causes and evolution: for our purposes, it should suffice that the result of it has been that the existence of meridians has in fact been investigated, and that these investigations have found no evidence for their existence. Of course that's unsurprising, but if we are going to say anything about the existence of meridians we may as well start with that. It's not an endorsement of the goals and ambitions of such research. It does not imply that if such research wouldn't have been done, we'd be on the fence as to the existence of meridians. It's just a very surefire way to establish that as far as contemporary science is concerned, they don't exist. If we wouldn't have that (and in a world less riddled with pseudoscience, we would indeed not), we would just be saying that modern science has abandoned the concept of meridians because it contradicts some of its basic precepts. Really now, what's wrong with "abandoned"? Have not modern (east-Asian and other) scientists abandoned that concept? Of course, practitioners of TCM have tried to co-opt and contextualize it, but outside of TCM (as I write), it has surely been abandoned?
Again, I'm fairly sure that someone who is familiar with the sources would be able to add proper references to my suggestion above. But I see now that it was perhaps too optimistic of me to think that an expert in the history of east-Asian philosophy and science would be around here (if they would, we would probably not be having this discussion, because the article would probably be in a better state than it is). But you seem to know quite a few things about it? I defended my own suggestion in the paragraph above, but the truth is that I care very little for it. My main –or even my only– point is that it should be easy to write something better than "Neither qi nor meridians exist.", which really does read a bit like "God does not exist.", and is, in the context in which it is said, just as meaningless and uninstructive. If you are not convinced by my proposal, or not entirely convinced, why don't you try to propose a piece of text? You're right that I should try better to assume good faith, but it's hard to deny that apart from my suggestion and your reactions to it, very little effort has been made to deal with this in a constructive way. I'm actually quite certain that you as well as some other editors here could come up with something better than what I wrote, if only to have a better piece of text would actually be what we all want. Thanks for your attention, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
strong focus on empirical research This is where the concepts that explain and the routinized observations of what happens when need to be disambiguated. Delving into the way in which people who believed in meridians may have observed what happens when is an interesting subject, but it does not have bearing on the subject of meridians as it is discussed in the context of shiatsu, for example. If we would like to draw an analogy here, when a modern proponent of alchemy leans into an explanation of matter in terms of the Aristotelian elements, it is misleading for us to say that the proponent is leaning on a long tradition of empiricism. The point is that there is a context when we are trying to explain what does or does not exist and the category that meridians/qi fall into is the category of claims that today we understand are not empirically founded. This is not to pass judgment on historical work, just to explain why they are not on our list of basic organ systems, e.g.
it becomes pseudoscience not when or because it is untrue, but when and because it comes into contact with better science and fails to acknowledge that. Arguable. The fact of the matter is that pseudoscience is not a well-defined term on purpose and, as you are no doubt aware, is generally a maligned category when talking about history/sociology/philosophy of knowledge. For the first two subjects, the reason for why this is stems from an choice of emphasis. If I want to describe sincerely held beliefs historically or sociologically, spending time on trying to decide the justification/truth-value of such beliefs is generally outside the context of the discussion. In terms of philosophy, because there is essentially an ongoing argument, we are stuck just describing the landscape of controversy. But the point here is that the article in question is about TCM as practiced. The context then is the modern medical and scientific understanding of the ideas. For better of worse, the dismissal of meridians/qi that happens in these contexts is indelicate. WP is in no position to change that situation. As much as it may seem to some that the statement "Meridians/qi do not exist" should not be WP:ASSERTed in WP voice, the fact is that the sources we have indicate that this is as much a fact as any number of other assertions of fact we include uncritically in our articles.
for our purposes, it should suffice that the result of it has been that the existence of meridians has in fact been investigated, and that these investigations have found no evidence for their existence. The problem is that while you appreciate the subtlety and art of how this has occurred, experience shows that many readers and interlocutors have a hard time coming to this conclusion when it is presented this way given the sources. This is exactly why Santa Claus is my go-to comparison. We do not have a source which describes the careful empirical investigation of Santa Claus. We do have sources which say Santa Claus does not exist in spite of that. This is much the same as meridians/qi. What we are trying to do here is not engage in the kind of analysis that would be required to argue that research was done without any research being done as it were.
Have not modern (east-Asian and other) scientists abandoned that concept? The connotations of "abandon" is that there was some active process of declaring, "hey, let's set this aside" when it was, contrariwise, a situation where meridians/qi were never considered in the context of modern medicine in the first place. We're dealing with implications of action here, but it is important considering the way people often think about how science or descriptions of empirical reality are generated. We don't want readers thinking that there was some sort of campaign to demarcate the reality of meridians/qi when there simply was not. Medical scientists didn't "abandon" meridians/qi. They just never used them in the context of modern medicine.
it should be easy to write something better than "Neither qi nor meridians exist.", which really does read a bit like "God does not exist.", and is, in the context in which it is said, just as meaningless and uninstructive. Of course, in the context of philosophy, an expansive deity such as "God" is a topic which means so many different things to so many different people that it begs the question. In contrast, the way meridians/qi get treated in an article on shiatsu, for example, is much less ambiguous. To the extent that this is something that matters to the discussion of shiatsu, we need to be clear that these claims are based on things which do not exist much the same way we would say that the claims of a modern-day proponent of miasma theory would be making claims on the basis of things which do not exist.
I'm actually quite certain that you as well as some other editors here could come up with something better than what I wrote This is typically done in the context of the talkpage, but I'll give it a shot:

The practice of shiatsu is based on the traditional Chinese concept of qi, a concept sometimes defined as an "energy flow", that is supposed to channel through certain pathways in the human body known as meridians and cause a variety of effects. In spite of many practitioners explaining shiatsu using these ideas, neither meridians nor qi exist as observable natural phenomena.

Seems wordy to me and perhaps overwrought.
jps (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Maybe a little wordy, but not unforgivably so; "defined as" suggests perhaps more formality than is warranted, versus, e.g., "described as". XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Jps, you write: The context then is the modern medical and scientific understanding of the ideas. For better or worse, the dismissal of meridians/qi that happens in these contexts is indelicate. Yes, if you ask medical experts and natural scientists about these ideas, the dismissal will be more often than not indelicate. If, however, you ask historians and sociologists of science, anthropologists, etc., that will be much less the case. Where I fundamentally disagree with you is that medical experts and natural scientists are the ones we should be asking. Medical experts and natural scientists rightly declare TCM to be outside of their field of investigation. It's not proper medicine or science, and so they don't study it or engage with it. But in most cases that also means that they are utterly ignorant about it. Those who study TCM from a properly scientific point of view are historians, sociologists and anthropologists. It is in these fields that TCM is expressly made into an object of study, and that in-depth knowledge about is collected. Sometimes these historians and sociologists also have medical degrees, sometimes they don't, but they always take contemporary medical science as a norm when it comes to evaluating efficacy and the like. They're the ones whose POV should be prominent in our articles on this subject, not medical experts who know that TCM is fringe and that it doesn't work, but either not much or nothing beyond that. I believe that much of our other disagreements flow from this fundamental one. As a historian of science, I can tell you that empirical foundation does not play the role you seem to think it plays in the historical development of scientific theories, and that your apparent view of modern science and medicine as having come into being ex nihilo (I'm very sorry for the caricature, but that's how it comes over to me) is utterly ahistorical. But those are quibbles that are not worth going into here. Though I do not agree with every detail of it, I very much endorse your proposal, and I'm just really glad you gave it a shot. I also agree with XOR'easter's suggestion of using "described as" rather than "defined as". Finally, I think it may benefit from some more copy-editing. I suggest the following merely as a stylistic update (if I change your meaning, please say so):

The practice of shiatsu is based on the traditional Chinese concept of qi, which is sometimes described as an "energy flow". This energy flow is supposed to be channeled through certain pathways in the human body, known as meridians, thus causing a variety of effects. Despite the fact that many practitioners use these ideas in explaining shiatsu, neither meridians nor qi exist as observable natural phenomena.

Of course, we also still need someone familiar with the sources to add references. PaleoNeonate, from the article's talk page I got the impression that you have been looking at some sources for this article; is this right? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, if we agree on the content, it hardly matters if we think we disagree on the way we got here. I will just say that I think you are wrong in declaring the relevant epistemic community for the study of TCM is completely in the domain of sociologists and historians. There are aspects of TCM which are properly studied by those experts, but the particular sentences and context we are talking about really are properly studied in the context of science and medicine as practiced. Respectfully, historians and sociologists of this subject will not comment on the fact that meridians are not found in anatomy textbooks. They will not deal with the fact that the claims that believers in qi make when treating patients fly in the face of basic physics/chemistry/biology. That's because it's not their epistemic place to do so. We have sources of scientists, medical doctors, and skeptics who identify these issues plainly and without much in the way of reliable rejoinders that I have seen. Nevertheless, as I'm fine with your edits, I'm not sure this disagreement actually matters much. jps (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah it's a really good thing to be able to agree to disagree. I have added sources to the proposal and put it up on the article's talk page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic banter
If I recall the cited source correctly, it says there's no scientific evidence that it will prevent or cure any disease. Saying there's no benefit goes beyond that. Several of the survey sources do discuss benefits. I'm certainly not saying we should claim there are benefits, either, but stating that there are not is too far to one side of NPOV. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Great. I wake up to find we've entered some parallel universe where Wikipedia editors propose content while admitting they haven't read the relevant sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I was just trying to be helpful by doing the wordsmithing. I have no reason to believe that anyone here will disagree with the content, and I think that it can be easily backed up by sources. Just thought that this could be done better by someone who has read the particular sources already cited in the article. This is a collaborative project after all. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
For fairness, someone please edit God to read "God does not exist." End all that pseudoscience once and for all! --Animalparty! (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
These topics are more like chiropractic subluxations than God (i.e. proposed as actual biophysical phenomena which are pivotal to medical treatment). Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought maybe we should actually discuss the topic at hand. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 06:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Pretty long, probably has dubious content. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that was a reduction of about 99%. Vast improvement. I would not have dared. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling: I tried looking for something, anything, to substantiate it. Needless to say, I failed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg‎

The IP does not want to accept it. What to do? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: You need to embrace the new (manual, since Twinkle is broken) format of RFPP :) Anyway, the issue has been dealt with for the short term future. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I had to look up WP:RFPP, and I had never heard of Twinkle. I am a rookie that way. Now watching Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase. Thanks! --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

New Fringe ad going round on YT

Word of warning that there is a new youtube ad from a site called ricasehaven going round claiming to show one trick that can cure all causes of vision loss with a "technique found by a nobel prize winner in stem cell research" from Harvard (along with other scientists working in the NHS University of Utah etc.) (that big pharma/opticians don't want you to know as usual with fringe quacks). So optic-related articles may or may not see some disruption. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

