Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 15:33, 18 January 2025

Did you know

• 16 Jan 2025 – Epistemology (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Phlsph7 (t · c); see discussion
• 14 Jan 2025 – Transgender health care misinformation (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

• 13 Jan 2025 – Kozyrev mirror (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by ජපස (t · c); see discussion (12 participants)

Proposed deletions

• 07 Jan 2025 – British Society of Dowsers (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by CoconutOctopus (t · c) and endorsed by Bearian (t · c) on 12 Jan 2025 was deleted

Categories for discussion

• 21 Dec 2024 – Category:Possibly fictional people from Africa (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c); see discussion
• 21 Dec 2024 – Category:Possibly fictional people from Asia (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c); see discussion
• 05 Jan 2025 – Category:Ancient near eastern cosmology (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Good article nominees

• 15 Dec 2024 – Misinformation about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Dan Leonard (t · c); see discussion
• 14 Dec 2024 – Flying saucer (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Rjjiii (t · c); see discussion

Good article reassessments

• 17 Jan 2025 – Periyar (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion

Requests for comments

• 30 Dec 2024 – COVID-19 lab leak theory (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Slatersteven (t · c); see discussion

Peer reviews

• 17 Jan 2025 – Epistemology (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Phlsph7 (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

• 06 Jan 2025 – Deep state in the United States (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States by BootsED (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be merged

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

Archives

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

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

Water fluoridation controversy

• Water fluoridation controversy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

Not sure if this is the correct space for this. But why do we call it a "controversy"? There is no reasonable controversy to speak of when we're looking at water fluoridation. We don't call the antivaxxer movement part of a "vaccination controversy", or do we? The nicest terms I've seen used is "hesitancy", as in vaccine hesitancy. I think anti-fluoridation cranks deserve the same treatment as anti-vaxxers. Also, they're mostly the same people... I'm thinking the tone should be more in line with anti-vaccine movement or outright mention misinformation, like in COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy. VdSV9•♫ 12:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, deleting the "controversy" part would probably give a better article name. "Opposition to water fluoridation"? But that belongs on the talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That would be a better name Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there has been discussion on the talk page about this: I've moved the article to Opposition to water fluoridation; parts of this article will have to be reworded. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Well...JAMA Pediatrics did publish a meta-analysis linking water fluoridation to decreased IQ in children. That review is now prominently emplaced in the (stupidly large) lead of the main fluoridation article - but interestingly enough, not in the "opposition" article in question (yet). I don't know how you intend to handle this, and I probably wouldn't have time to contribute to this on top of editing my usual subject matter, but it's worth mentioning. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

See also Water fluoridation, which is teetering on the brink of an edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Gain of function research

Would appreciate editor input with regards to these edits:

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

This is getting so tiring, a self-admitted WP:PROFRINGE editor pushing and pushing lab leak talking points on multiple articles. There are very good sources on this so writing good content is not hard. Bon courage (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Pushing a partisan as fuck committee report is WP:FRINGE. I think we should be requiring MEDRS level sourcing on this given how politicised it is with people like Rand Paul pushing the conspiracy theories that leads to hyper-partisan committee reports. TarnishedPath 10:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The US House of Representatives is full of non-experts touting conspiracy theories. Odd that you would think otherwise.

2. Reports generated by the US House are representative of the members who produced them or sponsored their production. Since (1) is true, it is absolutely possible for reports from the US House to be problematic and not representative of the best and most reliable attestations to reality.

3.Testimony is only as reliable as the person giving the testimony. Many people giving testimony before Congress are unreliable.

4. If a source reports on a primary source with criticism and negative reaction, it may be that the primary source does not deserve inclusion.

5. The bipartisanship of a committee is irrelevant to whether the points in question are problematic. Just because a committee is bipartisan does not mean that the offending text is therefore beyond reproach or apolitical.

6. "Hard evidence" in the context of academic science needs to be published in relevant academic journal and subject to appropriate peer review.

7. "Gain of research" is obviously a typo, but illustrates the point well that expertise is needed to determine whether or not there is any relevant concerns about research funding. The report authors do not seem to have that expertise. Simply being called by Congress is not sufficient.

8. We have rules for exclusion as outlined in my response to point (4).

I think this response illustrates that, intentionally or not, you are functioning as a WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSHer. This is not allowed at Misplaced Pages.

jps (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Your opinion on the current members of the house is irrelevant. The US Congress is not a fringe source. See my example provided.

2. You just asserted the opposite of my point without any explanation. This isn't a refutation.

3. Unless you're arguing any specific testimony in the report is false, that is true, but irrelevant.

4. Secondary sources reporting on any topic will be both positive and negative, depending on their own biases. The presence of negative reviews is not dispositive to a source's inclusion.

5. The bipartisanship of the committee is completely relevant to the charge that it should be excluded because it is "hyper-partisan."

6. "Did the US fund gain-of-function research in China" is not a question which is scientific in nature. Scientific expertise in the field of gain-of-function research is not required to answer that question.

7. "Did the US fund gain-of-function research in China" is not a question which is scientific in nature.

8. See point 4.

And I do not appreciate threats being left on my talk page. Extremely inappropriate. BabbleOnto (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, it looks like this editor is coming in extremely hot based on the WP:IDHT responses I'm seeing just above my reply to you. With the attitude I'm seeing, it looks like they're heading to the cliff where something at WP:AE or an admin here acting under the COVID CT restrictions due to WP:ADVOCACY, bludgeoning, etc. would be needed. Controversial topics are not the place for new editors to coming in hot while "learning the ropes" and exhaust the community, so this seems like a pretty straightforward case for a topic ban to address that. KoA (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I directly addressed or refuted the challenges levied against my points. In what way can you claim my responses are WP:IDHT?

Which of my comments did I fail to substantively defend? I will be happy to do so now. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

What is your goal here? jps (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to have the rules, policies, and guidelines, applied.

The source I've been trying to cite very clearly does not violate WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe" as defined by WP:FRINGE, nor can the reports of it be considered "Unsubstantial," as defined by WP:UNDUE.

Yet, so long as 2 people disagree with source, more specifically, personally disagree with the findings or have a personal vendetta against its authors, it does not matter that my edit is perfectly legitimate and rule-abiding, it will be removed as "Against the consensus."

Which is not inherently bad, I'm willing to change the edit in response to criticism. But, despite my many efforts to compromise or edit the change, change the wording, add context, add secondary sources, those in opposition refuse to hear any compromise or even provide any constructive criticism.

There are parts of the article which neither side disagrees are, are as matter of pure fact, incorrect. However, I'm unable to change them, because one side will not approve any source that I use.

I'm making my case here because I feel I've reached an impasse where the current consensus refuses to listen to any reasonable changes, or any changes at all, even to statements everyone has agreed are just factually wrong. BabbleOnto (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A bunch of politicians certainly can be WP:FRINGE. In every country politicians are known to spout the most arrant nonsense, especially when it comes to science. The burgeoning antiknowledge movement in the USA as exemplified by the current incident is just another example of this. That we have editors signed-up to the same agenda trying to bend Misplaced Pages that way, is a problem. As always, the solution is to use the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean . While it doesn't deal that much with the science, I'm fairly sure there is probably some science nonsense in it, and there are far worse reports. Then there is United States House Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood which again mostly not dealing with science AFAIK, did deal with it enough to result in this . While not from the house, there was also the infamous Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis#National Cancer Institute demonstrating that even US federal government agencies aren't immune to publishing nonsense due to political interference. 05:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

New user has absolute faith in something that is clearly not a reliable source and insists on including it. This is a WP:CIR issue and a topic ban would be a good idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We've had more competent editors receive indefs for pushing WP:FRINGE in this topic area. TarnishedPath 11:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I like that you decided to pull out wikipedia articles which contain, by your own words "far worse reports." Wouldn't the fact these "Worse" reports are still allowed in the articles be evidence for my point? If worse sources are still allowed in under the rules, why would this "better" source not be? BabbleOnto (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This reply I think best sums up what I have to work with; it is the consensus of other editors that the US Congress is a secret, fringe, conspiratorial group which is secretly manufacturing fake evidence and putting out false reports to prevent the REAL TRUTH from getting out to true believers.