NOte: I also reported the ad to google as spreading dangerous info. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
And there are 2 more from a group called Gaia claiming to show "evidence" that UFOs, Ghosts and the Paranormal exist plus "evidence" that we are descended from aliens yada yada yada. So there may be some disruption on these articles. Reported to google. Also hosted by George Noory who hosted the Ancient Alien bull. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Do these sort of things actually generally make it to Wikipedia? I see those dumb ads about curing all sorts of stuff including vision loss all, the time mostly banner ads in various places all the time. I sort of assumed they're not the sort of stuff which makes it here thankfully. Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes they do if the ad reaches a certain percentage who then go to the websites/channels involved then come here, of the ones mentioned the Gaia one would be most likely to end up here given its Gaia, Inc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Update on Scott Wolter

He's now into ancient and modern aliens.[15] Mentioned or used as a source at Honey Island Swamp monster, Rockwall, Texas, America Unearthed, In Search of Aliens, Honey Island Swamp monster, AVM Runestone. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Brown Mountain lights

Several IPs around North Carolina aren't liking my recent re-write. Geogene (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert W. Malone

Morning all. Just to make people aware there is now an R W Malone article that will need some eyes on it (following on from prior discussions. BLP balancing issue, particularly with regards to very limited sourcing and likely fringe theories. Koncorde (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As transpired when this last came up, there seems to be some kind of patent trolling going on in the wider world. Thus I am concerned that (oddly) the articles contains a list of patents and there is currently apparently enthusiasm for using patents as sources. Alexbrn (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I had a variety of concerns over its existing content. I had stayed clear of editing because I think it's a hot mess. Just this one article alone has an absolute ton of red flags, but it is only used to establish his last working position. Also things like "Malone claims[5] to be the inventor of mRNA technology" when Malone himself is still promoting himself as "the inventor of mRNA Vaccines" (but I can see he has tempered that language following criticism except he's still saying it in the one main place - his own bio) makes me concerned we're almost whitewashing criticism by omitting actual issues in favour of revisionism by the subject. Koncorde (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
"I am concerned that (oddly) the articles contains a list of patents" Good grief, just delete the list of patents, then. Patents are routinely included in BLPs (see Dharam Ablashi, Harold Beverage, Tinius Olsen, Joseph Koenig, Virendra Kumar Tewari, Xuong Nguyen-Huu, Frans Michel Penning, and 10,000 other examples) as part of a MOS:LISTOFWORKS. I appreciate your work ensuring our articles about quacks represent the mainstream view, but your work is diminished when you reimagine routine style disagreements with other editors as elaborate conspiracies in which said editors are trying to help dubious physicians win patent lawsuits through a Wikipedia article. Chetsford (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
What "elaborate conspiracies"? Apart from the Malone corporate accounts we have (obviously) had editing, I don't think there are any. I'm simply concerned Wikipedia doesn't end up with a patent POV problem through being less than vigilant about sourcing and content. Citing patents with extensive quotations in support of unverified text saying his work led to vaccines, is a problem. As far as Wikipedia editors go, the problem may be more with Malone's fans buying the misinformation on social media and trying to boost his cred. We have had similar issues at (say) Deepak Chopra with fans trying to include a full bibliography. Alexbrn (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
What "elaborate conspiracies"? I have no clue. Across WP Talk pages you keep alluding to a grand scheme of patent trolling you seem to imply is being aided by what you believe to be "oddly" appearing MOS:LISTOFWORKS in articles. "Citing patents with extensive quotations in support of unverified text saying his work led to vaccines, is a problem." So that I understand better, do you have any examples of that occurring in this article? Or is this something you're afraid will happen in the future? (No doubt, Malone is trying to influence his article but it's all very hammer and nail stuff, like putting out a Tweet. While I question that there's any wild plots afoot being secretly masterminded by Malone, I haven't followed this closely, so please correct me if I'm wrong and you can provide evidence to support your claims.) Chetsford (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
What "wild plots"? More mundanely, there has been obvious UPE on this article in the past, and the patent trolling (in the real world, not Wikipedia) is something that was raised - not by me - last time Malone was discussed on this noticeboard. I am concerned when we cite any source using what appears to be a non-existent quotation in a quote parameter, as here. Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
What "wild plots"? That's what I'm asking you. You keep alleging that lists of works are - in your words - "oddly" appearing in articles and this is part of some "real world" patent scheme. Do you have any evidence these "odd" edits are part of this scheme or is this, more likely, probably just a routine manual of style disagreement between you and another editor? "I am concerned when we cite any source using what appears to be a non-existent quotation in a quote parameter, as here." This isn't a diff to Robert W. Malone. Are you certain you're in the correct thread? Chetsford (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I can add to what I have already said about your ideas of "elaborate conspiracies" or "wild plots". Malone-related editing has been at several articles, not just Robert W. Malone. Alexbrn (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Understood. I won't ask again, then. I do believe, however, you'll find there is usually more reasonable explanations to most of what occurs on Wikipedia, such as routine edit disagreements and that what you may perceive to be "odd" patterns is usually rather pedestrian. But you are free to believe what you like, of course. Chetsford (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, this should definitely be closely watched. When I created the article I didn't anticipate Malone issuing a call via his Twitter account for his fans to flock to it so, now that's occurred, it should be monitored closely. Chetsford (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
It had to be said that your repeated addition of a questionable source (a MDPI journal), in a way which appears to fail WP:V, is something that most certainly needs close watching. Alexbrn (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
You'll need to either provide a diff where I've added an MDPI journal to this article or retract your statement. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
It was to the RNA Vaccine article, in relation to Malone's work (see above for diff). Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
So it wasn't in this article then? And, according to the diff, Malone wasn't actually mentioned in the text? And per the source, this entire separate matter you're grafting on here is actually about Jon A. Wolff? Please be more careful and exercise greater deliberation and diligence when you make accusations against other editors. This isn't a race. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
It's obviously not the same article (as I said), so why ask? The diff'd edit's locus is the initial mRNA work in a paper of which Malone was second author, so has been repeatedly raised wrt Malone. My gently worded suspicion (not accusation) was that this particular edit failed WP:V and/or contained a made-up "quote". Maybe I got something wrong again, am misreading the article, search is failing on my browser, or there's a mismatch between the PDF/HTML versions of the article, or .... whatever. Up to a point, it's best to WP:AGF. You're the one making the edit. Did you get it wrong? Am I wrong, or what? What's important here is that Wikipedia is not left with unverified/wrong text unduly boosting Malone's involvement in vaccine development. Alexbrn (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay. Chetsford (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Generic object of dark energy

Generic object of dark energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neologism for a fringe physics concept which I've brought to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generic object of dark energy. Aside from that, there are concerns that it's too similar to Dark-energy star and Gravastar. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing there is such a concentrated example of how not to reference a science article that I almost think it should be preserved under humidity control. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Dhyanyogi Madhusudandas

Dhyanyogi Madhusudandas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A striking amount of credulity in this article including claims of yogic powers, miracles, and supercentenarian status. jps (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Economics in One Lesson

I've raised the issue of sources in Economics in One Lesson at WP:RSN#Are these reliable sources for a statement an IP has been adding at Economics in One Lesson on the basis it is heavily sourced from the Mises Institute that we've discussed here. There's also a big NPOV problem IMHO. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis and Category:Pseudoscience

Editors here may be interested in weighing in at Talk:Psychoanalysis#Request for Comment. The question raised is, "Should Psychoanalysis be included in Category:Pseudoscience?" Crossroads -talk- 23:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The Vision of the Anointed

Isn't this fringe? The lead says "The title of book refers to the current situation of the United States and much of the Western world wherein the vision of the intelligentsia so predominates over all other visions that it constitutes the prevailing vision and it is one that differs from the views of most other people." Also mainly self-referenced with the last ref not backing the text. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure the book itself is fringe per se, but the article definitely needs a good deal of work. I'll see if I can't find a copy to confirm and perhaps dig in a bit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think it's WP:FRINGE, but it's ironic as hell, being written by Thomas Sowell. The amount of projection in the description given at the article space is enough to make me think it's already been adapted to film and distributed worldwide.
The final citation is to a blog by Ben Casnocha, which fails WP:BLOG, as Casnocha is an entrepreneur and author (about entrepreneurship), not a philosopher, psychologist, psychiatrist, or even an economist (note that I emphatically believe that the latter doesn't qualify one to opine with any authority on the subject of this book).
But even if we accept that Casnocha is notable enough to justify documenting his views, that blog entry nowhere even mentions this book.
I'm searching for sources on this book now. If I don't find enough, I plan to AfD it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Found via JSTOR: Sowell's method is to jeer at his ideological adversaries. But sarcasm and sniping are no substitute for serious analysis. One would never know from his book that there is an enormous body of scholarship, based on solid research, dealing with all of the issues that Sowell flits over with such disdain. At every turn he misrepresents and trivializes the positions that he wishes to debunk, instead of setting forth these positions in depth and detail and engaging in honest debate. The result is a frivolous book that may titillate Sowell's constituents on the right but will have no significant impact on intellectual discourse. Steinberg, Stephen (1995). "No compassion for the wretched". The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. 10: 109–110. doi:10.2307/2962781. JSTOR 2962781. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) An interesting similarity with Scott Wolter's subsection above is that both are attempts by the narrative-inclined to dismiss what conflicts with their views as also being only narratives and nefariously motivated, rather than informed (not by aliens here of course, but, "intelligentsia") and it recalls claims of "dogmatic" science, etc... —PaleoNeonate – 17:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I've found some reviews in Kirkus and The Independent Review. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
When I read that Sowell brands the anointed as promoters of a worldview concocted out of fantasy impervious to any real-world considerations, I immediately thought of climate change deniers, such as Sowell. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Wait, What? You can't possibly be implying that a magna cum laude Harvard graduate with a PhD who's spent the past 60 years working in academia and regularly rails against the academic elites would be some sort of hypocrite!
I'm shocked. Scandalized, I tell you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Pumapunku fringe claims about polymer

Discussed briefly and recently by User:Paul H. and User:LaundryPizza03.[16] Seems clearly UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sad to say, but I have reached the point where any claim about Pumapunku (as contrasted to Tiwanaku more generally) sets off my nonsense alarms. Will try to keep a watch. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
The publications about the geopolymers and Tiwanaku invariably are primary sources with the same lead author, Joseph Davidovits, a French concrete chemist, and appear in engineering conferences and journals. A similar proposal by the same author that some of the pyramids and temples of Old Kingdom in Egypt are composed of geopolymers has been strongly disputed by mainstream geologists and archaeologists, which the author accuses of practicing pseudoscience as in Deep Misleading Publications by Geologists . Joseph Davidovits has been arguing since 1974 that the pyramids and temples of the Old Kingdom were built of geopolymer poured into molds without getting any support among mainstream archaeologists. His ideas about Pumapunku are relatively recent. Paul H. (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 treatments (current consensus)

Hi all. I recently created a consensus template on COVID-19 treatments, because I (and many others) have become frustrated at the endlessly repetitive discussions on relevant talk pages. See, for example: Talk:Bret Weinstein, Talk:Ivermectin, Talk:Didier Raoult, Talk:Pierre Kory, Talk:Hydroxychloroquine. My hope is that writing all of this down in a template could be helpful as a place to direct new and inexperienced users who have repeatedly come to these talk pages to push a POV. Much like it has worked for Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus), Talk:Donald Trump, Talk:Joe Biden#Current consensus, Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. (credit to ProcrastinatingReader on those prior templates).

However, I would appreciate your feedback. Overall, of course, but also on the following specific issues:

  1. Too long? I'm an academic and I'm verbose as hell. They teach us to be this way in graduate and medical school. :) Help me trim the fat.
  2. Represents actual consensus? I want it to be rock solid so please steel-man my claims. These templates only work if they are pretty indefensible. Of course nothing is 100%, and bad faith editors will disagree no matter what... but I appreciate criticism on this nonetheless.
  3. What else should be included here? I'm sure there are other topics I'm missing, like maybe Vitamin D? ...Forsythia? (kidding, kidding)
  4. Which articles would this be good to include on? So far, I'm thinking Talk:Ivermectin, Talk:Hydroxychloroquine, Talk:Bret Weinstein, Talk:Didier Raoult, Talk:Pierre Kory. Any other suggestions?

Thank you for any help you can provide.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Take care as to not push a point of view but to focus on the processes that determine what is a quality source. MarshallKe (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Transubstantiation - does sacramental bread transform into the body of Christ?

This 2019 study indicates that 31% of Catholics in the United States still believe in Transubstantiation, the idea that the sacramental bread and wine physically transform into the body and blood of Jesus when they are consecrated during Holy Communion. Since this is an objectively measurable claim, two PhD scientists performed this experiment and found that the wheat DNA had not transformed into human DNA after consecration. Can this study be integrated into any of these articles in a way consistent with Wikipedia policy? MarshallKe (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "Raelian scientists" are reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I think if you're looking for an RS to be able to say that sacramental bread doesn't actually transubstantiate into the flesh of a 2000-year-dead religious figure, then you might be kinda missing the point of WP:RS.
I mean, this isn't even on a level of obviousness that we don't even need to cite a source to say it, but on a level of obvious so much greater that we don't even need to say it. I mean, when more than two thirds of Catholics don't even believe it, I don't think we really need to set the record straight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Is there really a credible program of investigation that claims the bread does physically transform? I assume not. So then can't we just say that it is an article of faith, leave it implied that nobody believes it is literally magical cannibalism, and move on? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Power: Indeed, this reminds me of Chrism, Vibhuti, etc. Rituals and religious doctrines that can be described as such, of course if a guru is controversial for faking materializations (i.e. regurgitating lingams or levitation and blind reading claims), there could be a mention if it's been criticized in decent sources... —PaleoNeonate – 22:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, as it exists now the transubstantiation article makes no direct claims as to physical transformation, let alone one involving DNA. Rather it's being referred to explicitly as a mystery, with no direct claim on the manner of transformation. I'd suggest we would need to verifiably source and clearly state that this is a claim being made (either by the church or by lay people who need a theology refresher, not isolated to Catholics) before 'debunking' it. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
There are a lot of Catholics. I would posit that the belief in transubstantiation is on similar or greater level than the belief in crystal healing. Yet, we are not afraid to put in that article the word "pseudoscientific" in the lede and include a large section on the mainstream scientific viewpoint. Is there really any difference? MarshallKe (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
[17] - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
They were somewhat popular in my area at some point, to MarshallKe: it also depends on what reliable sources say on the topic. Similar is the distinction of superstition and other religious beliefs, that even when closely related, are generally treated differently by sources for claims of large religions. —PaleoNeonate – 22:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The Catholic Church, having had to deal with the sneering empiricists for as long as they've been organized, have become rather clever in avoiding claims that can be empirically debunked. But there are still some claims which suffer from empirical critique. Shroud of Turin comes to mind. jps (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, transubstantiation dogma does not claim that genetic material is altered. I believe the dogma claims that the accidents of the host remain the same while the substance changes which is, conveniently, not something that can be empirically tested. jps (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, that would seem to make sense, since there seems to be no problem with the fact that the sacramental wafer doesn't turn all chewy and taste like chicken MarshallKe (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Catholic theologians spend a lot of time with hylomorphism to justify transubstantiation. They are profoundly anti-materialist when it comes to this stuff. jps (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
jps, I just want to briefly chime in to say that transubstantiation according to the catechism is actually that the whole substance is transformed; doctrinally, the bread becomes body and the wine becomes blood. That is, every eucharist is a miracle. The position you describe is much closer to consubstantiation, which has been specifically rejected by the Catholic Church as a heresy. Please note, I am not advocating the reality of this, merely noting Catholic dogma. I think "profoundly anti-materialist" is a good summation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I believe that consubstantiation is the position that the substance of the "eucharistic species" remains after consecration. I was not trying to imply that. Accident is not substance, according to the Catholics I know who defend their belief. jps (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
You've sent me down quite a rabbit hole here! There is a wider variance here than I thought. Serves me right for seeking coherence. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This is sophisticated theology. You are not allowed to be an atheist unless you understand all the details of all the possibilities and can tell the correct one from all the heresies, because of the Courtier's reply. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Can confirm. I was sent off to get my PhD in Theology the day after I signed up for the Atheist Secular Society. They've got a whole department, the Holistic Organization for Liberal Education designed to ensure that only those with the highest level of knowledge can be atheists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
You joke, but eons ago I took many religion courses in college because that's where the languages I wanted to study happened to be categorized. When I went abroad for my junior year, the receiving institution misunderstood this, and put me in a "practical theology" seminar. Literally, how to minister to a flock. That was the weirdest week of my life thus far. Dumuzid (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I bet it was, though to be fair, I'd love to actually audit a few practical theology courses. It's one part of religion I never got any direct insight into. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This is reductive, but is not meant to be disrespectful in any way--from the three classes I attended, it seemed like half of it was "how do I educate the laity?" and the other half was "how do I deal with an educated laity?" I would have liked to get to some actual pastoral care (comforting grieving people, for instance), but I fear I did not have the patience required. Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense. It's a shame that the "good stuff" as it were would have to come so late in the course, but that seems to be a common (and well-justified) motif in education. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable source (or ecumenical statement) claiming that the Catholic Church believes that Communion wine ceases to be an aqueous solution of alcohol, phenolic compounds and congeners, and becomes an albumin suspension of lymphocytes, erythrocytes, thrombocytes, hormones and ions. This is likely because it doesn't appear to; debunking is difficult when there's no bunk. jp×g 03:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You would need a secondary source that explains the relevance of the study. Some writers for example might consider that the results disprove transubstantiation, while others may argue it does not. Adding the study without commentary in secondary sources implies that the belief is false without explaining how believers would react to it. TFD (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Right, I mean -- people know what meat tastes like, and they know what communion wafers taste like, so my guess is that they would respond by saying "well, no shit, Sherlock". I can't go personally ask everyone who responded to the survey, but it seems most parsimonious to conclude that the 31% saying a goofy-sounding thing mean it in the doctrinally consistent metaphysical sense. Of course, some people on this world of ours are just very goofy, but this is true of anything -- I don't think this would be a significant revelation to any actual clergy, for example. jp×g 13:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Not usable as a source, I guess: [18] --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Using the scientific method to empirically disprove miracles is rather a pointless endevour. As faith and belief are subject to reason and argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait, they are? Great! I'm gonna go convert my fundie family members to Pastafarianism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Just think of all the science one could do with a sample of JC's blood! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The water-to-wine possibilities are endless! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Obviously, as MPants full well knows my general views on religion and pseudoscience, the key word 'not' was omitted from my previous statement.... I will leave it absent as a rebuke to myself for not checking before I leave a discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, for the sake of the record, I never doubted that you accidentally omitted the word "not" from that. It happens, and is no big deal. But it's great fodder for banter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Why do we need to, do anr RS say it does? This is about a blue sky as it gets.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The whole point of transubstantiation or any other communion theory is that the bread and wine are not observably different, so it's completely uninteresting that scientific investigation doesn't show a change. Mangoe (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Many philosophical theories draw a distinction between the phenomenal world (what we can sense, measure and predict) and the real world which is beyond human experience. The arguments I see follow positivist philosophy which is that anything that exists can be observed. This is not like the Shroud of Turin claim, which is subject to empirical review. TFD (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
There's a discussion at VPP (a subsection of a larger discussion about pseudoscience) which touched on this, and I'll paraphrase what I said there:
I don't have any problem with us not making any statement whatsoever about the truth or falsehood of the belief in transubstantiation. It's entirely a religious belief, and not only isn't possible to subject to empirical testing, the result of doing so would be nothing more nor less than pointlessly antagonizing people who hold that belief. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
If we're applying the same standards we apply to a non-Abrahamic religion then we should be referring to transubstantiation as "pseudoscience" because there's no scientific evidence for it. My actual opinion though is that this discussion is based on a flawed understanding of what transubstantion purports to be. I'll point to 283 of the official catechism of the Catholic Church [19] which reads:
"Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the “eucharistic species”, remain unaltered."
"Transubstantiation" claims to be a change in the substance of what a thing is and doesn't require any of the properties of the bread to have changed. Thomas Aquinas wrote a lot about this [20], his position being that the eucharist have the "accidental" properties of bread/wine (meaning the physical aspects haven't changed) and what's different are the substantial/essential properties. So while the eucharist may look like bread, taste like bread, and have the same chemical properties as bread, it is not bread (according to the Catholic Church). According to Catholic Church theologicians, what's changed is something that can't be tested by science.
I also doubt that if this study actually did found human DNA that the Raelians would publish it; nor does it seem like this study underwent appropriate peer review. The "ethical concerns" section of the paper certainly leaves a lot to be desired. The study also presupposes that Jesus DNA would necessarily be human DNA (perhaps his body has bread DNA and his blood has grape DNA; Christians do claim that he is God) or that Jesus has DNA at all. Until they grab a DNA sample of Jesus for comparison, perhaps from the Lance of Longinus (blood) or the Holy Prepuce (body), this assumption seems unfounded. So even from a purely scientific perspective this doesn't seem like a good source for the claims its making (that Jesus DNA is not present in the Eucharist). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Religion is not science, and, I agree with Chess, it explicitly makes claims which are not scientifically testable anyway. We don't need to insult the intelligence of our readers by telling them what is obvious, even less so when it is based on a dubious sources. We don't even need to label it as pseudoscience, because it is not even claiming to be science. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: I agree that the source is bad, no qualms there. But considering that the article for Finger contains a statement "normally humans have five digits", and I could come up with a hundred more examples. There is plenty of precedent for stating obvious but notable things. If "humans have five digits" doesn't violate WP:BLUE, "there is no scientific evidence for transubstantiation" certainly doesn't. I'm less interested in the proposed edit at this point and more interested in whether you would remove the statement from the Finger article. MarshallKe (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
There's no scientific evidence because it isn't a scientific claim. There's no scientific evidence that murder is wrong either. As explained above, the claim is that the substance changes, but the essence remains the same. But science is only concerned with essence. TFD (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
There's some evidence in biology of natural empathy being useful to reduce harm during animal interactions, some social sciences can argue about golden rules and historians about the importance of new law codes when large post-agricultural settlements needed order (so crime may not be the best example) but I otherwise generally agree... —PaleoNeonate – 02:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
No, Canadian has a point. Science might be able to show that empathy reduces harm, but it can't show that harm or killing is wrong, which is the keyword here. They're demonstrating one of the things that is fundamentally outside of science MarshallKe (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: The claims don't even seem to be contrary. They're orthogonal. The skeptics say "the bread and wine don't have human DNA when sanctified", and the church says "we never claimed they did". If we're going to cover this, it's going to have to explain the church's official position, the misinterpretations by members, and then the scientific debunking of the misinterpretation. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@MarshallKe: Giving that the article on fingers is understandably anthropocentric, that isn't particularly surprising, and describing the main subject of the article (which are human fingers, given they get the lion's share of the coverage) accurately [even if it might be a bit "sky is blue"] certainly seems warranted: the same way an article on the colour of the sky would likely say "A clear sky is normally blue". Also, WP:NOTBLUE and WP:BLUE are about citations, not about making such statements, so usage of these essays here seems misguided. While we should avoid platitudes, that doesn't mean we can't say the obvious, or that we should avoid stating well known facts. That "Charles Darwin [is] best known for his contributions to the science of evolution" is a well known fact: doesn't prevent us from saying that. WP:BLUE is about not needing to give a citation for something like "The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its exact value is defined as 299792458 metres per second" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I think what it means is that if a source says someone wore a sky-colored shirt we can say they wore a blue shirt without being accused of synthesis. The statement that humans normally have five digits is in fact sourced, which it should be. But if a source says that lemurs have the same number of digits on their feet as humans, we could say that they have five digits on each foot because it is common knowledge that humans have five digits on each foot. Or if a source says that Boris Johnson lives at 10 Downing St., we can say he lives in the UK, since it is common knowledge that No. 10 is in the UK. TFD (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course the wheat DNA would not transformed into human DNA after consecration. This is so obvious it does not deserve an experiment to be mentioned on the page. The ritual is a pure religious symbolism, just like an art performance in a theater. This simply is not a scientific claim, it does not need a rebuttal.My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Brian J. Ford