And I'M the one labeled the conspiracist for disagreeing. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said "secret". That group has been quite openly anti-science for decades. See The Republican War on Science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I directly addressed or refuted the challenges levied against my points. No. You responded. However, in your response, you have displayed the inability or unwillingness to understand what was being explained to you. That's IDHT. You continuing to claim that A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe" shows that you're missing the point. As does the repetition that nor can the reports of it be considered "Unsubstantial," as defined by WP:UNDUE. even though an explanation has been given on how these reports absolutely can be completely biased, politically motivated, and from a "quality of the source" perspective - be it scientifically, journalistic or just factually -, it is deemed unreliable. VdSV9•♫ 13:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe"

There has been no substantive explanation of this. Only repeated assertions that it is true, and then an expression of an author's personal dislike for Republicans or the government in general. That is not an explanation as to why the statement, an objective statement, is true.

even though an explanation has been given on how these reports absolutely can be completely biased, politically motivated, and from a "quality of the source" perspective - be it scientifically, journalistic or just factually -, it is deemed unreliable

Nobody is arguing that the article should be replaced by this report. However, the US Congress's position is very clearly a prominent position. And again, I know you personally believe the US Congress can't be trusted, but WP:UNDUE actually says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." The US Congress's viewpoint is a significant one, and even if you dislike the original source, there are dozens of reliable secondary sources reporting on it. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You're blatantly wrong here. Politicians saying "science is wrong" is as FRINGE as it gets. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A question of how much money, if any, was allocated to a certain project, is not a scientific question. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

We define what is WP:FRINGE based on the WP:BESTSOURCES. A politician with no expertise in medicine is a terrible source for anything related to diseases, and therefore carries no weight in discussion over whether a particular position is WP:FRINGE or not. There are mainstream politicians who deny evolution; that does not change the fact that that denial is a fringe perspective among the best available sources on the topic. Misplaced Pages's purpose, as an encyclopedia, is not to be an arbitrary reflection of what random politicians believe or what the gut feeling of random people on the street might be; it's to summarize the very best sources on every topic (which, in most cases, means academic sources with relevant expertise.) Keep in mind that WP:FRINGE doesn't mean that we omit a position entirely; in an article about government responses to COVID, we could reasonably cover the opinions of lawmakers who contribute to that response, even if their opinions are medically fringe. But our core articles on the topic will be written according to the conclusions of the parts of the medical establishment that have relevant expertise; the gut feelings of politicians with no relevant expertise have no weight or place there at all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

A politician with no expertise in medicine is a terrible source for anything related to diseases

The question of 'was there US-funded gain of function research in China" is not an epidemiological question, and is not remotely scientific in nature.

You're just not addressing why this question is scientific. You're just skipping past that part. Why does an Epidemiologist have to testify as to the US budget? What would they possibly know about Congressional funding? BabbleOnto (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The question what constitutes 'gain of function research' is very much is a scientific question and thus by extension the question "was there US-funded gain of function research in China" is also a scientific one. TarnishedPath 07:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a nonsense point. By that logic, the JFK assassination report could not be used to support the claim that JFK died unless a journal by the American Coroner's Association agreed with it. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The Member Magazine Of The American society for biochemistry and molecular biology quotes Nicholas Evans as saying "No one knows exactly what counts as gain-of-function, so we disagree as to what needs oversight, much less what that oversight should be". Evans specializes in biosecurity and pandemic preparedness.

It is a subject of active debate within the scientific community. Therefore politicians are out of their depth talking about whether there was "US-funded gain of function research in China" when scientists don't agree what that is. TarnishedPath 02:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I originally also had an edit which attempts to discuss this which was also removed. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

First off, you don't know anything about what I personally believe about anything. Looks like you're both poisoning the well and mistaking me for jps... Second, and, of course, more relevant here: a report sponsored by members of Congress is not "The Congress's viewpoint". Thirdly, even if they had an assembly where they discussed the matter and voted or whatever it would take to make something "The Congress's viewpoint", it's questionable if whatever conclusion they came to would be deemed a reliable source and IF that warrants being included in an encyclopedic article about the subject they discussed. Explaining it further would just be repeating what I and others have said before. About your other point of there being articles about other, worse, reports. These reports and their coverage are reliable sources for the articles that talk about the reports themselves. The fact that these have been covered by secondary sources means they are notable enough to get their own articles, not that it's a reliable source. What you are asking for is more akin to using the "findings" of the report mentioned by Hob Gadling on something like Use of fetal tissue in vaccine development or other fetal tissue research related article. VdSV9•♫ 14:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that these have been covered by secondary sources means they are notable enough to get their own articles

This report has also been covered by reliable secondary sources. Why then can this source not at least be mentioned? BabbleOnto (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Notability is not the same as reliability. The fact that these have been covered by secondary sources means they are notable enough to get their own articles, it doesn't mean they are reliable to be used as a source of information in articles other than the ones about themselves. That was the whole point I was trying to make above, please read again. VdSV9•♫ 19:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If the fact that they were covered by secondary sources doesn't make them reliable, then you never addressed my original point, which is why are other House Reports considered reliable, but this one isn't? BabbleOnto (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

VdSV9's last remark is related to WP:ONEWAY. Article about wackos talking about scientific subjects: Sources talking about wackos talking about scientific subjects are OK. Article about scientific subjects such as this one: Sources talking about wackos talking about scientific subjects are not OK. You need to understand that context matters. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

It seems that we have to have this conversation about conspiracism in the US house of representatives regularly. There's a similar conflict at Havana Syndrome because some of the conspiracists in the US house believe the CIA is covering up Russian involvement in the proposed syndrome for vague, poorly defined, reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, the key thing to understand about WP:FRINGE is that it is about where a view stands in relation to the best sources on the subject; it's not a measure of what random people think or what arbitrary big names on unrelated topics believe. This is one of the oldest elements of our fringe policies (since a lot of the policy was hammered out in relation to the creation-evolution controversy, where there very much was a significant political structure devoted to pushing fringe theories aobut it); just because a particular senator doubts evolution doesn't make that perspective non-fringe. Members of the US government are only reliable sources on, at best, the opinions of the US government itself, and even then they'd be a WP:PRIMARY and often self-interested source for that, to be used cautiously. The WP:BESTSOURCES on eg. COVID are medical experts, not politicians (who may have an inherent motivation to grandstand, among other things) with no relevant expertise. Something that is clearly fringe among medical experts remains fringe even if every politician in the US disagrees. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  1. There are findings which are non-scientific which the report would be used to prove, namely whether or not the US government funded gain-of-function research in China. This is not a scientific claim, and the US government has the absolute most authority on that issue. There is no reason any given medical expert would be qualified at all to talk about this, as it is a logistical and budgetary question, not a scientific or medical one.

  2. There are also findings which are bipartisan. That is, they aren't just the opinions of one or two, or even an entire party's worth of politicians. They are agreed upon by all members of the committee, Republican and Democrat. That is drastically and categorically different than trying to cite one politician's personal opinion as fact.