This is what Brian J. Ford actually believes

As far as I can tell, Brian J. Ford is best known for his claims that all large dinosaurs were "too big to walk" and therefore were obligately aquatic, ideas that haven't been taken seriously for over half a century. The relevant section needs signficant cleanup. It's also not clear if Brian J. Ford is actually notable for anything else, and the article itself is a total mess. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Pythagorean_triple#Si.427

An RfC has been opened here that may be of interest. XOR'easter (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Cliff Ollier

When doing an insource search insource:"principia-scientific.org" I noticed this article that appears to have received little attention since its creation. A Skeptical Science article. Input welcome, on if notable enough, and to find more independent sources to improve the article, —PaleoNeonate – 23:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  • The notability case looks rather iffy. The GS citation profile starts strong but drops quickly (manually adding up the figures, I get an h-index of about 12, compared to co-authors with 29, 33, 45, and 49). Only one of his books (the co-authored Regolith, Soils and Landforms) is coming up with more than a single review on JSTOR. I'd want multiple books with multiple reviews apiece before declaring a comfortable pass of WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Communist Party of Cuba

Their is no dispute in the reliable sources that the party leads a single-party authoritarian state, but a small cadre of users have been edit-warring to remove text (cited to peer-review academic publications) as to that fact, and to add in some unsourced material to boot. A number of deceptive edit summaries as well. More eyeballs greatly welcomed. Neutralitytalk 15:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Steve Kirsch, COVID-19, mRNA vaccine inventors, spike proteins, etc.

There is currently a discussion at WP:COIN#Steve Kirsch about this article. Some of the likely COI-tainted editing has been WP:FRINGE related (e.g.[21]) so more eyes from fringe-savvy editors may help. Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Trojan Horse discovered, not

This is being claimed in sources such as the Jerusalem Post.[22]

It's copied from a 2014 article. Some articles need watching.

See [23] and World News Daily Report. Why the media is falling for this I have no idea. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The WNDR (parody site) link didn't work for me but I could find it from archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20170111204428/http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/turkey-archaeologists-discover-remains-of-trojan-horse/ (2017 archive with comment from 2015 on that post) —PaleoNeonate – 22:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Ritual murder

Started out as a redirect to Human sacrifice, then IPs turned it into an own article, and now it is toggling. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

This probably isn't appropriate for this noticeboard. MarshallKe (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The relevance is related to the moral panic and perennial exaggerations surrounding the topic. —PaleoNeonate – 21:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Edward Dutton (author)

Edward Dutton about a month ago put an advert on his social media accounts telling people to edit his Wikipedia page because it cites biased left-wing sources that he wants removed. There seems to be some repeated white-washing attempts to remove certain sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide archived links to the notices? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
A eugenicist canvasing off-wiki, you say? Sounds like a case for page protection (especially if there's evidence of canvasing). Bakkster Man (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
There's this discussion from a while back on the Talk page. More recently (three days ago), he declared the official end of Wikipedia as a reliable source because we have the temerity to call "Caucasian" an obsolete racial classification of human beings based on a now-disproven theory of biological race. He's also approvingly shared the attention-seeking whinges of Larry Sanger. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The article Coleoidea proposes that cephalopods are space aliens.

I tried to remove this insanity, but because the crank got the "hypothesis" published in a journal of disrepute, I got reverted. talk:coleoidea has the details.

2601:643:C002:2830:10B6:F2D8:E2EF:D6B5 (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it, which there seems to be agreement is appropriate on the talk page. The paper cited for the claims[1] is totally bonkers. It also happens to be published in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, an Elsevier journal. It clearly shows that even non-predatory publishers are not always reliable sources, and will publish fringe material occasionally. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Utter nonsense article, as soon as you the names of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe together on an astrobiology paper, you've run into a nutter's house. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I note the paper has some serious author crossover with the paper that proposed that SARS-CoV-2 arrived via meteor.[2], also published in an Elsevier journal. Seems like a hammer and nail sort of mentality. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Hah, nonsense but entertaining, thanks for that, —PaleoNeonate – 06:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
So not only must those complex molecules be stable enough and preserved despite all the extreme conditions of space (SARS-CoV-2 doesn't live long even in Earthly atmospheric conditions), but there must be large enough mammal colonies in space for them to have already evolved to become compatible enough and potentially a threat (hey, the ones we know of are right here, on Earth, with some known to be natural reservoirs)... I had to check if it was released on April 1st, but no. —PaleoNeonate – 07:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should consider expanding the list of unreliable sources at WP:RSP to include individual people as well as publications. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's necessary, considering that most sources will be primary already... If not at RSP, WP:SKEPTIC also has a list of material promoting pseudoscience, it could be another place for less formal notes (BLP may still be a problem with such lists though, so citations would be needed)... —PaleoNeonate – 21:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Panspermia

As I was looking at Wikipedia's coverage of Panspermia more generally (both of the above mentioned papers are by noted panspermia proponents), I don't think our article on the topic emphasises enough the fringe nature of the claims and their supporters. I've managed to find a book explicitly calling it a "fringe theory" and added to the lead, though ideally the whole article needs a rework. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It really is very fringe. It seems less fringe than it is due to some sympathetic media coverage, and some supportive comments by celebrity scientists, but as we know news media is not a reliable source for scientific claims. Panspermia is primarily pushed by a small group of fringe researchers, who have been referred to by PZ Myers as the "Panspermia Mafia", most prominently Chandra Wickramasinghe, who was one of the initial creators of the theory in the 1970s. Wickramasinghe made some extremely fringe claims, including that the 1917 flu pandemic (as well as the original 2003 SARS, and more recently COVID-19, see the paper mentioned above) originated from outer space, see Chandra_Wickramasinghe#Extraterrestrial_pathogens as Myers notes, the cephalopod paper above is essentially a roll call of the Panspermia Mafia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Most of the other articles I see on panspermia discuss generic microbial spread, like these ones, not specific organisms which is much less plausible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Even for microrganisms, it is extremely implausible. No readable dna is known to survive beyond a few million years or so even in permafrost on earth, so the idea that microorganisms on interstellar asteroids could survive for millions of years in the harsh conditions of interstellar space, let alone the extreme conditions of reentry, is essentially impossible. I would note that the author of the first papers appear to be physicists and not biologists, and the author of the second paper, Avi Loeb, is also known for his fringe claim that interstellar asteroid ʻOumuamua is an alien spacecraft, so his views on panspermia should not be considered a mainstream view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The best summary of mainstream viewpoint on panspermia would be something a bit like this. Is panspermia theoretically possible? Yes, there is a remote possibility that early solar system comets brought basic building blocks of life on earth (e.g. amino acids and the like). It's extremely fringe, given we've got all the ingredients already here on earth, with plenty of mechanisms to turn them into the building blocks of life, without the need to bring in space things. Panspermia just shifts the problem of the origin of life to a different planet, which somehow explodes without instantly destroying life/building blocks, which would then travel for millions of years in the inhospitable environment of space, and in a freak coincidence lands on Earth).