  3. The remaining claims are still substantial, even if you or a large majority of people disagree with them, as a documentation of a significant viewpoint as required under WP:UNDUE. As paraphrased:

  If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

  Clearly the US government is "prominent," even if you believe they're secretly a cabal of anti-scientific fringe conspirators who seek to manipulate the fabric of reality to hide the REAL truth. BabbleOnto (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is not a usable source. You need to drop the WP:STICK. Bon courage (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. You've made your opinion abundantly clear. But you have never once provided a valid reason, other than "more people agree with me, so our interpretation of the rule wins."

  I have, at every turn, proven how the source fits the rules. You are overturning the rules in favor of your own, politically motivated consensus. BabbleOnto (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  You have, at every turn, proven that you do not understand the rules. Opposing pseudoscience is not politically motivated just because the pseudoscience is politically motivated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have consistently proven how my edits fall within the rules. The response has been "We interpret the rules differently and we have a majority, so what's actually written means what we say it does." BabbleOnto (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, that has not been the response. You do not understand the response or you do not want to understand it. I suggest you should first learn the Misplaced Pages rules in a less fringey topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The Men Who Stare At Goats Is one of Ronson's best works and illustrative of exactly why placing blind faith in the judgements of the government or military on scientific matters is tantamount to intellectually throwing in the towel and giving up on reality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I find this logic hilarious when just 4 years ago good-faith editors get banned for not trusting the government sources or trying to exclude the government as a source on lockdowns and social distancing. Go and read the discussion boards on social distancing from 2020, as I just have. I hope you understand that WP's new opinion of "Government primary sources cannot be used," was literally the exact opposite just four years ago. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a Strawman. No one is saying that a political report from the legislative branch and the output of public health agencies like the CDC are the same thing. Please try to engage with the arguments others are actually making. MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Amongst other secondary sources, I've been trying to cite to the DHHS report about EcoHealth. How is that a strawman to point out that the CDC is a completely valid source, but I have been prevented from adding a DHHS report? Do you know what a strawman is? BabbleOnto (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It feels like we're dealing with a WP:MASTADON here. You've been warned about WP:AE sanctions and you don't seem to be accepting what others are telling you. How do you want to proceed? jps (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You've been warned about WP:AE sanctions and you don't seem to be accepting what others are telling you

I haven't edited anything since being warned. I've complied and haven't tried to edit the article or revert my changes. Don't know what you're threatening here.

How do you want to proceed?

I would like the parts of the article which are demonstrably false, and supported by perennially approved secondary sources other than the house report and reporting thereto, rectified. Such as the DHHS barring EcoHealth from receiving funds (Other DHHS reports are cited in the article, and the article still says that EcoHealth was cleared from wrongdoing).

I would of course think at least some mention of the house report, even if negatively, even if only to highlight the secondary source's reception of it, is worthy. But I believe at this point I think some editors are too unwilling to compromise to consider that but, I'll throw it out there. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Well, if you're willing to WP:DROPTHESTICK, I'm sure we can happily help you find other places at this massive project to invest your volunteer time. Maybe give it six months and see if the landscape has changed. After all, there is WP:NODEADLINE. jps (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything since being warned. I've complied and haven't tried to edit the article or revert my changes. Don't know what you're threatening here.

Conduct on noticeboards and talk pages is actionable by WP:AE in WP:CTOPs. TarnishedPath 23:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• BabbleOnto raise valid point: question of US government funding allocations to gain of function research not fall under definition of scientific inquiry and is squarely in purview of US Congress. Dismising report from bipartisan committee undermine the "proportional representation of significant viewpoints" required by WP:NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  I stated above that the question ow what constitutes 'gain of function research' is very much is a scientific question and thus by extension the question "was there US-funded gain of function research in China" is also a scientific one. There has been no substantive rebuttal of what I wrote above. Politicians are out of depth discussing it while scientists don't even agree what it is. TarnishedPath 10:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, the controversy of what constitutes 'gain of function research' intersection of science, ethics and public policy, but that is a moot point because we have public testimony from NIH deputy director Lawrence A. Tabak in US congress, which I think is useable in the article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  I originally had that testimony in the article but it was removed. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  and removing it was the correct course of action. TarnishedPath 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Uh no. If it's not agreement upon what 'gain of function research' actually is then it would be wildly undue to be referencing government reports, regardless of who is quoted, that it has happened. TarnishedPath 05:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  By this logic the entire article would need to be rewritten, because currently the article does present a concrete, discrete definition of what gain-of-function research is. If you're seriously claiming there is no consensus as to what gain-of-function research is then the article will need to be rewritten to reflect that. Because currently here is the first line of the article

  Gain-of-function research (GoF research or GoFR) is medical research that genetically alters an organism in a way that may enhance the biological functions of gene products.

  Are you suggesting this is not actually the consensus as to what GoF research is, but just one scientist's opinion of what it is? If so, the article would have to be changed to reflect that. In fact the entire article would have to be rewritten to reflect your claim. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yakub (Nation of Islam)

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

Do you have specific concerns? Looking over the changes, nothing jumped out at me as horrifically problematic, but I'm not reading that closely. Feoffer (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted a sanity check. :) Also seems ok to me. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if any edits were problematic! I am interested in strange things. It's a bit awkward writing the... plot? When it's something like this, but it's unavoidable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Quite the rabbit hole I just went down with this one. I've added it to my watchlist. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thomas N. Seyfried

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

I think he's notable for doing well-cited work on diet/metabolism and (mainly brain) cancer in mouse models, some of which on a quick glance seems reasonably mainstream (see eg Annual Reviews research overview doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-013120-041149), but notorious for attempting to translate that early research (at best prematurely) into medical advice for people with cancer. We should probably avoid mentioning the issue at all, as none of the sources (either his or those debunking it) fall within the medical project's referencing standards for medical material. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

People are looking up Seyfried specifically because he is coming onto podcasts to make these claims , and if we omit them then Seyfried looks like a distinguished scientist giving mainstream advice, when he is saying things against the medical consensus. I think it would be better to delete the article than to omit this information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I fear the problem is that he genuinely is a distinguished scientist, even if he is currently talking in areas in which he appears not to be qualified. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this statement in general; it should be a guideline somewhere. Dronebogus (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Modern science and Hinduism

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

Despite the head note about not confusing it with Vedic science, most of it seems to be about Vedic science. And quite apart from anything else, most of the body of the article seems to be a paraphrase of reference 8. The headings are pretty much identical. Brunton (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The same editor has also started a draft at Draft:Hindu Science Draft with some of the same content. Brunton (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I boldy redirected to vedic science as an alternative to a WP:TNT. I judge maybe a half dozen sentences/ideas may be useful to incorporate over there. jps (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Vedic science itself needs some serious work, particularly given the appropriation of the term by Hindutva. JoelleJay (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. If nothing else, the creator has pointed out a gaping hole in our coverage. We need something along the lines of an article on Hindutva pseudoscience. Maybe a spin-out from Hindutva itself? jps (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

many religions use science apologism to justify faith. best to understand they are mostly means to justify religion to those insecure about it, but pseudoscience might be incorrect term of talking about it.