Anything more than basic building blocks arriving on earth, like full living organism, like bacteria, mushrooms, cephalopods, etc. is full on time cube nutter territory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, after reading more about it what I see is motivated arguments for directed evolution, so my previous point about why it's implausible wasn't specific enough. This appears to be motivated reasoning, with the suggestion that much of what biology considers to be natural adaptation and evolution, would instead be the result of long-term interference, directed by an external intelligence who designs and ensures the regular delivery of biological agents... —PaleoNeonate – 21:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Fred Hoyle and Junkyard tornado also belong to this subject. Hoyle's bad reasoning was an inspiration to Creationists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins have both supported panspermia. I always thought it was nonsense for the reasons given above, but if famous scientists have supported it then it becomes more difficult to label it "fringe" in Wikipedia's voice. GBRV (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No it doesn't. How have they "supported" it? Actually, when I search for "dawkins panspermia", the first hit says, Apparently I'm accused of advocating panspermia. Confused with Fred Hoyle? How did that start? Doing the same for Hawking, I found the Daily Mail (lol), something called creation.com and something called panspermia.org.
Even if they had supported it - Francis Crick actually did - science does not consist of opinions of scientists but of results of studies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
It's original research on my part but a possible reason may be a comment during a public conversation with deGrasse Tyson where Dawkins replied that a biologist's assessment of a particular meteor's features (that it's impossible for it to be life based on the size of the cavities) was probably hasty.[3] This was casual and the comment was not an analysis of the rock in question or a statement that panspermia is likely. In the case of this particular rock, it would also have been a microscopic early life form if any. I don't think it was confirmed to be anything else than interesting so far. Finally, Dawkins often taught about evolutionary processes like natural selection, that are understood to have happened here, I would be very surprised if he concurrently believed that multicellular life or complex molecules already adapted to life here (like a virus) would come from space. I'm not sure if GBRV implied this but I include it for completeness, since it's part of this thread. This friendly dialogue also mentions the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but without extraordinary claims. Adding a Dawkins quote about life in the universe from that video: "My hunch is that it is everywhere [...] but because the universe is so vast, the islands of life that there are, are so spaced out, that it's unlikely that any one of them will ever meet any other". —PaleoNeonate – 12:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
When a nutty statement about biology comes from a physicist, you've found a physicist who doesn't know biology, not a reason to believe in it. As for Hawking specifically, well, the lecture which I've seen described as him endorsing panspermia (e.g., here) actually rejects it: We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth. XOR'easter (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Right now, Wikipedia's article on Panspermia says that Stephen Hawking gave the opinion that "Life could spread from planet to planet or from stellar system to stellar system, carried on meteors." If this is false then it needs to be changed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GBRV (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Removed, because encyclopedia articles on scientific subjects should be based on the scientific literature, not offhand comments reported in student newspapers. XOR'easter (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ "Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?". Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. 136: 3–23. 2018-08-01. doi:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.03.004. ISSN 0079-6107.
  2. ^ Steele, Edward J.; Gorczynski, Reginald M.; Lindley, Robyn A.; Tokoro, Gensuke; Temple, Robert; Wickramasinghe, N. Chandra (2020). "Origin of new emergent Coronavirus and Candida fungal diseases—Terrestrial or cosmic?". Advances in Genetics. 106: 75–100. doi:10.1016/bs.adgen.2020.04.002. ISSN 0065-2660. PMC 7358766. PMID 33081928.
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ — The Poetry of Science: Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson

Is Devra Davis a "conspiracy theorist"?

Editors may wish to weigh in on whether Devra Davis, is a "Conspiracy Theorist"? We are struggling to find an appropriate category. Do we have a category for people who promote fringe theories? Please join in the discussion on the talk page.

This scientist was once an epidemiologist employed by the US Government. She is now known for entirely unrelated achievements. She is the founder of a think tank that promotes the idea that Wifi, 5G and other radio systems are a major cause of diseases as diverse as infertility and cancer. There's no doubt that these are her views, the question is whether these views amount to a conspiracy theory or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The 5G and related claims are blatantly false, and should be put in that context, rather than that they are "disputed". No opinion on the conspiracy theorist, label, though to be called that reliable sources should have labelled her as such. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Is there a more appropriate category that "conspiracy theorist" which means "fringe theory promoter"? This could be somebody whose belief flirts with conspiracism but doesn't quite reach that level? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I would limit its use to people like David Icke and Alex Jones who hold and promote a conspiratorial view of the society in general. Since categories are navigation devices, inclusion of Davis is unhelpful to readers. They are not likely to be looking for articles about people like Jones after reading the Davis article and vice versa. TFD (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, yes I'm convinced that the previous categories were incorrect. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinus Thomsen achieved permanent "cosmic consciousness"

At least that's what Wikipedia claimed until a minute ago. The article Martinus Thomsen has been rewritten and expanded by a single user in the last two months, and several claims of Martinus are treated as facts. I fixed that statement in the lead but I wonder if the old article version was better. --mfb (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted to the old version. Too much text is uncited for it to be useful, it may as well have been half WP:OR, and half cited to things Martinus wrote himself, rather than secondary analysis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
For anyone who actually wants to write a proper article on Martinus, theres an entire chapter on him in Western Esotericism in Scandinavia, without having to rely on primary sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I've RX'ed that and another chapter on Martinus. The problem with that users edits is he was relying on primary religious documents and books by religious believers, when for new religious figures like Martinus we should be relying on secondary academic studes by scholars of new religions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Made some effort to expand the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Malone redux

Came across this piece on Robert W. Malone and Michael Yeadon, which seems knowledge-ful. I've not come across logically.ai before and and first glance it looks reputable, and possible useful for fringe topics. Anybody know more about them? Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

New piece on Malone in The Atlantic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Adrian David Cheok

Adrian David Cheok (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Adrian David Cheok seems to be the latest article affected by COVID-19 lab leak pre-print-itis. It's an article which has had problems with a persistent sock for a long while so I fear it may continue. Especially since it was co-written with Li-Meng Yan. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

If there is no secondary coverage then it's undue. Plenty of people have made their punt on this topic and for most of them it's not a notable enough fact to include in their biography. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
(EC) BTW as a heads up, it looks like the article could be due for publication in the Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology. Although I have no idea what an early view is with that journal and not interested in researching, it seems to suggest the paper could still be removed, so who knows? So perhaps reasonable chance this may make it to the Li-Meng Yan article eventually and maybe other less direct articles. I assume even if someone tries to add it to one of the main articles it'll quickly be reverted, so they probably aren't so much of a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Me, checking his credentials: Yup, this is peak COVID-pre-print-itis. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
"Global Journals" looks to be a predatory publisher [25]. We can pretty safely assume that no meaningful review goes on over there. XOR'easter (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2

This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Justice, Awareness and Basic Support

JABS, the group that hired Andrew Wakefield to do his fraud thing, back then. New article, can probably use more eyes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah JABS, an old adversary, from before my time here!! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine

There is now a discussion about the above at WP:RSN#Science-Based Medicine. Your participation is welcome. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion is heating up at the moment. I do not know enough about the intricacies of self-published sources to contribute. If SBM is categorized as an SPS, lots of critical stuff needs to be removed from articles about quacks, which means that the FRINGE stuff it was critical of also needs to be deleted if there is no counter to it anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I suspect that if SBM goes, we won't just have to remove content from articles, but in some cases, delete them entirely. (Also, it seems like more and more of what I do here is trying to keep total nonsense out of the encyclopedia, a task that grows more important as it becomes less enjoyable. Anyone else have that "I could have sworn I used to write articles" feeling?) XOR'easter (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it's worth remembering, RSN is about the general nature of the source, rather than an exclusionary or automatic evaluation of the reliability across the project. It can be generally reliable but unreliable for some uses, and generally unreliable but reliable for other uses.
Most of the time I've seen SBM used, it was as a WP:PARITY source critiquing fringe ideas that more reliable sources wouldn't touch. When used for that purpose, even a 'generally unreliable' SBM that couldn't be used as a standalone claim, would still likely be usable to provide the skeptical view opposite a fringe source that's similarly unreliable. Specifically, if SBM is considered self-pub, then it can still be used to debunk self-pub nonsense. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
If it were designated self-published, there would be a drive to remove it from BLPs, leaving biographies of fringe figures either light on criticism or potentially without enough reliable sources to warrant existing. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion still seems to be going on, but I won't have time to say much, it looks like. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Chantern15

Chantern15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A new user is forum-shopping ideas from predatory journals regarding ufology and ancient astronauts. They were only contacted with a welcome while I was writing this notice. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI, Chantern15 is continuing this behavior as 106.215.127.75 (e.g., here and here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Can't blame them for thinking Project Grudge was a conspiracy to cover up The Truth, since our article takes that point of view and is cited entirely to ufologists and fringers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Except for Rtd. Captain Ruppelt?Chantern15 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
Retired military people can be a mixed bag in terms of reliability. They might be considered RS for one thing but not another. In any case, Wikipedia never wants to be in the position of sourcing an entire article to one chapter in one person's memoirs. Regarding the improvement of the Project Grudge article, I would look for secondary sources that are independent of the POV that ET is the only reasonable explanation for UFOs and the government is hiding the evidence, and who comment specifically on Ruppelt's narrative. Helping improve this article is on my list of to-do's, but it may be some time before I get to it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
That's fairChantern15 (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Physicians for Patient Protection

What is going on here? Grassroots, but founded by an AAPS member? Sounds unlikely. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a mass of infrequently used and brand new accounts, likely WP:MEAT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
If you believe the AANP, it exists specifically to oppose "full practice authority" for nurse practitioners [26]. It's hard to see that it's notable in itself as an organization, but perhaps it could be mentioned in the NP article. Mangoe (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I was going to say, "physicians aren't health care providers, because Nazis" is quite the view to have. I lean more towards the group being notable enough in itself, but the article needs to be neutral rather than an advert for the group. The AANP critique would make sense to include. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I've opened a COIN discussion to look into possible COI or off-wiki notification/coordination, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Physicians_for_Patient_Protection. One person has said that they were notified by newsletter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

National Policy on AYUSH

Article from last year, seems to need a bit of defringing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion regarding sources produced by 'skeptics' and fringe proponents

There's a discussion regarding the use of sources produced by 'skeptics' and fringe proponents over at RSN right now. You can find it here. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Post-rationalist cognitive therapy

This is a new article that looks like it needs attention. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it is 'fringe' or not, but whatever it is that the article is attempting to describe to doesn't seem to be 'therapy' by any reasonable definition of the word. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it seems like a poorly-refined extension of schizoanalysis, which is more theoretical than practical (only one practice ever had it, IIRC, by Guattari), and so also isn't therapy. Urve (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Like "post-truth" and "post-modern", it sounds like undoing a good thing. Post-smartness, post-science, post-thinking, post-wisdom will probably be next. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I just draftified Post-rationalist cognitive psychology, which appeared to be a recreation of the recently draftified Post-rationalist cognitive therapy with minor modifications. XOR'easter (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Egypt

More eyes needed upon History of the Jews in Egypt: several IPs, some now blocked, delete this statement: [27].