I don't mean to say that science proving hinduism right should be taken as a fact (def would break NPOV), but that we would also be wrong to dismiss the beliefs of a worshipper as "pseudoscience" when "religious faith" and "scientific apologism" would be the more correct term to describe this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

an example of an article section covering scientific apologism a bit better Islamic_attitudes_towards_science#Miracle_literature_(Tafsir'ilmi) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

When there is a concerted effort to replace certain scientific disciplines with religious-inspired belief, that is pretty classic pseudoscience. There are plenty of pieces from respected scientists who are aware of the current political/religious arguments being proffered against scientific understanding within the context of Hindutva who call this kind of posturing "pseudoscience". Misplaced Pages need not shy away from this designation. jps (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

What if Hindutva pushes n pseudoscientific positions but n+1 is not pseudoscientific, do we risk n+1 inheriting the posturing stink of the others? Evathedutch (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If Hindutva pushes a position that isn't pseudoscientific, then it shouldn't be discussed in a "Hindutva pseudoscience" article. Brunton (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Would a "Hindutva pseudoscience" page focus on the pseudoscientific topics itself or how "Hindutva pseudoscience" is used for other other aims? Evathedutch (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

i dont know what hindutva pseudoscience would entail. just pointing out terminology for the phenomenon where some guy tries to argue their religion describes the germ theory/embryology/big bang/etc first before science is scientific apologism not pseudoscience.

pseudoscience is passing off a fringe topic as science. science apologism is bending religious words to match current theories to argue your god knew it first Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The argument that Hindu astrology or ayurveda or any number of other ideas for which we have no scientific basis are actually "science" is proper pseudoscience. But "science apologism" is also pseudoscience especially in the context of arguments where there is claim that the particular religious idea predated the scientific context and was therefore privy to the evidence that led to later scientific developments. jps (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed most of the unsourced puffery added on 21 November. Frankly though whether the article should exist at all should be examined; it might be ripe for AfD. Crossroads 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The creator of the article had the username "HindutvaWarriors" until a bit over a week ago. Brunton (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Gonna add a reference section to the bottom of the article.CycoMa2 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Heliocentrism

Recently there was a statement which is added in heliocentrism article which claims that vedic philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres".The problem is that the reference given below is just a misinterpretation of the text which claims that vedic scholar knew about heliocentrism way before Aristachus of samos and was the first to do so.I have reverted the edit but it is keep on adding by other users.It is traditionally accepted in mainstream academia that the first person to propose heliocentrism is the ancient Greek astronomer aristachus of samos and any theory before him isn't accepted by mainstream academia or it is considered as fringe theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myuoh kaka roi (talk • contribs) 06:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't explain how it was "misinterpretation" of the text rather than direct mention of the authors 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Authors in the reference themselves misinterpreted the the text which states that the

Sun is the centre of spheres

as heliocentrism but heliocentrism itself states that the sun is the centre of the universe and planets revolve around the sun and secondly there is no mention of original text by authors in their reference most of them rely on tertiary sources and the statement itself is unscientific as it is widely accepted in scientific and mainstream academia that the first person to propose heliocentrism is the ancient Greek philosopher aristachus of samos Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources which talks about astronomy in indiaNone of them talks anything related to vedic heliocentrism. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't mention how Yajnavalkya's mention is interpreted in Heliocentric context.Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres". 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't equate to heliocentrism as it's just a religious interpretation so it doesn't belong to the article and Secondly, J.Gregory; Henley, Ernest M (2012). Physics Around Us: How And Why Things Work. World Scientific Publishing Company Isn't even credible source as neither of them are experts in these fields.Even the description of the book claims that it is suitable for a first year, non-calculus physics course not a peer reviewed journal.Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources are authentic, nonetheless there are probably more to it, I ill discuss in that particular page of the article. 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

See here 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Just because World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc is used to publish research paper and project that doesn't mean that all research papers are credible and I had already discussed in my previous comment that the book is meant for first year non calculus students.Research books required to be reviewed by authors who are expert in that particular field to give it a peer review . Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

So what, You can't dismiss it's credibility on Anything; There are multiple other cite besided that. 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Most other sources you provided aren't credible that's the reason why it got removed. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Credible on what basis, Yesterday or early today you were arguing good publication like Oxford Cambridge to provide and seemingly thats the only basis, and somehow provided you want other criteria and somehow getting your own opinion or research being given that way. 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion on one page-it will be easy rather switching. 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=kt9DIY1g9HYC&pg=PA317&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
2. Subbarayappa, B. V. (14 September 1989). "Indian astronomy: An historical perspective". In Biswas, S. K.; Mallik, D. C. V.; Vishveshwara, C. V. (eds.). Cosmic Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. pp. 25–40. ISBN 978-0-521-34354-1.
3. Dash, J.Gregory; Henley, Ernest M (2012). Physics Around Us: How And Why Things Work. World Scientific Publishing Company. p. 115. ISBN 9789813100640.

Does the lead of Hamlet's Mill cover the criticism sufficiently?

I don't think it does. The biography of one of the authors, Giorgio de Santillana, mentions the book but no criticism of it. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: RfC on NewsNation

For your awareness, I've opened an RfC here on the reliability of NewsNation, a frequent source used for UFO coverage on WP. Chetsford (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, even if I do not agree with the deprecation/depreciation system. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, even if I do not agree with your disagreement. Chetsford (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

I think we need more eyes on the talk page for COVID-19 lab leak theory regarding multiple discussion threads there. There's been a lot of WP:SPA and new account activity over the past two months and there should really be broader community involvement so WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues don't occur. There's several instances of comments currently on the talk page where accounts more or less openly state that they're trying to make POV changes because the scientific community is covering up the facts. Silverseren 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Just for bookkeeping so that people following this noticeboard are aware, there are at least two drahmaboard discussions about this matter active now:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_and_ABF_in_contentious_topics
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#BabbleOnto

jps (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The Newport Tower, a 12th century Norse baptistry?

Of course not, But an ex-navy graduate student has managed to get a paper claiming this into a book published by Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Coğrafya ve Kartografya (Geography and Cartography in the Ottoman Empire), eds. Mahmut Ak and Ahmet Üstüner, 201-86. Istanbul: Istanbul University Press, 2024 . An article I wrote long ago might be relevant here.. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Found him being used in one article and deleted it. It was obviously a good faith addtion. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

He's emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Taken it to RSN. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

New fringe article Luso–Danish expedition to North America

Among other issues is used as a source. Also see Cartographic expeditions to Greenland where that article has been added through the redirect Pining expedition. We don't even know if John Scolvus was a real person. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

AfD'd it. I would have thrown up a speedy delete but I imagined it'd pass some very quick smell check with the way it's written looking more legitimate than normal fringe nonsense here. Didrik_Pining#Alleged_trip_to_America seems to have everything needed for now. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And now we have Portuguese Newfoundland also saying the Portuguese got there first, same fringe book as source. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

AFDd this, as well. It does appear there's a few adherents to these ideas around Misplaced Pages and the writing quality is high enough to mask the patent garbage underlying, which is a nuissance as it sort of rules out speedy deletion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Harald Walach

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

Homeopathy crank, involved in the anti-Ernst smear campaign a few years back. (de:Claus Fritzsche was paid by Big Homeopathy to tell lies about Edzard Ernst, was exposed in an article in a major newspaper, "The dirty methods of the gentle medicine", was dropped by Big Homeopathy like a hot potato, killed himself. Walach blamed the skeptics for that.) Should his involvement be in the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Seed oil misinformation

• Seed oil misinformation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New IP address on talk claiming there is evidence seed oils are driving chronic disease. The usual suspects cited including a paper by James DiNicolantonio that is often cited by the paleo diet community. User is requesting that the article be renamed "Health effects of seed oils". See discussion on talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Electrohomeopathy

The article Electrohomeopathy appears to be in the middle of a months long Edit War to remove any mention of it being quackery or pseudoscience. I would appreciate some extra set of eyes on this article, specifically people that have more experience in this type of article. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Rewrote some of the intro to call it quackery, which thankfully wasn't hard to cite. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Off-wiki coordination on Circumcision related articles

It looks like the 'intactivists' are coordinating off-Wiki to influence circumcision related articles. I was made aware of this at User talk:RosaSubmarine. To quote that editor:

As we speak, pages on children's rights, female genital mutilation, human's rights, male circumcision, and genital modification and mutilation have all been recently improved upon editor notice.

More watchlisting on affected articles would be greatly appeciated. MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not touching that article with a ten foot pole but surely the fact that the entire bioethical debate is relegated to a single sentence when it's highly contentious within that field makes an argument that the folks coordinating have a point? The question mark is sincere there, I assume any point I could bring up has already been argued to death by people who know more than I. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The wiki linked on that Talk page quotes Larry Sanger and the Heartland Institute. If those people "have a point", it is by random chance since LS and HI are both, let's say, not among the 8.1 billion most trustworthy people on Earth. This is likely a very WP:PROFRINGE operation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a big topic and written summary style. Most of the relevant content should be at Ethics of circumcision or Circumcision controversies and not the places the new editors have been putting things. MrOllie (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I actually don't really agree the summary style used there is a good one. Dumping the ethical concerns into their own article while keeping the religious concerns (which are inherently ethical concerns) present a WP:POVFORK.

But again, ten foot pole etc. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If the choice is between summary style (since a specialized article exists) and huge manifestos that solely aim at maximal visibility of a particular POV (massive tables in the lede, excessive blockquotes), then the short-term solution is obvious. For balanced, sensible extensions beyond summary style, there is sufficient room to discuss in the respective talk pages. –Austronesier (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm already involved in enough eternal dumpster fire articles for me to want to get too involved in this one. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Obviously the meatpuppery is a problem, but I do not really see how any of this is related to a fringe theory. It seems like a pretty clear case of activist editing to right great wrongs, which, while misguided, does not really try to introduce fringe views. The "intactwiki" article cited at the beginning of their response is obviously trash that does not help their case, but I believe they are if anything mostly a new user not yet familiar with how things are done here. I tried to point them in a better direction in the discussion on their talk page Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 17:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

We get waves of this business on Misplaced Pages. The main fringey positions will be attempts to draw equivalence between female genital mutilation and male circumcision. This is often a precursor to fringe medical claims (intactivists like to overstate complication rates in particular) and sometimes antisemitic conspiracy theories show up as well. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That there is a notable equivalency, not in terms of harm or the damage caused, but in terms of ethical concerns around consent is a completely mainstream perspective within bioethics and calling it a fringe stance feels like using WP:FRINGE as a cudgel. That’s why dumping any concerns into their own article is a POV fork. I think it’s extremely disingenuous to discount the very real and ongoing discussions around bioethics as a fringe stance, even if the attempts to twist the harms to make it more equivalent to FGM are POV-pushing fringe edits.

Literally the first line of the Ethics of circumcision article is the statement:

There is substantial disagreement amongst bioethicists and theologians over the practice of circumcision

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct. But there isn't substantial disagreement about FGM, which is why one side of the argument finds it useful to draw a false equivalence on that point. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think enough WP:RS sources would disagree about there being no equivalency at all that brining this to FTN instead of an appropriate venue for dealing with the offsite coordination and asserting that it’s WP:FRINGE feels quite inappropriate? Either way, I’m not going to get suckered into this one and will leave it be :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is that the obvious RGW canvassing and meat-puppetry are obviously bad and should be dealt with accordingly, but also the serious ethical debate around the subject shouldn’t be casually downplayed as purely “fringe”. This is an NPOV issue more than anything. It’d be like saying “opposition to human trafficking is fringe” because some Qanon weirdos are brigading articles about it— mainstream topics always have fringe positions within them, without being fringe themselves. Dronebogus (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

John Yudkin

• John Yudkin (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I have no idea how right or wrong exactly he was, but sentences like The efforts of the food industry to discredit the case against sugar were largely successful sound exactly like what we hear from fringe pushers. Characterizing a rather sensible-sounding sentence by Ancel Keys as rancorous language and personal smears is inappropriate too. Who has the competence to improve this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The efforts of the food industry to discredit the case against sugar were largely successful

Is this a fringe view? I was under the impression that this was as generally accepted as the history of the tobacco industry. GMG 14:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

No it was mostly exaggeration. There were only a handful of sugar industry funded studies on CVD. The article has been on my watchlist for a while, many Misplaced Pages articles in the past cited this credulous Guardian piece written by Ian Leslie promoting a conspiracy theory about the sugar industry which takes its information from low-carber Robert Lustig who is completely unreliable. John Yudkin was an early low-carb author who rejected the evidence for saturated fat and CVD risk; instead he blamed sugar. Robert Lustig promoted a lot of conspiracy theories defending Yudkin. There are a handful of old studies funded by the sugar industry that investigated cardiovascular disease but low-carbers like Lustig and Gary Taubes exaggerate and claim there were hundreds. It would be worth removing Ian Leslie's unreliable article as a source from the article, it promotes WP:Fringe and sensationalistic claims. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Umm... I'm not sure that's the prevailing modern view. GMG 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have read that paper many times. It is a favourite of the low-carb community. The paper you cited is talking about the 1960s and its cites unreliable sources like Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz. D. Mark Hegsted received a one off payment from the Sugar Association for $6500 for a review of research. There is no evidence for 100s of studies funded by the sugar industry, if you think there is please list them. The claims are exaggerated, that's why they have so few examples. Back in the 1960s the standards of disclosure were less stringent than they are today. Hegstead also received funding from the dairy industry for his research but of course that isn't mentioned in the paper because it doesn't suit their narrative. The modern prevailing view is that high saturated fat consumption is bad for health. All the guidelines recommend limiting processed sugar but it isn't considered the main risk factor for CVD. There are many risk factors. The "blame only sugar" approach for CVD or all chronic disease is definitely a WP:Fringe view, and no different than what we are now seeing with seed oil misinformation. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is Hegstead's 1967 review , can you find any faults in the methodology? The paper admits to having received funding from the "Special Dairy Industry Board". The paper you cited by Cristin E Kearns doesn't mention this. Here Is Hegstead's conclusion from the paper: "The major evidence today suggests only one avenue by which diet may affect the development and progression of atherosclerosis. This is by influencing the serum lipids, especially serum cholesterol, though this may take place by means of different biochemical mechanisms not yet understood". Dude was right in 1967 with over 50 years of research since supporting that conclusion. Plenty of clinical evidence has since confirmed the lipid hypothesis. Most of what Yudkin was saying has not been confirmed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

2019 Military World Games

• 2019 Military World Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Noticed this since it was linked in some COVID-19 talk page. An editor keeps adding this conspiracy theory about COVID-19 based largely on 2020 sources including sources which contradict what they're adding. I intend to bring them to ARE next time they try, but in case ARE doesn't see it the same way it would be helpful to get more eyes on this. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

To give an example of a contradiction, the edit says "The National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI - a branch of the DIA within the USIC) based in Fort Detrick, MD, provided an intelligence report soon after the end of the Military World Games that indicated a contagion had begun spreading in the Wuhan region; this intelligence report was shared only with NATO member states and the state of Israel." So it's presenting this as something factual that did happen. But one of the very sources used specifically includes an explicit denial of such a report "No such NCMI product exists," the statement said." While government statements can't always be trusted, with such an explicit denial reported by the very source we're using, if we're going to present the report as something factual as the editor is trying to do, we'd need strong evidence that this reported is widely accepted to exist despite this denial but there is none in those sources. And this is from April 2020. No sources have been provided demonstrating that anyone in 2025 still thinks this report exists and that's with a change in administration in the US and all else that's gone on since then. I'd note this also seems to contradict the timeline of COVID-19 which suggests it was first identified in December 2019, or with November 17 given as the earliest date in our Origin of SARS-CoV-2 article meaning it is inherently impossible for there to be a report in the 2nd week of November. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we can go ahead and mention that the claims exist, but with much less WP:WEIGHT. I've trimmed it down to one short paragraph that properly balances everything (mentions that the rumors exist, then states why they are false). Diff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't see a problem with that. I did consider drastically reducing and leaving something in but frankly it was such a mess with all the 2020 sources and even one or two from 2019 (which while the games were in 2019, was well before any talk of COVID so raised strong WP:Syn concerns) that I decided not to bother since it didn't seem that important. I did miss the 2022 source somehow which make it seem more likely we should mention it (since it isn't just something people make a big deal of in April 2020 then completely forgot about). Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I was reverted. Might need more eyes, or an RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Acupuncture, Hypnotherapy references in Jaw Dislocation article

In the article about Jaw Dislocation, in the treatment section, lies some dubious claims hidden in otherwise rational and sourced claims:

The different modalities include patient education and self-care practices, medication, physical therapy, splints, psychological counseling, relaxation techniques, biofeedback, hypnotherapy, acupuncture, and arthrocentesis. (Emphasis added)

This edit was added without a source and then a source was added a few minutes later. The source is behind a paywall, but when I got through it, I don't see any mention of hypnotherapy, acupuncture, or biofeedback at all. Even when I went to the separate page about treatments, again no mention of hypnotherapy, acupuncture, or biofeedback. (And to be frank, no mention of relaxation techniques, psychological counseling, or splints, either, but those seem to at least be more plausible.)