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

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

TCM

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

Phantom vehicle

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

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

I think this article ought to be deleted. There's definitely a theme in folklore of phantom or ghostly things and some of them are vehicles. This article attempts to synthesize a bunch of vaguely related stories into a coherent article, but unfortunately fails. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Given the lack of reliable sources that describe anything except anecdotes,  Done: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phantom_vehicle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Creation Ministries International‎

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

In connection with that, several of our articles use "creation.com", their website, as a source. I removed some of the stuff sourced to it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Looking at one of your edits, I can see you tried to add "pseudoscientific" before "Young Earth Creationism". Pseudoscience is mentioned right below, in the second paragraph. No need for the redundancy of having it higher. It's obvious that it's a pseudoscience, and if it's not obvious to someone, then it should be as soon as they read the second paragraph. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I did not "try to add" something, I just reverted an obvious profringe edit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Did you not add the "the pseudoscientific concept of..." to the lead where it wasn't before, in this edit? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I have warned User:Joeltay81 for disruptive editing plus edit warring (together with the IP which is obviously used by the same person, compare Wikipedia:We were not born yesterday). Bishonen | tålk 20:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC).
I repeat: I just reverted an obvious profringe edit. If the profringe edit removes something, then, yes, my revert results in adding that thing. Why do I have to explain that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see that was added before. Still, it's better without "the pseudoscientific concept of...". It's an obvious pseudoscience Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Amos 1 and Zechariah 14 quote an idea by creationist geologist Steven A. Austin, whose mere existence was sourced to creation.com (I removed that part): widely separated archaeological excavations in the countries of Israel and Jordan contain late Iron Age (Iron IIb) architecture bearing damage from a great earthquake. I do not know how to handle that. Is it legit and relevant? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Considering that no reasonable interpretation of "widely separated" describes Israel and Jordan's relative geographic or geologic positions, I suggest it's not especially relevant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Not Evil Just Wrong

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

Do you have an example? I'm happy to help balance the article if you do. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Right after reading this I removed an undue and POV section about a non-profit founded after the movie premiered [28]. I think there are likely other UNDUE sentences. There's a lot sourced to WP:PRIMARY here— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I also think the second paragraph of the lead should go, as well as the "review" from "Online Opinion" as it's not even a film review site, let alone RS. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
What you removed looks a lot like creationist attempts in classrooms (with typical "we only want them to be informed and to think critically", when in fact the conflicting material presented is false and misleading). It could be mentioned in that optic, that of ideological activism, if described as such by sources that debunk those claims. —PaleoNeonate – 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Superstition

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

Due for an overhaul, if the first sentence is any indication: A superstition is any belief or practice considered by non-practitioners to be irrational - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@LuckyLouie: :) The part of sentence you are pointing out seems to have been restored by Bloodofox themselves. Already Inputs requested: @ Talk:Superstition#Update synopsis of Superstition#Definitions in the lead to find consensus about synopsis of Superstition#Definitions for the article lead. Through out the article history some how most users do not seem to adhere to sourced content.
The second strange amusing contradiction is in the 21st century fringe theories in the so called folk beliefs are being justified @ Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. For taking care of folk belief side article folk belief already exists. The matter of fact is topic of superstition is supposed to be in the domain of Skepticism and science, isn't it?
Now users are deleting even mention of word science in the 21st century and inadvertently claiming ownership over topic of superstition for religious and folk belief point of views?
One can use one source or other, fundamental question is whether Skepticism and Scientific point of views deserve better weightage in the article superstition or opposite unscientific point of views to defeat purpose of the article superstition?
For example, when a child gets discriminated (or even killed) for being unlucky third child (in some community) or a woman faces literal witch hunting does it just remain domain of folk belief and religion or domains of Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science supposed have any say in the topic of superstition?
What is supposed to be role of an encyclopedia? calling Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science as fringe theory and undermining their weightage in the article superstition? Not intriguing one?
Pl. do think, Rgds.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Can you please stop cluttering up pages with the meaning of the word "encyclopedia" as well as chattering about everything from "defenestration" to "alarmism" and instead restrict yourself to reasoning which has an actual connection to the articles you want to change? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, It is fallacious propaganda misleading public at large to think that topic of Superstition ought to be limited to domain of folklore; as if fields of Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science have no concerns at all.(pl. read again)
What is mainstream is being defined conveniently benefiting to one field of study and ignoring others. Without discussing concerns one by one in detail, only alarmist monopolizing claims are placed on talk page, convenient notices flashed article page and forum shopping on this board without informing article talk that one is raising a point here!
I used the word 'defenestration' for strongly emphasizing that concerns and authority of domains of Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science are being thrown aside and usurped for.
And oh ya on Wikipedia has a undeclared culture of uncomfortable sources cited by opposite side to be thrown out of window in similar manner word 'defenestration' connotes. Where such culture of soft censorship persists people need to be reminded what encyclopedia is supposed to be about.
Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I had not really expected that request to work. So I will just regard your contributions as white noise and ignore them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I do believe in giving space to all, I do not have habit of ignoring voices which do not agree with me. For example it is not even hours I have made contribution request to users who contribute to cultural relativism for Draft:Irrational beliefs I write. Thanks any ways and happy editing. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Since the beginning of this discussion, I have the impression that it's possible that a communication problem is at least partly responsible for the conflict (with exaggerated metaphores not helping)... Also, there are many definitions of what an encyclopedia should be, in the case of Wikipedia, it has its own policies, applied by its community as possible. Someone else also mentioned the activism statement as part of your signature. WP:NOT makes clear that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (then again, I'm not sure that it is what you are suggesting). I'm sympathetic to the fact that superstition is a fitting description for things like the extreme fear of demons that some Christian denominations are promoting. —PaleoNeonate – 18:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

National League for Liberty in Vaccination

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

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

I just removed this from Lumbee. It's at [29] Doug Weller talk 19:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A genetic study published in a social studies review. That is quite fringy.--Berig (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
The sad thing is that this is not just a social science journal getting 'tricked' into accepting poor material that is outside their expertise - the social science in the paper is abysmal too. Agricolae (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
The paper is cited a least once—in another paper by Hirschmann[30], which is even cringier (yes, you can beat Eupedia-dervied graphics!) with its Coon-ish gallery at pp. 19–21. –Austronesier (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It is a pity this is not pre-Colombian.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hypnotherapy

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

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

Lada (mythology)