I think an editor put those into the actual treatments hoping no one would notice. As such, because they are unsourced and pseudoscientific, I think they should be removed. BabbleOnto (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

All those that aren't sourced should be removed, including treatments not in the source because they seem plausible is OR.Brunton (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Also summarize everything you do on the Talk page so that the editor is on notice in case they try to sneak it back in. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, that entire paragraph is about treating Temporomandibular joint dysfunction rather than jaw dislocation. It can just be removed, leaving the second paragraph which is actually about treatment of jaw dislocation. Brunton (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Temporomandibular joint dysfunction#Alternative medicine could probably do with some eyes. Brunton (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Delta smelt

There is an IP adding a theory from an SPS that does not come from a subject matter expert. The theory claims that an act Newsom refused to sign to protect the Delta smelt caused the Palisades Fire to spread out of control. What should I tell the IP? None of the Twinkle warning templates really seem to match. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would use the Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material ... warning, with a link to WP:RSSELF in the edit window of the message. Donald Albury 21:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delta smelt (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

More and more articles are in danger of fringe edits because of a certain random rambler. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that the habitat of the Delta smelt is about 335 miles north of Los Angeles and that all the decisions about the Peripheral Canal were made before Gavin Newsom was governor, and that even if Newsom had pushed hard to ship Northern California water hundreds of miles to Southern California without regard to environmental issues, and had succeeded (politically impossible), the necessary infrastructure could not possibly have been funded and built in the six years that Newsom has been governor. Add to that that the problems with fire hydrants in LA have not been due to lack of water in general but rather to power failures to water pumps caused by the massive fires, and limits to water storage that feeds fire hydrants. The storage tanks high in the hills were depleted quickly. They are bringing in portable generators as needed, and struggling to refill those tanks. When you add all that up, the connection between the Delta smelt and the 2025 Palisades Fire is non-existent, except in the minds of disinformation operatives and gullible conspiracy theorists. Cullen328 (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My understanding based on watching the coverage of the fires is that it's mainly a pressure issue and not an issue of total existing water. Basically, no city has the infrastructure in place for every hydrant everywhere to be opened all at the same time. It's designed for multiple structure fires and not multiple town-size fires. Moreover, I expect that if someone tried to install the infrastructure for such a rare situation, everyone of all political stripes would be balking at the cost of something that might be used once every century. GMG 12:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about SBM at COVID-19 lab leak theory

See Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Science-Based Medicine - cleanup needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Misandry

Old/current Misplaced Pages message: "Misandry is a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny."

My suggested edit: Some experts see misandry as a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny. Others disagree, and see misandry as a major issue.

My edit has been reverted by @mrollie and @Binksternet (who said I was engaging in an edit war or about to, but reverted himself, which I didn't fully understand.)

Their reasoning was that seeing misandry as a minor issue was the consensus amongst scholars. However, I said that there was no evidence that the majority of scholars don't see misandry as a big deal, or that seeing misandry as a big deal was a "fringe issue" amongst scholars. Who's in the right here?

P.S. if you think I'm in the right I'd appreciate it if you reverted it for me so that I don't get into trouble for edit wars.

Thank you all for your time. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

And please note that this is regarding the text in the Misogyny article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If the best source you can find to demonstrate the prevalence of a position is a blog post published in a pop science rag, then it is quite possibly a fringe position. Remsense ‥ 论 06:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The Misandry and Misogyny articles must both tell the reader that misogyny is a huge deal and misandry is comparatively minor and recent. That's because the people who make the most noise in social media about misandry—members of the men's rights movement—have been pushing a false equivalence to get more sympathy for their cause. They keep saying that misandry is a huge deal, much the same as misogyny. Scholars who study these issues have formed a consensus against the MRM position, saying that misogyny has a few thousand years of terrible mistreatment of women, while misandry is about 1 percent of that, as it is a recent accusation, representing a backlash against the advances of feminism. Topic scholars making this description include David G. Gilmore, Marc Ouellette, Heidi R. Riggio, Michael Kimmel, Alice E. Marwick, Robyn Caplan, Frances Ferguson and R. Howard Bloch, among many others. These are all cited in the misandry article. In fact, 40 topic scholars have declared a "misandry myth" contradicting the MRM claims, saying that feminists in general do not hate men. It's a thing. Binksternet (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's a minor issue, and misandry doesn't have to mean that feminists in general hate men. Do the sources you listed also state that it's a consensus that misandry is a minor issue? To clarify, are they claiming that they think it's a minor issue or are they stating that it's the consensus? Perhaps you could point to specific from the sources?

@Remsense I wasn't sure it was a blog post, but I did see the person writing the article had a PHD, and I saw some other places on google scholar stating that too.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate the proposed changes represent positions in proportion to their prominence in the body of reliable sources. This is something the post above goes much farther in demonstrating, even citing a survey of many relevant scholars. Remsense ‥ 论 07:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's a minor issue Then it's a good thing that nobody said that was the reason for it being a minor issue. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like “comparatively minor” would be more accurate, unless sources state that it is a minor issue on some kind of absolute scale. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It's definitely an issue that has received increased attention. But it does probably need better sourcing to back your stance. I would recommend something like Of Boys and Men by Reeves. Granted, I largely disregard the MRM as weirdos. But the subject has gotten treatment from people who aren't online weirdos.I would also note that misandry doesn't necessarily mean overt and explicit "hatred" of men exclusively. By all accounts, the jerk at the office or the Harvey Weinstein at the job interview doesn't hate women. They're probably very fond of them. But they're also part of a systemic viewpoint that devalues people based on a particular class membership. GMG 14:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

These are the types of claims that should be attributed. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be telling people what issues are important, it should be telling people who thinks what's important and why. Trying to use Misplaced Pages to say "this issue is worse than that one" is textbook POV pushing. And Wikieditor662, keep in mind that it's still edit warring if you ask other people to do it on your behalf, and it's not a good idea to dodge restrictions like that be enlisting others. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for your responses, please allow me to address them:

@Remsense @GreenMeansGo If there are reliable sources on a topic giving opposing views, and you claim that one is a minority view, wouldn't the responsibility of proof fall on you? Either way, I tried to find information as to whether scholars have a consensus on the severity of misandry. There is only one thing I found in regards to that:

1) "Misandry is a very general and very contested term" - Excerpt from Sutton, Robbie M., et al. "The false and widespread belief that feminists are misandrists." (Please note the title isn't related to the issue, as it's about whether misandry is a big issue, not whether feminists are misandrist.)

Note that this was in regards to what the consensus is about Misandry. I can also show you what individual scholars think of Misandry, but again, this may not necessarily represent the consensus:

"Whether you define misandry as “hatred” or “contempt,” which is … First, misandry is a major

problem for men and must not be …"

Source: NathaNsoN, Paul, and KatheriNe K. YouNg. "Misogyny versus Misandry: From" Comparative Suffering" to Inter-Sexual Dialogue." New Male Studies 3.3 (2014).

"Mitigation of misogyny and misandry is crucial"

Source: Oparah, J. S., and Mary Ndubuisi Fidelis. "Misogyny and Misandry: Reasons and Mitigating Strategies in the Sample of Antenatal Patients in Tertiary Health Facilities in Owerri Municipal Imo State, Nigeria." International Journal of Human Kinetics, Health and Education 5.1 (2019).

These are some of the areas of text I found from google scholar; I'm sure there's plenty more. But except for the one excerpt stating that Misandry is a general and contested term (they may be talking about the general population, so I'm not even sure if that counts), I couldn't find anything about what the consensus is, but it appears to be a nuanced issue amongst scholars from what I see.

As for the WP:ONUS, some other options would be to only compare it to misogyny (for example what @Barnards.tar.gz suggested, although that example specifically would also require source/s), to mention that it's the counterpart of misogyny but not compare it, or just not mention misandry at all.

-

@Hob Gadling I think Binkstrenet did when he said "misogyny has a few thousand years of terrible mistreatment of women, while misandry is about 1 percent of that, as it is a recent accusation"

-

@Thebiguglyalien In the first part of your sentence, were you referring to where it says Misandry is a minor issue when you were talking about POV pushing?

And as for asking people to do the edit on my behalf, I meant after a consensus was reached, I promise it wasn't my intention to escalate an edit war. I apologize if I worded that statement badly.

-

Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

New Male Studies is a journal sponsored by the foundation for male studies. The about us page of the foundation includes PragerU and random TED talk videos.

International Journal of Human Kinetics is not a journal really about human sociology, and is published by a random department in the university of nigeria.

These don't pass muster for reliable and due sourcing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I quite specifically pointed to evidence that this position is in the great majority, and am not sure how you missed that. Remsense ‥ 论 03:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The sentence could certainly be worded more impartially. That said, typing a phrase such as "misandry is a major problem" into any search engine is going to return biased results. Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young are religious scholars whose writings about misandry are outside their field of expertise and have been harshly critiqued by topic experts. Their views are extremely WP:UNDUE if not outright WP:FRINGE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman I thought the information on google scholar was reliable, perhaps I was wrong. That's unfortunate, it means getting reliable sources is a little more difficult. Are you aware of any other easy ways to find reliable sources?

@Remsense are you referring to the misandry myth title? As far as I'm aware that's in regards to the viewpoint that feminism is misandrist, so it might be talking about a specific part of misandry rather than all of it.

@Sangdeboeuf I didn't type that in, I typed in things like "misandry" and "what do scholars think of misandry" and "is misandry a problem" into google scholar, but now I'm noticing that also may not be reliable as @Bluethricecreamman so I'm trying to figure out where else I can check

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Not every source on Google Scholar is reliable. For scholarly sources, check if the journal is peer-reviewed and is well-respected by others. The journals you posted were easy to investigate with a quick google search to see who were sponsoring them, or if they were predatory. Please see also WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:DUE. You need to find sourcing that is due, not the first sourcing that validates your point of view. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, here are some things I found from what I believe are peer-reviewed articles (and I searched misandry and clicked on whatever I saw). These are some different perspectives I found on it:

The psychology of women quarterly (the misandry myth) shows different sides to the issue (I'll highlight the specific parts).

On one side: "some feminists have claimed that misandry is a legitimate, even necessary aspect of the movement. Their argument is that bad feelings toward men are rational responses to men's hatred and mistreatment of women and that more positive or dispassionate responses would only undermine women's motivation to bring about social change

On the other: "On the other hand, there are reasons to think that feminists may harbor positive attitudes toward men. Many feminists disown misandry' and even advocate for men and boys." (They later elaborate on this by stating "Feminists have driven forward significant changes in men's favor (Courtenay, 2000) including the repeal of sexist drinking laws (Plank, 2019) and laws that define rape in terms that exclude assaults in which men are victims (Cohen, 2014; Javaid, 2016). Feminists have also advocated for reforms that mean the burden of front-line combat duties and dangerous occupations are now open to women and therefore no longer borne alone by men (Soules, 2020). These phenomena weigh against the conclusion that in general, feminists are motivated by negative attitudes toward men.")

Interestingly enough, the article Hating Misandry will free you? Valerie Solanas in Paris or the discursive politics of misandry argues, if I understand correctly, that a certain type of misandry can even be a good thing. If I'm correct, that article (and others) seems to imply that the term misandry has had a major influence on feminism and dissuaded many people from becoming feminists in fear of being called misandrist. These articles seemed to try to counter that notion, but the notion's existence itself shows that at least the concept of misandry is a major issue.

-

I'm pretty sure these sources are reliable and prove that it's a nuanced issue, but I apologize in advance if I made some sort of mistake. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

might be worth inclusion depending on what is added in and where. I have no clue about this subject matter. try WP:BRD with these new changes, and if you are reverted, engage in discussion on the article talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Assuming misandry needs to be mentioned at all in the Misogyny article, then I'd go with others' suggestion to attribute the opinions of relevant scholars. Copying from the Misandry article, we could say something like: Marc A. Ouellette argues in International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny". Anthropologist David Gilmore argues that misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" and that there is no male equivalent. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah Sangdeboeuf has the right of it. And do please avoid the PragerU pseudo-journal. They aren't a real university. Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me add what the peer reviewed article mentioned: Marc A. Ouellette argues in International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny". Anthropologist David Gilmore argues that misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" and that there is no male equivalent. At the same time, the Psychology of Women Quarterly in the article the Misandry Myth states that many feminists disown Misandry and advocate against it. Is this good to go? And if we reached consensus, can I add it? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd argue that misandry doesn't need to be mentioned in the misogyny article, there's a link to misandry on the bottom among related articles and I think that's enough. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure the two aren't connected and don't influence each other? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

if major texts discussing misogyny do not also talk significantly about misandry, then we cannot include it due to WP:DUE.

It technically does not matter if it is obvious anyone thinks they are connected, WP:OR means we have to find sourcing that backs it up...

If there are minor texts talking about both somehow, then maybe thats an auxiliary article... Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, there are major texts discussing misandry which also talk significantly about misogyny, does that count? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

... i mean you can debate it in the talk page. im not a topic expert on it, but i think folks who watch that page, myself included, would probably want a text that discusses misogyny to spend a bit of time on misandry for it to be considered due for more than a mention in a see also. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Connected and influencing one another are two different things. They are in the same category, this is reflected by the "Related" link at the bottom of the article.