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

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

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

Ping Bloodofox. This editor is also an expert in folklore and has spoken out about how Wikipedia's coverage of the topic has often been very bad. Crossroads -talk- 16:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Can we do something about articles being awarded good article status without sufficient review? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Take it to WP:GAR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that Sławobóg doesn't know the difference between "dictionaries" and "encyclopedias", so their mistaken assertion that the article relies on dictionary sources is troubling. The statement about David Adams Leeming is also false. Leeming says that "some have traced Baba Yaga to a prehistoric European goddess", and gives very plausible reasons for this as well. Sławobóg has certainly cited a number of scholars who reject the historicity of the fertility goddess Lada (most of whom are not religious scholars or historians), but how do we know these represent practically all modern scholars? (I'm assuming the citations are accurate, since I don't have access to English translations for most of them.) Nor is it actually shown how this conflicts with the existing sources, which generally acknowledge this rejection by certain writers yet conclude there is sufficient evidence for a cult of worship. These sources, including Ivanits (1989), Struk (1993), and Coulter & Turner (2013) , are published by generally reliable academic publishers. The idea that they are non-critical is an assumption, not a fact. Perhaps Sławobóg could provide some relevant quotations from their preferred sources to substantiate their claims? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  1. I said "dictionaries". I said that, because I know dictionaries with more content per entry than your encyclopedias. Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities has 31 words for Lada, and The Oxford companion to world mythology has 9 lines of text on page with 2 columns. Again - without any criticism or references and. These are sources mindlessly copying from romantic authors, primary sources or self-proclaimed researchers.
  2. Mother Russia: The Feminine Myth in Russian Culture is another bad book, and you can find informations about it in the internet. Not only author is trying to push some feminist ideas, she also is not authority on Slavic religion in any way, she studied cultural studies.
  3. Encyclopedia of Russian & Slavic Myth and Legend is another bad book, I found it when I was working on Zorya. Informations about Zorya can't be confirmed by any scientific publication (like Zorya being wife of Perun). Author also used some random, unknown sources or mindlessly copied informations from primary sources. When he is writting on Lada he uses as references: de:Felix Haase (1939) - random German theologist xD, Ivan Snegiryov - early 19th century scholar, it was time before historicity of Lada began to be criticized by the scientific community, Alexander Afanasyev - very important Russian etnographer, but he was often criticized, again, for being uncritical towards the source material. Due to incomprehension of some words/traditions, he invented many deities, e.g. Koliada - you can read about that on Russian version: ru:Коляда (мифология), George Vernadsky - on his page we can read about manipulating about history. Another random, unrelated to Slavic mythology schoolar. Only good and critical reference used here is Myroslava T. Znayenko and her The Gods of Ancient Slavs: Tatischev and the Beginnings of Slavic Mythology, but... I can't find any claims that Lada is real goddess. xD All I found is well documented history of how "Polish pantheon" and Lada developed and mention of old, unimportant scholars' interpretations of Lada. This book basically said what I said in my article.
  • I debunked your sources in like an hour of research. Your "sources" 1) Are super short, 2) don't explain this very controversial topic in any way, just make you think such thing as Lada existed (unlike my sources), 3) Don't focus on Slavic mythology at all - "encyclopedia of worlds deities" 2x, "feminist activist book", "encyclopedia of Ukraine" (unlike my sources), 4) are written by people who are not authorities in Slavic mythology (unlike my sources). Also funny, how most of these books are writted after fall of Soviet Union but none of these books cite Vladimir Toporov - probably most influential and most important Russian scholar who worked on Slavic mythology, it is simply not possible to not know him. Ivantis also doesn't work on Slavic mythology, she is another "random" scholar, who repeats stuff after Boris Rybakov - probably most controversial impactful scholar of 20th century who was and is heavly criticised by other scholars (you can read short here).
  • "but how do we know these represent "practically all modern scholars"?" - because unlike you, I am familiar with the subject of Slavic mythology. I have read books from different eras, different countries and authors with different views. I have a general awareness of the subject and I know that the views presented by your article are WP:FRINGE and pretty pseudoscientific, because yes - scholar can spread pseudoscience too and this is perfect example. My article, for balance and historical context, presents views contrary to those of the mainstream. Additionally, my sources are better because they have influenced history in this context and are known by scholarship, while no one knows about your sources because they have no merit.
  • "The idea that they are "non-critical" is an assumption, not a fact." - that is fact. They literally copy from non-critical primary sources and I explained it before (see Afasnayev). For now, there is no good, scientific, up-to-date book in English. Only relatively good English book was The Mythology of All Races vol. 3. There is only 1 new (2019) English book that might be good (New Researches on the Religion and Mythology of the Pagan Slavs), but I didn't read that yet. French book Perun, dieu slave de l'orage: Archéologie, histoire, folklore (2015) also states that Lada is not supported by historical records (possibly quoting someone else).
  • "Sławobóg has certainly cited a number of scholars who reject the historicity of the fertility goddess Lada (most of whom are not religious scholars or historians)" - are you serious? Most of scholars I brought before are historians: Jerzy Strzelczyk, Henryk Łowmiański, Leo Klejn, Evgeny Anichkov, Aleksander Gieysztor. Others are linguists - and that is also very important, because Lada is not supported by any historical records, lada is just word appearing in songs that was deified - because of that linguists' opinion is extremly important (etymology, semantics, source criticism and more). I can't believe I have to spend hours to discuss that instead of working on another article. Sławobóg (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    Most of the authors you cited in the article are not historians. Would it be too much to ask for you to elaborate on how the scholars you listed here support your claims, instead of just name-dropping them? I for one would like some independent confirmation that your sources represent the majority, rather than blindly trusting in your general awareness of the subject. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Just as a side note, when it comes to folklore topics like myth, commentary from folklorists and philologists (the two are historically closely entwined) is ideal. A background in folklore studies and historical linguistics is crucial for analysis like this and historians often lack it. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Sounds convincing to me. Sławobóg gives lots of details from reliable sources, and the main point is compatible with what I know of mythology: it is indeed a subject where the popular literature abounds with amateurs copying from each other. (To me as an atheist, the question whether Lada is a "real goddess" still sounds weird, although I know that "real" has a different meaning here.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sławobóg:, please go ahead and start drafting a rewrite of the article in a sandbox. Most of our coverage of myth and related topics is absolutely abysmal on the site. This is primarily due to a lack of specialists investing time in getting them up to snuff. The Slavic and Baltic stuff is particularly bad, no doubt due to the lack of English language sources out there on these topics. That said, if you do prepare a total rewrite, please be cautious to separate primary and secondary sources—it will ultimately save you and our readers a lot of headache over time and allow for the article to grow. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bloodofox: Um? I did rewrite it in a sandbox. It is still there. I always do that. Then I just copy it into actual article. Author of old article reverted it and then massacred it. ATM I'm working on adding scholars on Baltic part of this topic. Sławobóg (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank goodness that someone is finally trying to do something about the Slavic mythology articles! Kudos!--Berig (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Definitely areed, @Berig:. I'm happy to see it. @Sławobóg:, your article looks like a major improvement—I missed your sandbox mention. Let me know if I can help. I would really like to see more of our myth articles improve. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
If blatant WP:NPOV violations are a "major improvement", then sure. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
There's an easy solution to these things: Simply write it all out. If there's doubt about a source, this needs to be clear in a "scholastic reception" section, separate from the attestations. There you can chart out what scholars have said over the years. We do this all the time with our Germanic mythology-related articles. Nonetheless, it's important that this discussion is there and that we don't take any particular side, instead going with academic consensus and presenting all arguemnts in a neutral manner. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I think this is the best approach, thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but where do you see violation of WP:NPOV in my article? Big part of the article is dedicated to 2 influential authors that supported her historicity. I'm removing your books not because they support some side of the conflict, I'm removing them because they are insignificant on this topic and I've explained pretty thoroughly why. Can you substantively address my accusations and explanations? Because so far you're accusing me of ruining the article by replacing weak, meaningless authors with meaningful authors with similar POV. 🤦 Sławobóg (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
See my earlier comments. We have yet to see any proof that your sources represent the majority. (Oddly, given your complaints about authors failing to critically examine sources, you appear to want other users to uncritically accept your bona fides as a self-declared expert on the topic.) I explained the NPOV issues on the article talk page. My main problem with the proposed "Historicity" section is that it states the opinions of scholars (or simply your own) as plain facts. On the English Wikipedia, our NPOV policy specifically forbids this. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
If this boils down to which scholars to use, simply stick to the specialists on Slavic mythology. This also concerns statements on what is the majority view. In Germanic mythology topics, we are lucky to have a good supply of prominent specialists, and I suspect that you have some of those in Slavic mythology topics as well. I suggest that you two discuss and try to reach an agreement on what constitutes the most reliable secondary sources per WP:RS.--Berig (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
How can I prove it to you? I have listed 14 scholars from Slavic countries who have written books dedicated to Slavic mythology and who clearly evaluate this topic. One of them simply ignores her existence in his publications. I used only a few of them so as not to spam the article unnecessarily. You want me to use them and insert 14 references in a row to prove what I'm saying? (WP:CITEKILL)
If that still doesn't convince you, how about being convinced by Myroslava T. Znayenko, whom you list in the "Further reading" section? Let's see... "Most modern scholars agree with A. Bruckner that Długosz created his Polish pantheon by interpreting freely old ritual texts...". Bruckner? Oh, I have him in my article!
"My main problem with the proposed "Historicity" section is that it states the opinions of scholars (or simply your own) as plain facts." - these are not opinions, these are facts. Medieval historians/writers copied informations from each other pretty often. And Polish historians have long established who copied information from whom. You are just ignorant. I just forgot to add references, which I already did in my sandbox. To show again that you are ignorant, I will again use Znayenko, who described the relationships between primary sources, some examples: Miechowita, Kromer, Bielski, Stryjkowski, Synopsis. Deal with it.
More amusingly, your article didn't even mention Dlugosz, who is the most important source/element of the article here, until someone added that information 3 years after article got "good article status". And you say something about neutrality? You're the one I have to prove I know better than you on the subject? Cherry on top is that in the "Further reading" section you mention the work of some random priest from Germany (de:Felix Haase) who, according to the German Wikipedia, supported the NSDAP and "his publications, for example on the Russian Orthodox Church or the Slavs, were unobjective and nationalistic.". You are ridiculing yourself. I see no room for any compromise, your article is frivolous on many levels. Sławobóg (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

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

@Sangdeboeuf: and @Sławobóg:, let's take a step back for a second. From what I've seen, everyone here simply wants to improve the article. From my experience, this is unfortunately all too rare: Wikipedia's coverage of folklore topics has been in the gutter for a long time. We really need more contributors working on these topics.
Slavic folklore is notoriously difficult to approach for English language audiences. This is primarily due to a lack of coverage. There are comparatively few works by English language scholars touching on the topic. Much of what is available in English language scholarship can be found in comparative analyses from philologists and folklorists, but these works are often far too brief and few in number.
Now, I recommend that we work together here. I detect no malicious intent, just what I suspect is simply miscommunication. It's easy to get annoyed on Wikipedia—the revert cycle system almost encourages it—but all we have to do is keep the attestations separate from the analyses and chart out what scholar said where and when, with particular emphasis on specialists like folklorists and philologists. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I concur with Bloodofox, and I was about to ask you why you are discussing this here. You should get back to improving articles and discuss sources on a case to case basis.--Berig (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you, this is exactly what I was asking for when I asked for some relevant quotations from [Sławobóg's] preferred sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
"Contemporary scholars overwhelmingly reject the authenticity of the deities Lada and Lado" this statement is supported by quote from Znayenko and scholars I mentioned, most of whom published their works after Znayenko's book and are critical. I also know that as expert. That I know more about the subject than you I have proven in this discussion by listing leading researchers that you have not even heard of and using specialists' opinions in my articles - you use some random, free American sources and books that don't focus on anything. I also debunked Dixon-Kennedy. Besides, I have experience in this topic on Wikipedia - I have written over 20 articles in this field, while you have 1. Also, if one were to accept your constant repetition of "but how do we know that's the majority" it would be impossible to write anything on Wikipedia. I have also been supported here by other Wikipedians, including admin...
"The only 'authentic' sources mentioning the deity of Lada/Lado are the Gniezno Sermons"" and ""East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either" - no POV here - this is already referenced. Plus, it's not the researchers' "opinion" on these sources - footnotes and bibliographies were already used in middle ages. 🤦
"East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either" - again, no POV, referenced since the begining.
"We should therefore assume that Długosz's Lyada corresponds to the Old Polish form *Łada" - I don't even why do you think it is POV here. Whole paragraph is explained and sourced since begining. Possibly bad wording?
So, I've expanded my article to include an analysis of Lithuanian scholars (the latest I've found) and corrected typos, references, minor factual and language errors. I am moving article from my sandbox to the mainspace. And I repeat once again: my article does not violate NPOV anywhere because it presents different points of view (2 most popular Slavic researchers who assumed its historicity, and one Lithuanian). Your researchers are insignificant. Additionally, mine present some argumentation. You probably also don't understand that Slavic or Baltic mythology is not as obvious as Greek or Roman and a lot of information about it is false, and the English Wiki can't handle it. I recall that the list for many years included information from the 18th century Prillwitz forgery, for example - I was the only one who made a point of it. Sławobóg (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Polygraph

The only mention of "pseudoscience" is the pseudoscience template. Older versions, such as [31], still contained the sourced sentence In 1991, two thirds of the scientific community who have the requisite background to evaluate polygraph procedures considered polygraphy to be pseudoscience. I guess it was removed because such things are not decided by voting. In any case, either the word should be in the article, or the template should be removed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's the edit that removed the sentence, for the record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The polygraph has been explicitly discussed in notable surveys of pseudoscience, like [32], and [33], so it shouldn't be too hard to source and attribute who calls it pseudoscience and why. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Just a note about why it's considered pseudoscientific, despite relying on signals that can be recorded and that can fluctuate: the signals are not optimal, and the main problem is their motivated interpretation, with conflicting studies demonstrating that they cannot effectively determine when someone is lying or not (to reliably know would require technology way beyond what current neurology allows, or verifiable facts that contradict their claims, the traditional way)... —PaleoNeonate – 18:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
It's reasonable to question the degree to which "pseudoscience-ness" should be emphasized in the article, including template and category. If you only quote or overly rely on professional Skeptics, then everything looks like pseudoscience. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
You're fallaciously misapplying the adage. Skeptics spend time on the pseudoscience that the rest of the scientific community ignores. As such, they often represent the best sources we have on pseudoscientific subjects. If everything truly looked like pseudoscience, then why don't skeptics list everything as pseudoscience? jps (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Also, pseudoscience is what skeptics specialize in. By the same reasoning, you could say that since entomologists write only about insects, everything must look like an insect to an entomologist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@ජපස: Debunking pseudoscience is not a scientific discipline, though. On Wikipedia, many (if not most) of the pseudoscience statements are sources to skeptic blogs, podcasts, and books in the commercial market. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
All this is true. I don't see why any of that, however, indicates that we should look askance at sources produced by skeptics. WP:PARITY is the guiding light. jps (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Because pseudoscience is nearly always added to the lead of those articles, with the argument that the "scientific community" has called it so. But as you've said the scientific community "ignores" the work of debunking of pseudoscience. So by definition, the "debunkers" are operating on the fringe of science, not speaking for the scientific community. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Your attempt to cram skeptics into the fringe-pusher pigeonhole is pretty transparent. It will not work. Skeptics are on the side of science. They agree with the scientific "mainstream" or "orthodoxy", as you would probably call it, on every subject. They propagate the scientific POV.
Pyrrhonic skeptics, on the other hand, are useless nowadays. They are history. All they know is that that they don't know anything, and all they can propagate is their belief that nobody else does either. Their POV is that of WP:FALSEBALANCE and of postmodern know-nothingism. You will convince nobody here that skeptic sources should not be used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Why would a "skeptic" be an appropriate source for the Polygraph article? As Generalrelative pointed out, but removed for some reason, there is not a lack of quality published literature for the subject. While WP:PARITY allows for "alternative venues" in cases where more reliable sources do not bother to speak to a subject, in this case real researchers have submitted to peer review and been published.
A skeptic may be a wonderful science educator, a role sorely needed these days. When they become the self-anointed bearers of the light of science, tribal members, rejecting all criticism of themselves as criticism of science itself—they are just blowhards. fiveby(zero) 14:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Wow, no. I deleted my comment because I had misconstrued the issue here –– assuming that the APA statement sealed the deal against Fiveby's POV (when the issue at hand is apparently just about the word "pseudoscience", which that statement does not use). Saying that my comment was removed for some reason when I stated the reason in my edit summary is disingenuous, as is trying to trot me out in support of their argument. Generalrelative (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what you consider my "POV", but ...how much weight to assign skeptics publishing in the popular press appears moot in this case seemed to be the question presented, and the best response. Apologize if you think i misrepresented your edit in some way. fiveby(zero) 15:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
If you agree that the point is moot then why debate it? Your previous comment certainly did not give the impression that you think the point is moot. Generalrelative (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Er, probably an aversion to fanboyism. fiveby(zero) 16:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Then you're certainly barking up the wrong tree. Characterizing any of the statements above as "fanboyism" is 100% inappropriate. Take it elsewhere. Generalrelative (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Because pseudoscience is nearly always added to the lead of those articles, with the argument that the "scientific community" has called it so. But as you've said the scientific community "ignores" the work of debunking of pseudoscience. It is important to get the wording right. If the source is reliable and it indicates that the scientific community has, where it has commented, indicated a certain idea is pseudoscience, then that is an appropriate framing. If that's not what the source indicates, then different wording can be had. In the context of this article, I am pretty sure that every scientific study that has examined polygraphs and the claims as to what their effectiveness may be has determined that there is essentially no evidence for polygraphs working in such a fashion. This is a hallmark of pseudoscience and the sources we have seem to indicate fairly plainly that this is a fair summary of the opinions of scientific consensus. Precise wording can be hashed out at the talkpage, but suffice to say that it can both be true that the scientific community has determined an idea to be pseudoscientific and that the bulk of the community ignores an idea as a matter of course. jps (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling: You say "skeptics" as if it's one big institution. Literally anyone can call themself a skeptic, unlike a scientist. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
... but few of us can spell it. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia comes from this side of the pond, or as you would say, WiCipedia. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, literally anyone can call themself a "scientist" as well. There is a consistent definition of scientific skepticism that functions more-or-less as a cohesive group and does distinguish itself from certain examples of self-proclaimed skeptics that don't fit the bill. Compare global warming skepticism, for example. jps (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
That's a fair point, I appreciate it. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] Don't ping me. I live here.
Calling yourself a scientist (or a skeptic) will have the consequence of skeptics calling your bluff. And that is because they know where the border is.
It sounded like you were trying to treat skeptics as one big ball of unreliable, so this "big institution" is not my doing. Users who try to disqualify skeptics for being skeptics, as sources, are just engaging in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Of course, we should treat them the same way as other sources: determine their reliability for a subject and then use them or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
All good points, thanks. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ostrich Egg Globe redux - basically uses only one author

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 69#Da Vinci Globe. The article has 15 sources, 10 of which are by Stefan Missinne publishing in the predatory journal Advances in Historical Studies - see [[34]] and Cambridge Scholars Publishing (note their article has promotional material sourced to them). I haven't found much commentary on him. There's this[35] which has no author, and this blog which is just a brief recent comment on him.[36]. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

also back in Hunt-Lenox Globe diff. fiveby(zero) 20:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I ran into this a while back, and couldn't really decide what to do with it. I left things in because it's the 'original' paper, which was commented on by other sources.
It's still a garbage publisher though, just possibly allowed under WP:PRIMARY in this very narrow case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
btw, here's the article from The Portolan couldn't find last time around, if you haven't seen it. fiveby(zero) 22:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Pentagon UFO videos

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

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

More eyes definitely needed

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

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

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

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

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

Fringe theory regarding Pratapaditya

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

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

Journal of Archaeomythology

We use this journal a lot as a source.[37]

Interestingly, I can't find any impact factor for it at SCImago Journal Rank. Its ISSN is 2162-6871.[38] Have I missed something? I've searched by title and here's the SJR search using the ISSN number.[39]

It claims to be peer reviewed but Stel Pavlou has had a paper accepted by it.[40] [41] Doug Weller talk 18:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There are peer-reviewed journals not included in the SCImago Journal Rank, such as the Sussex Archaeological Collections and the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
The Journal of Archaeomythology's website claims it's peer review, but I've not managed to find reviews of the journal which you can sometimes find for early volumes of a new series. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell: why would a journal that seems to want to be considered seriously not want to be in SJR? Or is it SJR that decides what to rank? Doug Weller talk 09:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Scopus/SJR decides what they cover or not. There's plenty of reliable journals not in SJR, and there's some unreliable that are in SJR. The question here should be is JoA mainstream or fringe? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Headbomb: thanks. As I suggested, Stel Pavlou is concerning. JSTOR only has one article referencing a journal article that I can find, but it does have a scathing review of a book published by the Institute of Archaeomythology.[42] I'd guess that views vary between supporters of Gimbutas who would of course support the Institute and Journal, and others who are likely to ignore it from what I've seen. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Derrick Lonsdale

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

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

The article violates WP:MEDRS, and WP:BLP. I seriously doubt that it would survive an AfD if this was rectified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
He actually did some work in thiamine precursors which is frequently cited; my personal feeling is that he isn't important enough for an article, but in any case the article is almost entirely junk. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yahshua

What do you think about [43]? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Looks like classic WP:YESBIAS against WP:PROFRINGE. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be a pattern: In Citer has declared You Jews make me sick. [...] Yet how many Jews have been responsible for creating this trash site of a page. (At Talk:Yahweh.) tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Service: Link to that one --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Given the previous ban, perhaps bringing this to the attention of the admins would be in order. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Si.427

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

I'm confused. Mansfield claims the tablet shows Babylonian knowledge of theorem, and the counterargument is that Babylonians already knew of the theorem? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not the first ever use of applied geometry, which is the headline claim of the hype campaign. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I've looked over all the media and the criticism and the only claim I see the media making is that it's possibly the oldest known example, not the oldest use. Maybe I'm missing some of the evidence with examples of use that predate it? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The headline picked out for criticism by Robson was Mathematician uncovers the origins of applied geometry and land surveying after the rediscovery of a 3,700-year-old clay tablet. Which is, as she says, absurd. (Side note: given the vagaries of dating ancient documents, it's possible that the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus, Berlin Papyrus 6619, and the Lahun Mathematical Papyri are even older, and all of them include examples of applied geometry.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Interactions of actors theory

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

It was all copyvio; I've restored the redirect and tagged it for copyvio revdel. Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not a copyvio. The blog from 2009 is a direct copy of the 2008 version of Gordon Pask. I've reverted and canceled the revdel. The editor indicated on the talk page that he moved it from the bio. Whether the material should have its own article or be returned to the Gordon Pask bio is a different question. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Widom–Larsen theory

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widom–Larsen theory

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

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

Elizabeth Prophet

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

An Inconvenient Truth...Or Convenient Fiction?

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

Even if it got some good reviews when it came over a decade ago, a lot has changed since then in our understanding of climate change so I would vote for removing most of that section and adding a counter review or two. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
a lot has changed since then in our understanding of climate change Not so sure about that. The IPCC reports look remarkably similar from then and now. jps (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I've taken ancientorigins.net to RSN

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

Lemuria

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

Why not just simplify and say "a theoretical continent" or "was a theoretical content"? It immediately goes on to say it was disproved from continental drift theory. Putting "disproved" seems clunkier and not as clean, in my opinion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Or better yet, fictional.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Why not proposed.--Berig (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Because there is less evidence for this than Atlantis, it is "proposed" or "theatrical" in the same way the N rays were (and is just as disprooved).Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't know. "Fictional" to me implies that it was created by an author or artist, like Atlantis, and featured extensively in works of fiction. "Proposing" a continent sounds to me like something Elon Musk would do on Mars. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
And the basis of that proposal has been shown to be false, thus disproved. So either it is a failed theory or it is fictional.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems clear that it started as a hypothesis and lived on, after being scientifically discredited, as fiction. That does leave us in a tricky situation re. how to describe it in the opening sentence. Perhaps the first sentence should read: "...was a hypothesized continent proposed in 1864 by zoologist Philip Sclater to have sunk beneath the Indian Ocean." Using "was" rather than "is" indicates that it is no longer a current scientific hypothesis. We can then go on to describe Blavatsky's appropriation of the idea in a separate, 3rd paragraph in the lead. Generalrelative (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Might work, though I feel we still maybe giving it too much credence. MAybe include in the first line "latter used by Occultist", as that really is all it is now. We need to reflect what it is, not what it was.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Good point. Perhaps: "...was a hypothesized continent proposed in 1864 by zoologist Philip Sclater to have sunk beneath the Indian Ocean, later appropriated by occultists in fictional accounts of human origins." Generalrelative (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Yep, covers all the bases.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
That's great. There are plenty of examples like this: Flat Earth, Humorism. No reason to change the way we talk about theories and hypotheses. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Cool, I went ahead and WP:BOLDly made the change. Generalrelative (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_81&oldid=1048635438"