To claim they influence one another WP:RS is needed. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

So is it ok if I remove the part that talks about Misandry on the Misogyny page? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

No. You'd need go get consensus at Talk:Misogyny to do that, and I think that is unlikely to happen. MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Given @TurboSuperA+'s reasoning, why is it unlikely to happen? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Because finding one person who sort of agrees with you on this noticeboard is not a substitute for gathering consensus support on the article's talk page. MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Then should I go to the Misogyny page and seek consensus between removing mention of misandry and changing to the phrases mentioned earlier here? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The answer to that question is a few lines above, but at least it is a better option than editing the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Ouellette, Marc (2007). "Misandry". In Flood, Michael; et al. (eds.). International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. Routledge. pp. 442–443. ISBN 978-1-1343-1707-3.
2. Synnott, Anthony (October 6, 2010). "Why Some People Have Issues With Men: Misandry". Psychology Today. Misandry is everywhere, culturally acceptable, even normative, largely invisible, taught directly and indirectly by men and women, blind to reality, very damaging and dangerous to men and women in different ways and de-humanizing.
3. Allan, Jonathan A. (2016). "Phallic Affect, or Why Men's Rights Activists Have Feelings". Men and Masculinities. 19 (1): 22–41. doi:10.1177/1097184X15574338. ISSN 1097-184X – via The Misplaced Pages Library.
4. Chunn, Dorothy E. (2007). "Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men". Canadian Journal of Family Law. 23 (1): 93. ISSN 0704-1225. ProQuest 228237479.
5. Carver, T. F. (2003). "Review: Spreading Misandry: the teaching of contempt for men in popular culture". International Feminist Journal of Politics. 5: 480–481. hdl:1983/befd2fcf-8700-46c3-b7c5-aa6caab0e5fd. ISSN 1468-4470.
6. ^ Gilmore, David G. (2001). Misogyny: The Male Malady. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 10–13. ISBN 978-0-8122-0032-4. Cite error: The named reference "Gilmore p10" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

Kozyrev mirror

• Kozyrev mirror (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Seems to have only in-universe sources. Does anybody know any better ones? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

In russian Misplaced Pages I deleted it in 2019 because there are no normal sources on this topic ru:Википедия:К_удалению/27_февраля_2019#Зеркало_Козырева. Only fringe sources such as Kaznacheev. El-chupanebrej (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Never heard of it before. Pretty outlandish stuff. Having a look. VdSV9•♫ 13:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This just feels like it needs an AfD more than any extra eyes on it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kozyrev mirror (2nd nomination) jps (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ido Kedar using Facilitated Communication

I'm not even sure how to word this question to you all, but it comes down to this, if Ido Kedar is using Facilitated communication and or Rapid prompting method and is a student of RPM founder Soma Mukhopadhyay then how is it that Kedar is listed as being "author, memoirist, essayist, educator, and autistic advocate"? Sgerbic (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Is he still only using FC/RPM? The article claims he types on a tablet unassisted. jps (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS, but the best sanguine evaluation I can find: . No real explanation as to whether Kedar may be engaging in validated augmentative and alternative communication or is still in the thralls of FC/RPM. jps (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So despite that no one has ever been proved to have become an independent writer after using FC, we have to assume that this person is an independent writer just because they said so? If so can we start writing articles from people who are dead but are currently telling us about what life is like in heaven? I'm only half-joking. Sgerbic (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Our hands are tied by WP:RS and WP:BLP. The blogpost is the best we can do with someone evaluating the situation and we really can't use it for any claims. An alternative might be to argue that we don't have reliable WP:FRIND sources about the subject and asking for deletion. jps (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It's one of those cases where, I think, so-called weasel words would be appropriate. I don't know if the zeitgeist in WP has changed in regards to their use. He is an "alleged" those things. Who claims that he is those things? That's the problem. We don't really know! VdSV9•♫ 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say deletion is the best option, if we have no reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ido Kedar. Let's see how this goes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

During the AfD discussion, two peer-reviewed papers were identified which I think more-or-less cast doubt on the FC/RPM techniques associated with the claims of communication. I have added them to the talkpage of the article. Perhaps they can be used in the article in some fashion, but I'm not exactly clear to what end (and to what extent articles which implicitly or explicitly contradict these points should also be included). jps (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Jonathan Bernier

Is this WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to judge whether it is or isn't fringe but for something as culturally and historically significant as the New Testament one minor scholar's unique opinion should never be given that much due weight on the main article. Definitely undue weight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I mentioned shortening the description over undue weight in the talk page as well. Maurice Casey and James Crossley also argued for early datings like Bernier as well, so I would not describe it as an extremely unique opinion. This review mentions the book had a strong press release, with endorsements from the notable Chris Keith among others. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Chico Xavier and Explore

A user is edit warring to include the results of a study in the fringe journal Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing in the article about Brazilian claimed medium Chico Xavier. At minimum the additional context from skeptical writers provided in the explore article (Explore:_The_Journal_of_Science_&_Healing#Chico_Xavier_letters) should be included in the main Xavier article, though I would mind mention of the study being removed enitrely. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this but the section should still be checked over for neutrality, as the wording of the initial paragraph on the paper seems overtly promotional and long to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If any of this is inappropriate to bring up, please delete and let me know. But... The Portuguese language article for Xavier is very problematic, based almost entirely on believer "in-world" sources, and studies such as this one are presented in a very credulous way. Even argumentative, and often proselytising in tone.

I have tried to make improvements to it, with very little success, because there are always a few believers watching the page who fight over every sentence and are immune to reason (the article is currently blocked by admins because of one such dispute).

Looking over at the English version, it clearly has been created as a translation of an old version of that one and has a few of the same issues, but some of the more outrageous things seem to have been improved.

This Explore paper is a good example of the sort of thing that passes as "scientific" for these spiritist editors (should I tag them here? They also have accounts in the English project). The Portuguese version even includes the fact that the paper is indexed at PubMed, in a very poor attempt at an appeal to authority fallacy. As if the irrelevant fact that the paper's abstract is available at PubMed gives it any weight or credence. Doesn't matter how many times I point to WP:FRINGE, the spiritist Portuguese language editors refuse to listen. If anything, they seem to get offended and sink their heels even deeper by the suggestion. It can be quite frustrating.

I have taken further comments about this paper over to the article's talk page. Anyone is welcome correct me or add to the conversation. VdSV9•♫ 18:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Papers authored by parapsychologists, especially ones forwarding WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, should not be given weight in an article unless they are notable as discussed by WP:FRIND sources. Although better than the Portuguese version, the Xavier article is still loaded with worshipful anecdotes and overly credible tone, e.g. When challenged to demonstrate his abilities, Francisco impressively rose to the occasion. He was asked to improvise an essay on the spur of the moment about a grain of sand, with the assistance of a spirit. Despite the lack of preparation and the immediate nature of the challenge, he succeeded. I understand Xavier is a beloved part of the culture in Brazil, but our article has long ago veered off the path of encyclopedic. I would say WP:BLOWITUP but doubt the fans would allow it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Hemiauchenia did a good job in regards to the part that mentions the Explore paper. The section you quote is one outstanding example of the proselytising tone in the article. Such an unsourced fantastic claim should just be removed. The one ref in the entire childhood section doesn't have anything about an essay on a grain of sand.

This was probably taken by one of the many very credulous biographies about the man. VdSV9•♫ 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@VdSV9: The problem is that the coverage of Xavier is basically entirely in Portuguese, and often in difficult to access 20th century sources like old TV interviews and such. I would improve the article, but without good critical sources that's difficult to do. Do you have any good source recommendations that talk about Xavier from a non-hagiographic perspective? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is a big problem. Almost everything that is published about him in mainstream media for the past several decades has been hagiographical. There are very few exceptions, but publishers usually err on the side of caution when it comes to hurting people's religious sensibilities, as Brazilian law typically is more interested in protecting religious feelings than it is in protecting the victims of charlatans.

It's quite a cumbersome system to navigate, but the Brazilian National Library has a big collection of searchable old magazines (link). Here is one notable story from 1971 that I added to the pt version. And another one from 1944.

A problem, especially with his childhood, is that everything is unverifiable. Everything is hearsay written decades after the fact. We can't even properly attribute things, because we don't really know who said it, or when they said it. For most non-extraordinary claims, that's fine. But when it comes to extraordinary claims, I don't even know how to handle it. VdSV9•♫ 21:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I've just deleted almost the entire childhood section. It's not sourced anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Exorcism in the Catholic Church

• Exorcism in the Catholic Church (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Complaint on the talk page: the realist angle is missing. Complaint seems legit. Who is familiar with sources in this area? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution