Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 74

< Wikipedia:Fringe theories‎ | Noticeboard

Socionics

Socionics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

[1] — seems like not good revert, done without a detailed explanation on the discussion page why the use of the term pseudoscience is a violation of neutrality and why sources that refer to socionics as pseudoscience are removed with a statement of falsification. In ru-wiki, there is a long-term conflict over socionics, as a result of which almost all supporters were blocked. It would be good to attract a viewer with knowledge in psychology and, in particular, in differential psychology. Sorry for my english. --Q Valda (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are" Verifiability "and" No original research ". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus".

Member Q Valda is trying to challenge this decision. He even threatened the mediator Helgo13, as the mediator Helgo13 himself defined:

“First, you have to stop having a discussion like this ('juggling ... will not end well”) if you don’t want problems when discussing your actions in a much wider circle than the local mediation. You seem to be a mediator, but instead of a solution, you create a conflict yourself, and out of the blue. Second, you were offered specific questions on SALW, but there was no answer to them. And something tells me that the answer to the specific question of whether the current wording in the article suits (this is exactly what worries me the most at the moment), we will never hear.- Q Valda 16:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The wording in the article is not satisfactory, since it is not in accordance with the result. And I don't need to threaten me with a "broad discussion", you have the right to do so, as I have the right to use administrative powers. - Best regards, Helgo13 • (Obs.) 17:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

[3]

In the edits of user Q Valda about socionics, there is falsification and manipulation in the retelling of an authoritative source. This is an attempt to prove that the existence of psychological types is rejected by psychology. In doing so, he even tries to refer to an article that refutes this very point of view. In this work, 4 stable psychological types are identified. Even the title of the article by Gerlach M., Farb B., Revelle W., Nunes Amaral L. A. A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets // Nature Human Behavior. - 2018. - No. 2 (September). - S. 735-742. [4]. In addition, the isolation of psychological types is one of the main scientific methods in psychology. In all other sources, which the user Q Valda tries to put in the preamble of the article, the word "socionics" is mentioned only once. Moreover, these sources are not written by experts, not psychologists and cannot be considered authoritative on the topic of socionics. In ru-wiki, these sources were rejected by the intermediary for citation on Wikipedia:

"To be honest, I agree with the bottom line. In terms of the fact that there is no reason to include this opinion in the preamble. There are too few sources that consider in sufficient detail the issue of pseudoscience of socionics (in contrast to the same NC). You can't even write a section on them properly, and in order to include this in the preamble, kmk, such a section must first appear. After all, the preamble is the summary of the article. --ptQa 11:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)--"

[5]Sounderk (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

        • An example of an academic tertiary source: Prof. Krysko V. Dictionary of Social Psychology. - SPb.: Peter, 2003 .-- 416 p. - ISBN 5-314-00021-0

"Socionics is a science that draws methodology from sociology, informatics and psychology and is focused on improving society, in which for each individual belonging to a certain psychological type there is a place in socially useful activity."

--Sounderk (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  • 1) Citation from the source — Gerlach M., Farb B., Revelle W., Nunes Amaral L. A. (2018). A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets (PDF). pp. 735–742. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0419-z. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) — that was several times removed by supporters of this pseudoscience

    In contrast to personality traits, the existence of personality types remains extremely controversial.

    So it is neither "distortion" nor "manipulation". Bimodal personality types (like in socionics or MBTI) are outdated concepts.
    2) The current article on socionics has no proof of its postulates : about the existence of exactly 16 types of personality, about the innate and unchangeable nature of these types, about the dichotomy of personality traits. And it seems like these proofs does not exist.
    3) Prof. Krysko is a specialist in military psychology and not an expert in differential psychology or science studies, so this is not a reliable source for determining of scientific status.
    4) There are much more reliable sources like Mineev (expert on philosophy of science) or Sergeev (member of special commission of Russian Academy of Sciences on combat of pseudoscience). Here are the sources that classify socionics as pseudoscience:
  • Stubbify. The article has huge chunks of text that are either unsourced (and can be removed per WP:BURDEN), sourced entirely to "in-universe" walled-garden sources (meaning they are not independent WP:RS), or are WP:Primary, non-WP:MEDRS sources. Between that and the fact that there are WP:SPAs protecting the article, it's looking very untrustworthy. Do any mainstream psychology sources give any space to this theory? Not that I know of. Are any buried in the article itself? I note that at ru-wiki which Q Valda linked to above, it was stated, according to Google Translate, "There is no mention of socionics in highly respected academic reference books." (Original: "Отсутствуют упоминания соционики в высокоавторитетных академических справочных изданиях.") While what happens at Russian Wikipedia is of interest, we are not bound by their decisions. English Wikipedia is the largest and oldest and therefore has the most experience with fringe theories.
  • The lengthy text, near-exclusive use of walled garden sources, protection by SPAs, and its nature as a psychological fringe theory reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Educology. Crossroads -talk- 16:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Apparently in 2009 there was an ArbCom case where two users got topic banned: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics. A quote from the findings of fact: Users not previously involved in Socionics and Socionics-related articles are asked to give attention to any remaining issues with the articles, including the reliability of sources used. Users should carefully review the articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case. Participation from uninvolved editors fluent in the Russian language would be especially helpful. Crossroads -talk- 16:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
      • User Q Valda's links and arguments are an example of manipulating by facts, sources, and authors. Socionics studies relationships between people, and therefore it is a part of social psychology.

        “Vladimir Gavrilovich Krysko (b. 1949) - Soviet and Russian psychologist, specialist in military psychology, ethnopsychology and social psychology. Doctor of Psychology, Professor." [6]

        Therefore, he is a competent expert in the field of the academic scientific definition of socionics. His definition of socionics was published in a highly respected academic reference dictionary in 2003. Other authors referred to by the user Q Valda are neither psychologists nor sociologists. They use the word "socionics" only once, without references, without analysis. These are incompetent authors, especially in contrast with a number of psychology and sociology professors cited in the article. But with the use of these incompetent authors, the user Q Valda suggests changing the definition of socionics from neutral to sharply non-neutral. This is a violation WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RSUW. There are other highly respected academic reference books on this topic. In addition, socionics is studied in more than 150 universities in all countries of Eastern Europe. --Sounderk (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Dear Sounderk, please give a link to RS which proves the following basic socionics concepts: 1) existence of exactly 16 personality types, 2) innate and throughout life unchangeable nature of these types 3) dichotomy of personality traits adopted in socionics. --Q Valda (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Another previous discussion: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Socionics (esoterism) --Q Valda (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • SPAs keep showing up to revert. Crossroads -talk- 20:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Manipulation of several tendentious incompetent sources with the existence of another 6800 academic sources on socionics

The analysis showed that we are dealing with explicit manipulation of sources [8]. These 10 sources, given in non-consensus edits, are not reliable, they were written by non-specialists in the field of psychology, that is, by incompetent authors and were specially and biasedly selected from several thousand scientific works on socionics. But Google Scholar contains 3000 scientific sources in English [9], 6870 scientific academic sources on socionics in Russian and other languages [10]. The Stanford University Research Library contains over 1.600 peer-reviewed journal sources [11]. Of course, there are no articles on the topic of socionics as a pseudoscience in the scientific library of Stanford University [12] (Scholarly & peer-reviewed only). No one but me offered my reasoned assessment to the sources №1-10, placed in the definition of socionics to substantiate the pseudoscience of socionics. The analysis of these sources, quoted by me earlier, has not been refuted by anyone. But a few years ago in ru-wiki the mediator explicitly forbade the use of such sources to justify the pseudoscience of socionics. He forbade citing sources in which socionics a) is mentioned only once, b) sources written by non-professional authors, c) sources written by authors without degrees. Moreover, according to a number of authors from these sources, he made some special decisions, explicitly banning their use in an article on "Socionics". He always maintained the principle of neutrality, as the main one in Wiki. All these quotes are collected on the discussion page in the ru-wiki. For dear participants, I can translate all the quotes from his decisions. Thus, all the work to assess these Russian-language sources has already been done. It is easy to see that none of these sources №1-10 correspond to the decisions of the mediator! a) All of them mention the word "socionics" only once without analysis, b) they are all written by authors - not psychologists, non-sociologists, non-teachers. c) Among the authors are several philosophers, a journalist-geographer Sergeev (he was directly banned by three intermediaries), a philologist, a student, and a teacher without a degree. However, some participants, based on their own negative opinions, which they did not even hide, in violation of all the rules of the Wiki for several years continued to try to put them after the departure of the mediator from the Wiki. Why couldn't they supply other sources? For a very simple reason. There are simply no other sources, especially in the field of psychology and sociology, that criticize socionics. In the end, they managed to block opponents and force these changes. Now the new mediator in the ru-wiki has confirmed the decision on neutrality, but these users refuse to comply and are waging a war of edits. Now the same process has begun in En-wiki. Therefore, I urge dear English-speaking users to be very careful and understand this issue yourself! After all, from the point of view of the rules and decisions of the mediator, these sources №1-10 are fake, and nothing more than the whole body of academic sources cited in the article and by me. But we are talking only about neutrality in the definition of socionics, and nothing more. The result is a theater of the absurd, in which English-speaking Wiki users are clearly misled. This is understandable for an unfamiliar topic, but the sources and facts are before you. If the independent sources I present are not enough, I can increase their number many times over. I would also like to note that there are more than 100 scientific works by Russian and Ukrainian aviation specialists on research on the application of socionics in aviation alone. There is a whole scientific field of "Aviation Socionics", which deals with the problem of flight safety in civil aviation. And according to the official state program of flight training in civil aviation, which was approved by the Ministry of Civil Aviation of the Russian Federation in 2001, the study of the basics of "Aviation Socionics" is mandatory. This is part of the training program. The situation is similar with Russian manned astronautics since 1991.--ThesariusQ (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Examples of independent tertiary and secondary reliable sources about socionics as a science or scientific theory

1. Tertiary reliable source: MILITARY-PSYCHOLOGICAL DICTIONARY-REFERENCE Textbook Under the general editorship of Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Education Zinchenko Yu.P.[13], Moscow 2010. Authors: L.А. Kandybovich, Doctor of Psychology, Professor; S.L. Kandybovich, Doctor of Psychology, Professor[14]; A.G. Karayani, Doctor of Psychology,Professor[15]; I.V. Syromyatnikov, Doctor of Psychology, Professor.

SOCIONICS is a model for improving society, in which for each individual, representing a certain psychological type, there is a place in society, in social activity. S. - one of the theories of psychological types, which is at the intersection of psychology, sociology, computer science. S. is based on the model of CG Jung - a Swiss psychiatrist, psychologist. According to Jung's "Psychological Types", 1921, etc.), a person cannot be both an extrovert and an introvert. His psyche resembles a magnet formed from two poles. The poles of a magnet are always together, and a person is asymmetric, its second pole is another person. The relationship between two types, when the partners have the necessary additional qualities, are called complement relations, and the complement process itself is called dualization. For example, marriage is the right not only to a sexual partner, but also to psychic complement and continuation of one's personality in another, to the dualization of one's psyche. Different relationships between people in the same social conditions can only be explained by the psychological structures of the individuals in contact. These structures can be congenital or acquired, but must be sufficiently stable. With their help, you can explain why some people develop with some people, and with others - different relationships. A. Augustinavichiute, based on the work of Jung, proposed a classification of people directly related to the processes of information exchange in society. She identified 16 personality types, including: logician and ethic, extrovert and introvert, sensory and intuitive, rationalist and irrationalist, etc. S. helps to determine the type of a person's personality, to build interaction and communication with him, to form family, industrial and leisure collectives[16].

Extended content

2. Tertiary reliable source: V.G. Krysko, Doctor of Psychology, Professor. Dictionary of Social Psychology. - SPb.: Peter, 2003 .-- 416 p. - ISBN 5-314-00021-0

SOCIONICS is a science that draws methodology from sociology, informatics and psychology and is focused on improving society, in which for each individual belonging to a certain psychological type there is a place in socially useful activity.

Commentary: These are a tertiary reliable sources with a lot of weight. Its authors are social psychologists. Obviously, these tertiary sources are much more significant than those sources that are now placed in the preamble of the article, written by non-professionals in the field of psychology or sociology and mentioning the word "socionics" only once in the entire article.--ThesariusQ (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


3. Tertiary reliable source: Pedagogical Dictionary: For students higher and secondary pedagogical educational institutions. Kodzhaspirova G.M.,Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor, Kodzhaspirov A.Yu., Ph.D in Psychology - M .: I; M .: Publishing Center "Academy", 2005.

SOCIONICS -scientific approach, developing such a model of society, in a cut for each individual representing a certain psychol. type, there is a corresponding place in society and social. activities; the latest theory of psychol. types and interpersonal relationships, located at the intersection of psychology, sociology and informatics. In pedagogy, the development of the organization of the educational process on the basis of Socionics appeared.[17]

4. Tertiary reliable source: Dictionary of Foreign Words - Prof. Komlev N.G., 2006.

SOCIONICS -[<lat. socialis - public + (tech) nickname)] - the science of interpersonal relationships. Socionics recognizes 16 types of psychological relationships between individuals (INDIVIDUAL) and the presence of special paired types - duals. Duals have the adaptive ability to establish conflict-free ties with each other. Purpose with. optimize relationships between people.

5. Tertiary reliable source: Terminological dictionary of the librarian on social and economic topics. - St. Petersburg: Russian National Library. 2011.

Socionics - the object of its study is the typology of people. It can be used in psychotherapy and psychocorrection. Models relationships between people, predicts human behavior in communication.

6. Tertiary reliable sources: a) Sharkov F.I., Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Professor. Communicology. Encyclopedic dictionary reference. Textbook. allowance. - M.: ITK "Dashkov and K", 2009. - 766 p. - ISBN 978-5-394-00101-7. Recommended as a teaching aid for training bachelors and masters in advertising and public relations. b)Communicology: the basics of communication theory. Sharkov F.I., 2012, "ITK" Dashkov and K ° ", 2012

Socionics is a branch of knowledge that, with the help of formal-logical and mathematical apparatus, studies information processes occurring in society.[18]


7. a) Fundamentals of Philosophy Study Guide. Author: Kalmykov V.N., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, - 2nd ed., Revised. and add. - Minsk: Higher school, 2003 .-- 541 p.

Since the 70s. XX century. Socionics is developing - the science of human capabilities and human relationships. Depending on the personality types ("Dumas", "Hugo", "Balzac", "Don Quixote", "Napoleon", "Yesenin", "Zhukov", etc.), the relationship between people develops in different ways - in the range from comfort to conflict. In socionics, behind largely conventional, symbolic names, a kind of pseudonyms, concrete images are hidden. For example, the Zhukov type has strong managerial and organizational skills. Personalities of the "Dumas" type are predominantly disposed to receive pleasure, perceive the world around them through a sense of comfort, are able to create it in any conditions. Representatives of the "Hugo" type are ingenuous and frank in expressing their feelings, tend to influence others - through money, strength and the exercise of power. A person like "Balzac" is an intellectual, pragmatist, somewhat arrogant, does not like to obey, but he is not inclined to subjugate others, knows how to avoid useless work. People like "Napoleon" know how to manipulate the feelings of other people, are energetic, have a developed willpower, know how to work with people. Personalities like "Don Quixote" are romantic, dreamy, able to understand people well, are inclined to comprehend the essence of things and ideas, to discoveries, to develop new theories. The relationship between people is divided into dual

(partners complement each other, which is especially important in marriage), mirror (the left functions of one partner are right for the other, which creates good conditions for joint work) and activating (partners are activated when communicating with each other). Having mastered the "secrets" of socionics, you can avoid many unpleasant collisions in relationships between people (for example, when choosing a manager or subordinate at work, when choosing a partner in marriage, for entertainment and spending time together, etc.). Fundamentals of Philosophy Study guide. - 2nd ed., Rev. and add. - Minsk: Higher school, 2003 .-- 541 p.

b) Philosophy; Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus, Gom. state un-t them. F. Skaryna. - 4th ed., Rev. and add. - Gomel: GSU im. F. Skaryna, 2015 - 354 pp. Author: Kalmykov V.N., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor.

In addition to social science, social and psychological types of personality are distinguished. Even Hippocrates divided people into choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic and melancholic. In the philosophical and psychological literature, the division of people into introverts and extroverts has become widespread. An introvert is focused on his inner world, he often has an analytical perception of the world. The extrovert is aimed at the outside world, its syntheticity. Since the 70s. XX century. socionics is developing - the science of human capabilities and the relationship of people. Conditional, symbolic names hide specific images...[19]

Comments: These are university textbooks on philosophy in two versions. Unlike Mineev's book, in which socionics is mentioned only once, and the link to which is placed in the definition of the subject of socionics in the preamble of the article, these textbooks consider socionics as a new science in much more detail. Therefore, the weight of this textbook as an reliable source is much higher than the weight of Mineev's book.--ThesariusQ (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

8. Betty Lou Leaver, Madeline Ehrman, Boris Shekhtman: Achieving Success in Second Language Acquisition. – Cambridge University Press, 2005. – 280 p. – ISBN 052154663X, 9780521546638. Authors: Betty Lou Leaver, Associate Dean and Chief Academic Officer for New York Institute of Technology at Jordan University for Science and Technology. Madeline Ehrman, Director of Research, Evaluation, Development at the Foreign Service Institute, US. Boris Shekhtman is Operational Director of the Coalition of Distinguished Language Centers, and President of the Specialized Language Training Center in Rockville, Maryland., МD.

P.118: Like the MBTI, socionics is a sixteen-type derivative of Jung's work. Unlike the MBTI, the socionics model, which is in wide use in Eastern and Western Europe, as well as throughout Eurasia, Central Asia, and the Baltic nations, strives to stay very close to the original descriptions and type labels suggested by Jung.

.

9. Prof. Fink G. and Prof. Mayrhofer W. Cross-cultural competence and management – setting the stage // European J. Cross-Cultural Competence and Management. - 2009. - Vol. 1. - No. 1. - Pp.

Personality profiling encompasses numerous models that arise from personality trait theory. In the context of this article,four models deserve special attention due to their importance in personality research and/or their appropriateness for the topic: Socionics (founded in the 1970s by Ausra Augustinavichiute, e.g., Augustinavichiute, 1994, 1998); cybernetic mindscape theory (Maruyama, 1980; Boje, 2004); the five factor model (FFM), commonly called the ‘big five’ personality trait model (Costa and McCrae, 1992); the personality type theory of the Myers-Briggs type inventory (MBTI, see McKenna et al., 2002). These models are independent and unrelated, though Boje (2004) made an attempt to connect MBTI and mindscape theory.[20]

.

10. Alexandrova N.Kh., Boyadzhieva N., Sapundzhieva K., Kolarova Ts.D. Socionics in the sphere of social science - Sofia: Univ. ed. St. Kliment Ohridski, 2004 .-- 149 p. Authors: Alexandrova N.Kh. - Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor, Boyadzhieva N. - Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Sapundzhieva K.V. - Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Kolarova - Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor. They teach at the Sofia University “St. Кliment Ohridski "(Bulgaria).

Socionics is a reliable tool for the optimization and development of human personality, for the study of their professional competence. In essence, socionics orients a person in his life, suggests how to realize his capabilities, how to become a professional or find a job that meets his opinions and wishes. Depending on the type, it is possible to determine the professional inclinations of a person and his abilities - even those for the manifestation of which there was no occasion. The special appeal of socionics is that its concepts can be extracted and applied in everything related to human activity. In this case, it will optimize the social and pedagogical work and the training of students - social teachers.[21]

Commentary: on this and other textbooks socionics is taught at universities in Bulgaria.--ThesariusQ (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

11. Gosheva M.I. Socionics as a tool in counseling high school students // e-Education. - 2010. - № 37. - P.47-56

Socionics is a science that studies the exchange of information between man and the outside world, ie how people perceive, process and export information. At its core, socionics is a new approach to personality and analysis of relationships between people; it is an opportunity to fully and comprehensively understand others and yourself, to accept others and yourself, as well as the ability to create and establish the necessary interaction with different people.

12. M. Laszlo-Kutiuk The Key to Fiction. - Bucharest: Mustang, 2002. — 291p. - ISBN - 973-99400-6-4. Author: Professor at the University of Bucharest (Romania).

Socionics can be a great tool for understanding the skills of writers, the typology of the characters of their works. At the same time, literature can become a material for the further development of socionics itself as an intermediate science between psychology and sociology

.

13. László-Kuţiuk M. Ghid de autocunoasţere. Elemente de socionică. – Bucureşti, 2000. ISBN 973-97141-5-3. Author: Professor at the University of Bucharest (Romania).

14. Surtaeva N. N., Ivanova O. N. Educational socionics and problems of conflict interactions. SPb. IOV RAO, 2002 .-- 135 p. ISBN 5-258-00021-4. Authors: Surtaeva N.N., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor. Ivanova O. A., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor.

15. Prof. Blutner R.; Hochnadel E. (2010). Two qubits for C.G. Jung's theory of personality (PDF). Cognitive Systems Research. 11 (3): 243–259. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2009.12.002 [22]

Socionics was developed in the 1970s and 1980s mainly by the Lithuanian researcher Ausˇra Augustinavicˇiute. The name 'socionics' is derived from the word 'society, since Augustinavicˇiute believed that each personality type has a distinct purpose in society, which can be described and explained by socionics. The system of socionics is in several respects similar to the MBTI; however, whereas the latter is dominantly used in the USA and Western Europe, the former is mainly used in Russia and Eastern Europe. For more information, the reader is referred to the website of the International Institute of Socionics and to several scientific journals edited by this institution [23]. Despite of several similarities there are also important differences. For instance, the MBTI is based on questionnaires with so-called forced-choice questions. Forced choice means that the individual has to choose only one of two possible answers to each question. Obviously, such tests are self-referential. That means they are based on judgments of persons about themselves. Socionics rejects the use of such questionnaires and is based on interviews and direct observation of certain aspects of human behavior instead. However, if personality tests are well constructed and their questions are answered properly, we expect results that often make sense. For that reason, we do not reject test questions principally, but we have to take into account their self-referential character. Another difference relates to the fact that socionics tries to understand Jung's intuitive system and to provide a deeper explanation for it, mainly in terms of informational metabolism (Kepinski & PZWL, 1972). Further, socionics is not so much a theory of personalities per se, but much more a theory of type relations providing an analysis of the relationships that arise as a consequence of the interaction of people with different personalities

16. Mathematical psychology: V.Yu. Krylov. - Institute of Psychology Russian Academy of Sciences [24], 2010 .-- 503 p. - ISBN 978-5-9270-0115-5

You can consider other theories, for example, socionics, and the corresponding subject models corresponding to the J-model and A-model of socionics

.

17. Prof. Spirin L.F., Dr. Rumyantseva E.A., Rumyantseva T.A. Socionics - for teachers and parents. (How to find mutual understanding, harmony, friendship). / Ed. Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences M. I. Rozhkov. -M .: International Pedagogical Academy, 1999. - Spirin L.F. Professor, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor; full member of the International Pedagogical Academy, full member of the Academy of Pedagogical and Social Sciences, academician of the Baltic Pedagogical Academy, corresponding member of the International Academy of Psychological Sciences. / Reviewers: V. V. Novikov, Doctor of Psychology, Professor; P.V. Konanikhin, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Academician of NPA.

Socionics is also defined as the science of stable types of individuals and the patterns of relationships between them. Her conclusions are based on the analysis of information metabolism (exchange) between people, which, in particular, occurs in any pedagogical system and is one of the main aspects of its work

.

18. Svetlana Ivanova, PhD in Education, senior researcher laboratory of innovatics in pedagogical education, Institute of educational management of Russian Science Academy, the branch in St. Petersburg PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS // MODERN EUROPEAN RESEARCHES, №6, 2015.

As it is noted by A.V. Bukalov and O.B. Karpenko, wide circulation of socionics as scientific direction is confirmed by that for the last 15 years socionics ideas and methods are used approximately in 800 theses according to all sections of the humanities and in a number of technical sciences. Now socionics is taught in more than 150 universities of Russia, Ukraine, the CIS countries and countries of the European Union. [25]

.

19. Sociology. 5th ed., Textbook. 2016.

Authors: Alexander Gribakin, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Irina Loginova, Doctor of Philosophy, Valery Glazyrin, Professor, Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Olga Berdyugina, Doctor of Philosophy, Andrey Masleev, Doctor of Philosophy, Evgeny Konovkin, Doctor of Philosophy, Elvira Gribakina, Natalia Gulina, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor.

p. 278: The identification of types in socionics - the science of types of people and their relationships - is based on these typological differences. Socionics studies a person's perception of information about the environment, as well as information interaction between people, their psychological compatibility. In the basic version, 16 psychological types are distinguished.[26]

20. Socionics and Sociometry Diagnosting of Air Navigation System's Operator. Prof. Yuliya Sikirda (National Aviation University, Ukraine) and Prof. Tetiana Shmelova (National Aviation University, Ukraine) Source Title: Socio-Technical Decision Support in Air Navigation Systems: Emerging Research and Opportunities. Copyright: © 2018

Abstract.

In this chapter, the authors have researched the operator behavioral activities in Air Navigation System (ANS) as a Socio-Technical System (STS). They have identified personality types of aviation professionals and their interactions during the performance of professional tasks in the small group on the example of the controllers' team with the system approach. The authors have used socionics methods for determining the professional type of the operator namely energy consumption for the choice of profession and sociometry methods to determine the compatibility of operators in the group etc. They have presented the results of correlation analysis of socionics and sociometry indicators in ANS. Problems Of Joint Activity Of Air Navigation Systems’ Operators Statistics in recent decades point to the dominant role of human factor influence on the total number of aviation accidents (ACs), which is about 80% (Leychenko, Malishevskiy & Mikhalic, 2006; Shvets & Alekseev, 2008). 7% ACs reasons, arising from the fault of the human factor, are violations of the interaction between the flight crew (Leychenko, Malishevskiy & Mikhalic, 2006). A significant number of incidents and cases of aircraft damage on earth (to 34%) are also associated with impaired interaction between different groups of aviation professionals who provide flights (Leychenko, Malishevskiy & Mikhalic, 2006). The causes of most aviation accidents associated with the psychology of aviation specialists and require proper consideration. Currently completing flight crew and other aviation professionals groups is not regulating by documents. Joint activity plays an important role during work flight crew and controllers’ team. Features of the interaction in groups of aviation specialists the most evident in flight emergencies. We know what kind of professional activity affects the psychological and social personality type (Makarov, Nidziy & Shishkin, 2000). Despite the many techniques to assess and improve the performance of flight personnel are practically not using Sociometry and Socionics approaches for completing the flight crews, controllers’ teams and other aviation specialists’ groups (Leychenko, Malishevskiy & Mikhalic, 2006).

There are famous conceptual models of the human factor SHEL (Software, Hardware, Environment, Liveware) (Fundamental Human Factors Concepts, 2002) and Reason’s Swiss Cheese Model (Safety Management Manual (SMM), 2013) according to which aviation accidents are the result of a combination of active and latent errors. At the moment, the sates of the influence of the human factor. Classical socionics is based on approach, proposed C. Jung (1875-1961) – Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychology. In his work “Psychological Types” he suggested typology of characters based on four mental functions inherent in man: thinking, emotions, feelings, intuition (Jung, 2006). The test of Catherine Briggs and Isabel Myers, developed in 1959, “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator” (MBTI) (Quenk, 2009; Myers-Briggs & Myers, 2012), except C. Jung psychological dichotomies (PD) “extraversion-introversion”, “logic-ethics”, “sensing-intuition” uses PD “decision-perception” that is “the way of their interaction with the environment” (Leychenko, Malishevskiy & Mikhalic, 2006). Lithuania psychologist A. Augustinavichiute concluded that the type is innate mental structure that defines a particular type of information exchange with personality environment (Augustinavichiute, 2008). A person is considered as an information system that has specific communication channels with their characteristic limitations. Thus, in terms of socionics, human personality is a complex system, which sells itself on four levels of operation: biological (human-nature), psychological (man-man), social (human-society) and information (man-noosphere) (Leychenko, Malishevskiy & Mikhalic, 2006; Jung, 2006; Augustinavichiute, 2008; Jung, Franz, Joseph, Jacobi & Jaffe, 2013). [27]

21. Volkov Yu.G., Mostovaya I.V. Sociology: a textbook for universities. Ed. prof. V.I.Dobrenkova. - M .: Gardarika, 1998 .-- 244 p. Recommended by the Ministry general and vocational education Russian Federation as a textbook.For university students,MOSCOW,1998, ISBN 5-7762-0041-5 UDC316 (075.8)BBK 60.5 B67. Reviewers:Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Professor N.S. Sleptsov, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor V. T. Lisovsky

It is psychological concepts that are often borrowed in real microsociological research. A sociologist is not satisfied with the fact that a person fulfills a role, he studies how a person adapts to a role, how he masters it. Macrosociology of personality does not give To fill this gap, microsociologists turn to psychological theories, use tests and socio-psychological interpretations.Thus, differential psychological theories and psychostatistics (the founder of the direction G. Allport) allow, based on the study of many individual parameters, to find common and even socially typical: attitudes (life principles), types (innate typical traits), temperaments (indelible characteristics of "reactivity"), intro-extraversion (isolation and sociability of a person). Gradually work with thousands of parameters and combining them into more general "nests" led to the creation of test suites to identify psycho- and sociotypes of personality. In this vein, a new system of knowledge has emerged - socionics and more rigorous ways of formalization in the study of attitudes and behavior of people have appeared. [28]

22. V.A. Kononov. WHY SOCIOLOGY SOCIONICS? // Sociology in the modern world: science, education, creativity. - 2009. - No. 1. - R. 116-120. Information about the author: Ph.D., Associate Professor

We proceed from the assumption that the main, fundamental the provisions of socionics are known to the interested reader, therefore they are not prescribed and not explained, but they are addressed as needs ... Socionics is needed not only by sociology, but also to science as a whole as a universal methodological foundations as a theory of the anthropic principle, conceptualized self-awareness of the subject of cognition, and social cognition - in the first place ... Next. The knowledge accumulated by socionics can be claimed by the sociology of personality ... From the sociology of personality, let us turn to a small group with its dynamics mikoy. Socionic division of individuals into four quadras of four types in each can be compared with the division of elements in D.I. Mendeleev into separate groups, with a set of properties characteristic of each group, set by the structure of the same particles... What can the socionics of sociology give in terms of studying social development? As a first approximation, relying on the law of quadra rotation, according to which, according to A.V. Bukalov, “the development of an idea, an initiative, a historical or cultural-social phenomenon from its inception to degeneration, decline and death consists of four stages that replace each other", the possibility of foreseeing that will allow you to more effectively manage social processes.These are some areas of sociological knowledge (unavoidable well, not all), where it seems promising to use knowledge accumulated by socionics.[29], [30]

23. Prof. V.V. Kryzhko Theory and practice of management in education. - M .: Education of Ukraine, 2005. - Reviewers: N.L. Kolominsky, Doctor of Psychology, Professor; M.I. Prikhodko, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor.

Socionics. Among the many sciences that describe certain aspects personality psychology, socionics, which emerged in the late 70's - early 80's of the twentieth century., stands out consistently and holistically consideration of the human psyche and behavior. Socionics a little more than 20 years, but it is difficult to name all areas of its application. Socionics is possible use in the family, in the team, in self-management, for creating a psychological climate in the formation of pedagogical teams. What is socionics? Socionics is a science that considers people as carriers of certain types of information metabolism, interacting with each other on the basis of objective social laws.[31]

24. MAPPING PERSONALITIES: THE BRAND AND CONSUMER By Imran Khan. Submitted to Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad. Dissertation Supervisor Prof. Atul Tandon Director, MICA Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad Page 1 of 103 February 2006

2.4 SOCIONICS. Socionics is a relatively recent and developing branch of Psychology, based on:- Carl Jung’s work on Psychological Types,- Sigmund Freud’s Theory of the Conscious and Subconscious,- Antoni Kepinski’s Theory of Information Metabolism. Aushra Augustinavichute is credited as the founder of this branch. The Lithuanian researcher in the late 1970s combined different knowledge bases of the human psyche into one structural theory and then a model. Socionics finally took form in the 1980s. It defines people’s characters through the fundamental belief that each is an accumulation of a ‘set of blocks’ called “psychological functions”. Differing behaviour types and character types are thus products of different ways of chaining and combining these functions, resulting in different ways of accepting and producing information. This structured approach to the functioning of the human psyche went beyond the basic psychological types. Socionics scores above theories in accurately predicting and anticipating the development of human relationships. [32]

25. Training of aviation personnel in the field of the human factor: interuniversity collection of scientific papers / [otv. ed. G.V. Kovalenko]. - SPb. : Acad. citizen aviation, 2004. - Recommendations: Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation, Federal Air Transport Agency FGOU VPO "Academic Civil Aviation"

The models of socionics and actual problems of certification and audit are investigated. The issues of testing reliability are considered.

26. Prof. V.H. Arutyunov, Prof. V.M. Mishin, Prof. V.M. Svintsitsky. Methodology of socio-economic cognition: Textbook. manual. - К .: КНЕУ, 2005. - 353 с. - ISBN 966–574–000–0

Socionics emerged in the 70's - early 80's of the twentieth century. Since its inception, this scientific discipline is marked by a consistent and holistic examination of the human psyche and behavior. It is difficult to list all areas of its application. Knowledge of socionics can be used to harmonize family and marriage relationships, stabilize relations in the team, self-government, the formation of creative groups and more. In other words, the laws of socionics can be seen in all areas of human activity or the organization of groups, from the smallest - the type of family - to society as a whole. These patterns are often observed in politics, science and culture.[33]

27. Horwood J., Maw A. Theatre Teams Assembled Using Personality Profiles Can Improve Predicted Teamworking Scores // Bulletin of The Royal College of Surgeons of England. - 2012. - Vol. 94. - No 3. - Pp. 1-6\

Socionics is a relatively new science developed and popularised by Ausra Augustinaviciute in the 1970s. Augustinaviciute and her colleagues worked with Carl Jung’s personality typologies to develop personalitybased relationship profiles. It was found that the nature and development of interpersonal relationships (both professional and personal) are far from random. Instead, they are based on how well suited each individual’s psychological profiles are to one another, allowing Augustinaviciute to develop 16 ‘socionic types’ (Table 2) predicting and describing the interpersonal relationships between any combination of Jung’s personality types. Augustinaviciute’s work was published in the Russian literature but translations of her work and a wealth of further information regarding the development and application of socionics can be found on a number of websites and in books.[34]

--ThesariusQ (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

As we can see, all tertiary and secondary independent professional sources (and I have cited only a small part of such sources) consider socionics as a science or scientific theory, and not as a secondary theory. Therefore, there can be no question of any pseudoscience. The weight of this non-professional point of view is very small. Thus, the cited tertiary and secondary reliable sources show that socionics has long been recognized as a scientific theory and is actively used in various fields. " The second question: how much more weighty are these quoted sources than those that were given to the definition of socionics in the preamble, written by non-professionals in the field of psychology, sociology, pedagogy, management, and mentioning the word "socionics" only once, without analysis and description? What is the ratio of the weights of these sources? Obviously, the weight of the above independent tertiary and secondary reliable sources is much higher than the weight of these sources, suddenly included in the definition of socionics. After all, there is WP:RSUW '. Moreover, since very weak sources included in the definition are all that have been found from many thousands of sources to criticize socionics, it can be concluded that the sources are "manipulating with clear violation of the rules" WP:RSUW, WP:POV, WP:RS and others. Therefore, the question arises, what sources should be in the preamble of the article in the definition of socionics? The answer is also obvious. Tertiary and secondary reliable sources that are written by professional psychologists, sociologists, educators, and which not only mention socionics, but also describe it in more detail.--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
If anyone is reading this, these same sources were set out at Talk:Socionics. Replies have been made there. Crossroads -talk- 20:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I will clarify. Various unsubstantiated statements about the pseudoscience of socionics were made on the page Talk:Socionics. But all these claims are made without evidence and without confirmation by tertiary and secondary reliable sources. However, the reliable 27 tertiary and secondary sources cited by me clearly show that socionics is not just a scientific theory, science, but also has many theoretical and practical applications in various fields of human activity. There are thousands of such sources, as well as over a thousand dissertations. Socionics is taught at over 150 universities in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Therefore, statements about the pseudoscientific nature of socionics are an obvious fake, for the organization of which several incompetent non-professional authors were used. This is a falsification that attempts to exploit the ignorance of the Wiki editors to trick them and misinform readers.. But all these claims are made without evidence and without confirmation by tertiary and secondary reliable sources. However, the reliable 27 tertiary and secondary sources cited by me clearly show that socionics is not just a scientific theory, science, but also has many theoretical and practical applications in various fields of human activity. There are thousands of such sources, as well as over a thousand dissertations. Socionics is taught at over 150 universities in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Therefore, statements about the pseudoscientific nature of socionics are an obvious fake, for the organization of which several incompetent non-professional authors were used. This is a falsification that attempts to exploit the ignorance of the Wiki editors to trick them and misinform readers. --ThesariusQ (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a demarcation that is made on variety of judgements. It is not an accusation which requires "substantiation". Rather the claim that something is not pseudoscience is what requires substantiation. An idea could be not pseudoscientific for a variety of reasons. E.g., maybe the idea is intended to (appear to) be a scientific claim at all. Or maybe the idea is properly scientific. Either way, it is a simple matter to provide the evidence for those. What I see here is a lot of WP:REDFLAGs that are not being properly addressed. To give a nice comparison, astrology is taught at dozens and dozens of universities in India. That does not mean astrology is not pseudoscience. jps (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I should have checked the logs before posting above. The user I was replying to has been blocked for sockpuppetry/WP:NOTHERE (not surprising):

Carry on.

jps (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic nepotism

Ethnic nepotism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) exists. Decade-old tags attached. Some curious sources but prima facie potentially legit but needs attention and probably an update of the science side. GPinkerton (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton:, I agree that the article could use improvement but how is it impacted by WP:FRINGE (or vice-versa)? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing anything that is setting off my FRINGE detector. But I agree that the article needs some work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I removed some paragraph-length quotes as copyright violations. Fortunately the VDare sources were removed long ago, but the amount of weight given to Tatu Vanhanen and J. Philipe Rushton is concerning. –dlthewave ☎ 18:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: Yes, a lot of sources are listed but it's unclear what they say because the article is so short and weirdly laid out. GPinkerton (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The fact that the whole thing is so unclear and unfocused makes it difficult to know what fringe is or would be on this topic. It might not be fringey per se but touches on numerous fringe-prone topics in which others may have the relevant experience to shift the sources and scattered arguments. GPinkerton (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic nepotism. After some research, I think that this is just a WP:COATRACK for white supremacist opinions surrounding race and intelligence. Pretty fringe stuff and it doesn't need a standalone article. jps (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Fringe book

In the process of digging through the above, I found this page:

I think it fails WP:BK. Does anyone else?

jps (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

And a draft article of the author of the above (from a draftified AfDed article) is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Onetwothreeip/Frank Salter. jps (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

About Prometheus Fuels

Long time listener, first time caller at WP:FTN. There appears to be a whole lotta fringey stuff going on there. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Stories about this have been popping up a lot recently, generally from the perspective of credulity. Do you know of some good sources which point out some of the issues with the claims made by this company? jps (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Shirt58, free energy! That's never a scam, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Isn't the detailed article in Science magazine enough? Other reliable resources listed in the article already. I just added a motortrend article published by MSN. Dream Focus 02:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    • This is not a reliable source, but there are obvious issues with these sorts of schemes which seem to be unmentioned or mentioned only briefly in the breathless hot takes: [35]. jps (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Science magazine is not a reliable source, but some random person posting on a forum is? The article in science was quite detailed. Dream Focus 15:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
        • You misinterpreted my comment which was to say that the source I provided was not a reliable source, but I'm not arguing for its inclusion in article space here. In any case, believe it or not, Science doesn't always get everything right. jps (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Mary Shomon

A lovingly crafted advertorial for a "holistic" thyroid quack. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Isleworth Mona Lisa

This is a painting which everyone agrees was at least from the studio of Leonardo da Vinci (i.e., painted when and where Leonardo was around), with the bone of contention being whether some part of it was actually painted by Leonardo himself.

At one point the article over-reached in claiming that the painting was a confirmed Leonardo. However, the article has since been rewritten to lean towards the extreme opposite direction, with some wording implying near-unanimity that Leonardo painted no part of it, by editors who contend that the other view is FRINGE.

This, however, appears to me to go beyond the consensus of reliable sources. For example, in 2012, The Guardian described the art world as being "split" over the question, and in 2013, Reuters stated that it was "dismissed by some experts", but "also won support in the art world". There also appear to be peer-reviewed journal publications by multiple independent authors on both sides of the question (with a slightly larger raw number favoring authenticity), and the experts themselves disagree as to what constitutes the consensus among their peers. I have dug into a few of the people weighing in, and there are scholars with applicable expertise arguing both sides, and in both cases somewhat more than what is represented in the article.

So, I am looking here for some sense of what constitutes the cutoff between characterizing something as FRINGE, and characterizing it as a contested view reasonably held by some non-crackpot experts. BD2412 T 18:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey BD, I just took a quick look at the article, and it does contradict itself in places. Obviously, a larger number of sources are listed as concluding that the painting is authentic. Just based on the sources there now, that is not a WP:FRINGE view. The contradictory use of "widely attributed" and "widely believed" otherwise is too broad to use WP:WIKIVOICE. There are also competing standards in the article. One source dismisses scientific testing because "connoisseurship is the glue that binds everything together," but another source dismisses endorsements "based on 'connoisseurship.'" It is an interesting question. I will have a closer look in a few minutes. What other sources are there that are not represented in the article? CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@CNMall41: Actually, in going through the edit history of the article, I noticed that reference to a number of experts had been removed, perhaps overzealously. For example, reference to a 1914 evaluation by a leading art critic of the day, Paul George Konody, was removed as unsourced, although it did have a source to the New York Times. Another edit removed reference to evaluations by Arduino Colasanti, Adolfo Venturi, and A.C. Chappelow (which is Archibald Cecil Chappelow, who I'm still on the fence about in terms of notability). Some of these were attributed to a book by John Eyre, who was connected to the painting, but the opinions appear to be independent and the book was published through a regular publisher. Other experts cited there include Lorenzo Cecconi and Ludovico Spirodon (not sure if the latter is article-worth). Chappelow was cited to a 1956 Apollo Magazine piece. I also found, in the process of improving the article on John F. Asmus, that he actually first concluded that it was the same painter not in 2016 as the article currently indicates, but in a 1988 article (see John F. Asmus, "Computer Studies of the Isleworth and Louvre Mona Lisas", in T. Russell Hsing and Andrew G. Tescher, Selected Papers on Visual Communication: Technology and Applications (SPIE Optical Engineering Press, 1990), p. 652-656; reprinted from Optical Engineering, Vol. 28(7) (July 1989), p. 800-804). I went ahead and created an article on Jean-Pierre Isbouts, who is clearly a quite notable expert in the field, and who has written fairly extensively on the painting, but is barely mentioned in the article. BD2412 T 18:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Based on the conflicting statements in the article and experts on both sides of the issue, I am unsure of why the infobox attributes the painting to the workshop. I think that would be a good place to start. Wikipedia needs to simply state the facts and let others decide. It seems like editors on the page have taken a stance based on their views of the references which is something we don't do. I am a bit concerned about the edits you point out, where things are removed as unsourced or OR when they are clearly sourced. That could be by accident, or it could be intentional.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I also noticed that the "Frank & Frank" article in the intro is an unpublished work. It is not in any academic journal, and Astrophysics Data System works are not peer-reviewed. The article only mentions the Isleworth painting in passing, since it is about another painting, and actually says that it used a poor quality version of the Isleworth with image artifacts. It really isn't valid as a source for this article at all. CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I am working up some language that I think accurately characterizes the dispute. BD2412 T 20:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe I see the issue now. I removed that Frank & Frank citation, which looks like a student paper and clearly is not suitable for this topic, and this was immediately reverted, along with a sneaky removal of qualifying language that tends to indicate exactly why it is inappropriate for use in this article. The language that was removed was a qualification from the paper that "Nonetheless, in each case, the model that more strongly classified Seated Bacchus and the Isleworth Mona Lisa as not painted by Leonardo also classified the Madonna Litta as not by Leonardo." In other words, the authors of this non-peer-reviewed paper write that their model classified both this painting, and a known Leonardo, as not by Leonardo. The removal of this qualification looks geared to create a false impression of the significance of the paper. This is typical POV pushing that we don't allow in Wikipedia and would recommend a line by line review of the article. Based on more of the history I am seeing, I am starting to think this is going to end up with sanctions on the article as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, when I see ADS listed as a journal and then changed to MIT Press on the basis of inclusion at arxiv.org, I perk up. Sourcing isn't that hard. Yeah, don't use preprints. Peer review is important for a reason. User warned, source removed. jps (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the second look. Going through the edit history, that editor does have several questionable edits on that page, not just adding that bad reference, but removing good references that disagree with his POV. CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess I missed this conversation (thanks for the ping?). Apologies on reverting the removal of the Neural Network paper, I was mislead by here where content that the submitter can write says "The article has been accepted for publication in Leonardo (MIT Press)" but warning and reverting without explaining that that content could be user generated was pointless and wasted everyone's time. Anyways I'm fine with the opening as "The Isleworth Mona Lisa is an early sixteenth-century oil on canvas painting depicting the same subject as the Mona Lisa." If you look at the article before I found it you'll see that a user was undoubtedly POV pushing which was my intention to correct. I do admit that I may have gone too far with asserting that attribution against Leonardo, at least in the lead, but I'm fine with how the lead is now. I did some work on the article but then lost motivation due to the complexity of the situation, and as a result left some terms like "widely accepted" that I was still unsure about but failed to remove.

The idea that "a larger number of sources are listed as concluding that the painting is authentic" is simply false. There is no consensus, and if there is it would be slightly against an attribution to Leonardo – akin to saying something like "most experts are skeptical". Many of the "sources are listed as concluding that the painting is authentic" are news sources and news sources don't get to authenticate paintings and I would be hesitant to trust them to state that "most leading experts are against/for the attribution". Keep this in mind: When the director of the National Gallery wanted to include the Salvator Mundi in their Leonardo show, he invited Kemp, Syson (who worked at the Gallery), Marani, Bambach and another Italian scholar (a woman whose name I don't recall – and had never heard of) to authenticate the work. These experts were divided on Salvator Mundi, but none of them believe in the Isleworth's attribution... likewise Zollner (2019) and Kemp's (2000) catalogues were created with the intention of discussing the scholarly consensus of all paintings that are attributed to Leonardo, including contentious ones like Madonna Litta (which is by no means a "known Leonardo" – this is one of the most contentious attributions) and Bacchus but they don't even bring up the Isleworth as a possibility. (See the Zollner and Marani refs in the Isleworth article for further details) I initially came to this article with the idea that the artistic community was strongly against the attribution, but upon reading further and discussing with BD2412 the issue I keep facing is that besides Kemp there aren't enough leading scholars actively speaking against the attribution and rather ignoring it or denying it but not elaborating on the denial, which is not enough to support a wide acceptance against Leonardo. With that said the lack of consensus is from the side of attribution failing to convince leading scholars, and the side against the attribution ignoring the work and failing to actively dismiss it. I am happy to work with the editors here on making sure the article stays/becomes NPOV and would rather not be treated as an "enemy" that needs to be dealt with – I'm going to tweak it around a little bit to try and hopefully make it more NPOV. I would recommend reading this BBC article which IMO explains the situation rather nicely. Aza24 (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I moved some things around, discussion welcome. The attribution section still needs some serious work, which I will get around to doing over the next few days. At the moment the reason it is mostly for the attribution is because its left over from the earlier version of the article where a SPA basically ORed that the vast majority of experts believe in a full attribution... Just a note: The reason that the citation style I used has the actual quotes from the articles/books cited was for full transparency in the first place. Aza24 (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@Aza24: I appreciate your recognition of the ambiguity of the situation. I blame the experts. I think a substantial part of the issue is that some tend to not only express their opinion on the painting, but to then express their opinion that most everyone else vaguely agrees with their opinion. We therefore have Kemp saying that no one else "openly and unequivocally supported the attribution in public", and Isbouts saying that "24 of 27 recognised Leonardo scholars have agreed this is a Leonardo", with neither providing elaboration sufficient to follow up confirm who they were talking about and what exactly those people did think. It is not stated whether Isbouts includes himself in that count. It is possible that he is including Eyre, Blaker, and Pulitzer (who were owners of the painting or had some interest in it). One can assume that he counts past reviews from Konody, the 10 Italian experts consulted by Eyre, and Chapellow. Notably, the Italian experts had a fairly wide range of views in both the degree of certainty they were willing to express, and which parts of the painting they thought were Leonardo. I got sucked into the rabbit hole of reading about those people, which resulted in some decent articles, but I haven't looked at Rubino, Soares, Sauteur, Lorusso and Natali, or Boudin de l'Arche. I did look into Asmus, who has surprisingly deep experience in the arts for a physicist who started out making space lasers. In short, reasonably reliable sources make conflicting reports not only about authorship, but about the degree to which experts themselves fall on one side of question or another. In this circumstance, we should not characterize in Wikipedia's voice that there is a majority one way or the other, but would be best served by listing those who have expressed an opinion, what their qualifications are, and (most importantly) what factors the cite as forming the basis of their opinion. BD2412 T 16:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
True. So-called "art historians" are a notoriously catty bunch. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Note: Looking deeper into the field generally, there are actually very similar disputes with respect to many, if not most, paintings attributed to Leonardo–theSalvator Mundi, La Bella Principessa, and the Madonna Litta all have similar sets of experts advocating for one side or the other, and they all come laden with accusations of shady motives and biased assessments. There are even plenty of theories that the Mona Lisa in the Louvre is not really by Leonardo. Of course, many of the same experts are involved in evaluating all of these, and their opinions are rather scattershot when it comes to agreeing on any contested point. Basically, the process of attributing a contested painting claimed to be by Leonardo seems to be: pick the names of a dozen experts, put them in a hat, shake well, and toss them into two groups on the ground. One group will be those who strongly affirm attribution to any given painting, and the other will be those who strongly deny it. BD2412 T 18:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexandra Bruce

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Bruce (filmmaker)

jps (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Gabor Maté

Gabor Maté (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The article is overwhelmingly sourced to Maté's own works. According to https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-in-society/201112/the-seductive-dangerous-allure-gabor-mat Maté pushes shoddy science or pseudoscience. The article has to be rewritten in order to comply with Wikipedia's standards and I am not the person having the expertise to do it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that independent source, it also seems balanced, I'll try to integrate it in the article when I can, —PaleoNeonate – 20:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Update: criticism based on this source was already removed twice: (1, 2) with one editor explaining their reason at the talk page (Talk:Gabor Maté § Criticism Section). The source is indeed in a blog, although it's that of a psychologist who also writes on addiction. Although criticism sections are discouraged, it appears to me that this source could be used for some inline criticism (as well as a mention that Maté is praised and what for, also per this independent view). In any case this doesn't fix the issue that most of the article is sourced to the author's own material... Pinging those editors for their input (@Pigkeeper:, @Materialscientist:). This is also a BLP and WP:SPS shouldn't be used for material on the person, although this is more in relation to approach in psychology than on the person (and the impression of another expert)... —PaleoNeonate – 18:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Pam Reynolds case

Pam Reynolds case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Currently some pushing to make fringe vs. non-fringe view of life after death roughly equal, based on an article by an NPR religion reporter [36]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Brought to Talk page yet disruptive edits continue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
This near-death experience claim has been considered by some to be evidence of the survival of consciousness after death, or even life after death. However, others have pointed to prosaic and conventional means like anesthesia awareness as possible explanations. Both ideas are equally valid? I guess so. Persistent slow edit warring by SPA to keep this POV, so I'm done. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)

Input would be helpful at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) to determine whether the NCCIH is a WP:RS reliable source and whether it is a WP:MEDRS reliable source.

Key quote:

"NCCIH has been controversial since its inception in 1991 under yet another name—the Office of Alternative Medicine. The OAM became an official NIH center (NCCAM) in 1999, and in 2014 it had a budget of $123.8 million. Over its lifetime, the center has faced repeated criticism for funding studies of what many consider to be dubious treatments with very little supporting scientific evidence—such as distant prayer to treat AIDS, energy healing to treat prostate cancer, and shark cartilage extract to treat lung cancer."

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This is NCCAM as was.[37] I would say it was a MEDRS of last resort (like WebMD), okay for backing non-surprising knowledge, but definitely not okay for anything surprising (e.g. treatment efficacy not covered in other good MEDRS). Surprising claims for altmed are WP:REDFLAGs and need better sourcing accordingly. Alexbrn (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to copy your answer at the RSN thread for its archives? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticizing an organization for doing research on controversial ideas is quite a Catch 22. On the one hand, you're positing an idea is controversial. How does one determine if it is valid or not? Do research. If the research is negative, you can more strongly say the idea was wrong. If the research is right, then you move forward and realize maybe it wasn't so controversial after all. Many ideas we accept today as a given were considered "controversial" in the past. A great example is the connection between Helicobacter pylori and peptic ulcers. When this theory was originally proposed it was not just considered controversial but ludicrous...until Marshall and Warren got the Nobel prize for their discovery years later! How many drugs have various other NIH centers done research on that later proved to be dangerous or fatal? Does that make those centers "controversial" or worthy of criticism? No they're just doing their jobs. And arguably what NCCIH found is that most of the controversial ideas you cite didn't work, so if anything, they are doing exactly what you appear to think they should be doing: disproving wrong ideas.Eric Yarnell (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The research they fund is not on controversial ideas, but really really really stupid ideas. There is a world of difference. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
More to the point, the congressional remit of this center (and its antecedent) was to remove from consideration the scientific evaluations that looked to be breathing down the neck of supplement and alternative health purveyors like compound pharmacies back around the tie of the DSHEA. The last thing the alt med/supplement community wanted was FDA regulation. To appease those who pointed out the obvious problems with this approach, the NCCAM was set up, but with a provision that basically prevented it from doing anything other than rubber stamping independent research. So we end up with a center that only says laudatory or non-committal things about the treatments and supplements about which it is supposed to be encouraging research. jps (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Triphala below. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

John Ioannidis

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

has said things about COVID-19 which were subsequently contradicted by a lot of scientists. But from the article, you wouldn't guess that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 is the common cold, says Rush Limbaugh

The discussion on the talk page of Rush Limbaugh's article, as well as the article itself, would probably benefit from more eyes. Apparently some editors think that to point out that the common cold and COVID-19 are not equivalent (nor are they caused by the same virus) is "original research". - Nunh-huh 17:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources available to make that point, though. BD2412 T 17:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Tiger Sarll

Tiger Sarll is one of the most interesting articles that I have read on Wikipedia. As it isn't a BLP and probably isn't a complete hoax, I think it might be worth bringing to this communities attention. I'm pretty sure that the bit about him being a three foot long baby, and his catching 35 foot long pythons and 25 foot long alligators would set three new records if they could be proved to the Guinness Book of records. Some of the military stuff is also a tad improbable. ϢereSpielChequers 20:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Written by a single user relying on a single obscure source. Difficult. --mfb (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
So this is of course stage magic... Cases of "hypnotism" are easily explained by reptiles being very motionless when comfortable and exposed to heat after a meal, apparent death that either relates to vasovagal response or tonic immobility, various reptiles also cut themselves from outside stimuli during very basic reproductory states like copulation or laying eggs, etc. I think that even chicken hypnotism itself abuses the term "hypnotism" in an undue way (it's not, but happens to be a common name). And it's another matter if some sources on Sarll were written by people with any knowledge of the related biology to impartially report on those claims. Abuse of WP:CLAIM and opinion/impression attribution may be the way to describe the show and those claims, if not... —PaleoNeonate – 05:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh and this is if they were not dead animals substituted by tricks; but as above it can be live animals. —PaleoNeonate – 05:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
He's not dead. You stunned him, just as he was waking up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
It is an extensive and generally well-written article but almost all the information traces back to one credulous book from the Adventurer's Club. The only other evidence of notability is one appearance on This is your Life. The other sources either are not significant or trace back to the book. Is there a reason to not nominate it for AfD? Can we get some input from Timtrent and SALVAHOUSE? It seems like a "gentleman adventurer" type who didn't have much actual impact on the events he was at the periphery of. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Eggishorn, My input is pretty bland, I'm afraid. I accepted at AFC on the basis, as we are instructed, that it stood a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. And that has proven to be correct. I checked as far as I was able that the sources met our needs and then chose to let the wider community decide, judging that the creating editor had gone as far as they could go in making it ready to roll. I'm as happy to have been right and wrong on this one. Fiddle Faddle 17:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Eggishorn Hi there, Im glad you liked my article, pity it comes across as spurious. It's true that the information is from a single source and this is of course really problematic. The photo evidence, however, does prove that he was at least at these places that he visited and fought in. I can share more photos from the book if you wish as for me this is the most compelling evidence. Im hunting around for the video of This is Your Life; as you have to be pretty notable to be featured on that program, but no luck so far. At the bottom of the article, I link on of the films he made for Pathe. Beyond it being a lot of effort and time and there being some physical evidence of an individual who was born more than 100 years ago I can't contribute much more. I do feel however that he is notable and interesting and as such worth the effort, Though I know that doesn't cut it on Wikipedia. Let me know your thoughts and what would help keep if not improve this article. SALVAHOUSE (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that AlanM1@AlanM1: Would be very valuable in this discussion as he spent much time helping me improve this article. SALVAHOUSE (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the GNG is looser for historical figures, he recieves more than a passing mention in this Antiques Trade Gazette article admittedly all mention I can find of him relates to the 2014 sarcophagus sale. I think it it's a weak keep. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Doll mania

I can’t believe I have to say this, but dolls do not have supernatural powers to “escape” from their owners. Thanks to a recent viral Twitter hoax, these articles are suddenly subject to much vandalism, and could benefit from watch listing in the short term. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

And Fox is spreading the news. Schazjmd (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe these two should be added here:
No supernatural powers, huh? I learn something new every day. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Speaking as an engineer who has spent years in the toy industry, before they silence me let me just say tha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • /me mentions IoT and spying-vibrators... —PaleoNeonate – 04:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, right: this one is also relevant.
Every time I see the article Smurl haunting pop up on my watchlist, I read it as "smurf hunting" and think of Gargamel. I guess others have that problem too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Reminds me that some people fear smurfs, with some claiming they saw smurf toys move.  —PaleoNeonate – 06:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm a little disappointed that the Warrens haven't made (at least to my knowledge) a posthumous appearance at a seance or two. Or even a haunting! They loved the publicity when they were alive! - Nunh-huh 04:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS

The article is full of quackery and pseudoscience. Medical science considers the Church to be responsible for the deaths of millions.--Horace Snow (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Service: Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Fringe edits to Rig Veda and promotional article on fringe author

See [38] and Padmakar Vishnu Vartak. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that the Rig Veda edits include one of Vartak's self-published books. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Gauri a11]] is now edit-warring there to keep a fringe self-published book by Vartak in the article. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Padmakar Vishnu Vartak. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Osteopathy#Merge_with_Osteopathic_medicine

One of those perennial requests by Americans who don't get that there is a huge difference. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 21:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Why "perennial"? Was such merger ever discussed before? If so, could you please provide link(s)? If it was indeed discussed before and there was consensus, I would like to check the arguments. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
It's kind of common to see attempts to rewrite Osteopathy to be much more US-centric, because the US situation is much more respectable than any other country's. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 00:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

On which subject, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osteopathic medicine Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 00:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The Arctic Home in the Vedas

In desperate need of trimming and proper sources. Some sources, although I can't read enough of at least one of them, are [39] and [40]. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Secular religion

The article appears to be mostly original research. Some sources seem relevant but are also about particular extremist ideologies. Eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 21:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The term "secular religion" appears to have been a coinage of J. L. Talmon (whose name appears nowhere in the secular religion article), according to this review of the first book in the "further reading", Hans Kelsen's, Secular Religion: “A Polemic against the Misinterpretation of Modern Social Philosophy, Science, and Politics as ‘New Religions’”. This work is the only one cited to have "Secular religion" in its title. Political religion (presently a redirect to the section of that name) seems much more appropriate as the main topic and name of the article. Besides that, there is:
which offers two divergent meanings for the term as either "applied to movements and other phenomena that are atheistic or non-theistic but which exhibit other characteristics attributed to religions" or else "the concept of ‘secular religions’ is to tackle critical, or anti-religious, conceptions of religion by pointing out that dogma, authoritarianism, etc. are not exclusively associated with theistic religions, and also highlighting cases where theistic religions do not show these attributes." GPinkerton (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

List of oxymorons. jps (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

One of the two contributors to that dictionary also seems part of the Templeton Foundation that is not neutral on the topic, but it's good if it leads to the originator, thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding: the current redirect is the result of a small-consensus merge (Talk:Political religion § Proposed merge with Secular religion). And I was entertained that List of oxymorons really existed... —PaleoNeonate – 04:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Serial passage at SARS-CoV-2

Over at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Peer_reviewed_source_argues_for_serial_passage somebody has argued for the inclusion of an essay enitiled "Might SARS‐CoV‐2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?" in BioEssays which suggests that serial passage might have lead to the emergence of SARS COV 2:

Taken together, the available evidence does not point definitively toward a natural origin for SARS‐CoV‐2, rather, much of it is more consistent with what would be found if the novel coronavirus had arisen from serial passage of a “precursor” progenitor virus in a lab, or from bats infecting a commercial mink farm somewhere in China, which would also provide the conditions for serial passage. However, more evidence is required before a conclusive judgement can be made one way or the other.

To me, this looks like advocacy for the fringe view that SARS COV 2 was created in a lab. In response to this, the lead author of the essay turned up to defend himself. I have no particular expertise on the topic but a single essay seems to me to fail WP:MEDRS for contentious issues like this, and lends the essay undue weight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It is appropriate that the passage mentions bats, because there is a word that starts with "bat-" that describes this. BD2412 T 22:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The paper author has doubled down diff:

By refusing to acknowledge the existence of this paper you're effectively censoring scientific progress, plenty of pre-prints already exist also proposing the plausibility of a laboratory origin, and by refusing to add our assertions to this Wikipedia page you're making it harder for the other scientists actually doing the real work, not moderating Wikipedia, to find our paper.

I have lost all sympathy for him at this point, there so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. I'm just waiting for Graham Beards to lay the smackdown at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, though, it is a very serious and valid challenge and not one to be dismissed lightly. Nor should we do so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
What I find odd about the abstract is that it seems to posit two entirely contrary routes (a) genetic engineering in a lab (b) natural origin in bats then onward transmission via mink. Well which is it? The latter route is the more widely accepted until now, the former is the conspiracy theory. That is not to say that an engineered source (option 'a') is "nut-case central" because it has a precedent in a flu virus. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when all reasonable theories have been found wanting then that which remains, however incredible, must be the answer. But before that stage is reached, exhaustive research must have failed to identify a natural source and that has not happened. Perhaps the full paper gives a more convincing explanation than the "teaser trailer" abstract? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the suggestion that by not including the essay we are "effectively censoring scientific progress" sounds like something straight out of the mouth of a fringe advocate, COVID 19 is a global issue and there's no reason to think that their essay is particularly notable in the grand scheme of things. "plenty of pre-prints already exist also proposing the plausibility of a laboratory origin" we don't cite pre-prints for this reason, they aren't reviewed and there's no reason to consider them reliable sources for anything especially medical topics, anybody can write a preprint disproving relativity or proving the Reimann hypothesis, doesn't make them true, remember that whole fiasco in February about that pre-print that found that the spike proteins had a resemblance to HIV that turned out out to be noise? That is why we don't cite pre-prints. "by refusing to add our assertions to this Wikipedia page you're making it harder for the other scientists actually doing the real work, not moderating Wikipedia, to find our paper" Wikipedia is not for promoting your own work, per WP:NOTPROMO, "doing the real work, not moderating Wikipedia" is just plain rude, it's not exactly like he's on the front lines fighting coronavirus either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The reference to pre-prints undermined my confidence too. Of course 'peer review' is not an iron-clad defence: Andrew Wakefield's criminally irresponsible theory was peer reviewed and appeared in The Lancet no less; here is another example. Stirring up a "yet more censorship by the radical left elite Illuminati who run Wikipedia" squall is a good way to get noticed? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
tl;dr: I will stick to my broken record shtick and say this is a biomedical topic and needs to stick to WP:MEDRS, which the paper is very much notEdited 08:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC) to add: because we need secondary sources (like systematic reviews or meta-analyses) to weigh the relative importance of papers, precisely to avoid the pre-print fiasco, and to give us context for the importance of a particular paper's findings, since Wikipedia cannot do that itself, per WP:OR.
I was thinking precisely of Mr Wakefield and the graveyard of scientific mistakes, only to be pleasantly surprised to see that John Maynard Friedman beat me to it.
The entire reply felt like a sack of sad. I wish I could say I were surprised. Alas, as Ed Yong writes in his July 7, 2020 Atlantic piece, "The Pandemic Experts Are Not Okay":

The pandemic is also bringing out academia's darker sides—competition, hostility, sexism, and a lust for renown. Armchair experts from unrelated fields have successfully positioned themselves as trusted sources. Male scientists are publishing more than their female colleagues, who are disproportionately shouldering the burden of child care during lockdowns. Many researchers have suddenly pivoted to COVID-19, producing sloppy work with harmful results. That further dispirits more cautious researchers, who, on top of dealing with the virus and reticent politicians, are also forced to confront their own colleagues.

I'm so tired of the pandemic (and patterns of bad behavior in academia) that I'm not even angry. Just heartbroken.
It heartens me that so many demand better. That we're engaging, despite the world pouring freezing despair down our backs, in critical reading of scientific literature. I see not censorship but genuine curiosity! We're asking questions, and damn good questions at that. I, for one, am still open to hearing answers!
I will grant that the replier has answered my first two questions. However, he has yet to defend his methodology. Sure, this is an essay, not an experiment, but even systemic reviews and meta-analyses should say which papers the authors used and why. He also has yet to acknowledge the level of confidence—the colloquial, not the statistical—in the essay. I saw nothing in the essay acknowledging what evidence the hypothesis fails to explain. I've read papers with evidence of astounding strength and without fail, found at least two sentences (often much, much more) in the discussion acknowledging the blind spots in their methods, limitations in the paper's conclusions, and future directions of research. I saw nothing here. I expect better from even undergraduates who manage to eke their way into the authors list. I have to say I'm quite disappointed in the response so far and look forward to a better one. A willingness to admit mistakes heralds a great scientist, not a weak one. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Just as an aside: That method worked for Sherlock Holmes, most of the time, because he was a fictional genius. It does not work in real life because it starts from the assumption that you have already found "all reasonable theories", but very probably you have not, even after years of searching, since you are not a fictional genius. Arthur Conan Doyle tried it anyway and ended up believing in fairies and ghosts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The fictional genius was also a stunning ignoramus in some regards. He was blithely unaware of the heliocentric solar system until it became a plot device. GPinkerton (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is covered by our policy WP:MEDRS. As a primary report, its inclusion is not acceptable. Graham Beards (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

As a heads up: per Special:Diff/974434442, someone has added the questionable source to multiple articles. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
"Progenitor virus in a lab, or from bats infecting a commercial mink farm", then concluding: "more evidence is required before a conclusive judgement can be made one way or the other". I don't see how such speculative paper is WP:DUE for anything at this point... —PaleoNeonate – 04:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Mercury in Ayurveda: A Poison Turned Nectar

From:

Mercury in Ayurveda: A Poison Turned Nectar[41]
Dr Avinash Kadam
Rasayani Biologics Pvt Ltd, Pune, India Rasamruta,
November 2013

(For non-Ayurveda research on the effects of inorganic mercury, see [42], [43], [44],)

"In recent days we frequently gets news about the Minamata Convention on mercury which aimed to ban trade of Mercury and its gradual phase out by Year 2020... the ban on trade of Mercury will have a disastrous effect on Ayurveda."
"Even historically mercury was used to treat syphilis and besides this mercury is being used in preparation of Ayurveda Medicines. Ayurveda has a special branch called as Rasashastra which deals with the use of metals in treating various illnesses. Formulations prepared using these metals and minerals are called as “Rasaaushadhis”. Mercury is considered as Nucleus of these Rasaaushadhis as a major percentage of these Rasaaushadhis contains some mercurial compounds. In fact the literal meaning of the word Rasashastra is “Science of mercury” . Use of Metals and minerals in Ayurveda became more prevalent after 8th century AD.... It is estimated that 80% of 1 billion Indian population are using Aurveda medicines. It is to be noted that about 35-40 % of all Ayurveda medicines contains some metal."
"All the metals used in Ayurveda formulations undergoes special procedures called as “Shodhan” and “Maran”. These procedures are specialty of traditional Indian medicine and are mentioned in books around 1500 years old. These procedures aims to detoxify metals and makes compatible for human consumption. Mercury also undergoes extensive detoxification procedures before being used in medical formulations. It first undergoes “Shodhan” which purifies it. This is followed by another procedure which is believed to transforms mercury in to therapeutically effective and safe form called as Baddha or Murchita parad."
"Mercury obtained by all these procedures is an inorganic form of mercury (mainly sulphides)... Toxicity seen due to mercury is due to elemental and organic form and not due to inorganic form."
"Also there is a possibility that the detoxification process which mercury undergoes would bring some chemical changes which makes consumption of Mercury safe. This hypothesis needs to be studied by conducting rigorous scientific experiments."
"Conclusion: Mercury is a metal with known toxic potential. But it is used safely in large number of Ayurveda formulations since centuries. The reason for this safe use can be attributed to its unique detoxification process as mentioned in Ayurveda classics."

I was curious about the phrase "It first undergoes 'Shodhan' which purifies it." I figured that somebody must have described the "purification" process so I looked it up. Keep in mind that multiple Ayurveda sources claim that Shodhan makes Mercury safe to ingest.

Shuddha Parad[45]
Dr. Jagdev Singh
November 26, 2015
"Shuddha Parad is processed mercury as per Ayurvedic Rasa Shastra principles. The several processes are used for detoxifying and purifying the mercury. These processes are called SHODHAN KARMA. The main purpose of SHODHAN KARMA is to make organic or inorganic substance consumable for human. These processes help decreasing side effects, toxicity and after effects of the substance."
"Which is Shuddha Parad?"
"According to Bhaishajya Ratnavali, Mercury (Parad) should be extracted from the Cinnabar (Hingula). The Mercury (Parad) obtained from the cinnabar should be processed with Garlic Juice, Betel Leaf juice and Triphala Decoction. Then Mercury (Parad) should be washed with Kanji water (ayurvedic fermentative preparation) to obtain Shuddha Parad. The Parad Obtained through this process is called Shuddha Parad."
"However, it is a simple and easy method, but ayurveda has explained more methods to obtain Shuddha Parad and they may be different as per specific ayurvedic texts."

I then looked up a couple of the unfamiliar words in the above. First some Ayurveda sources:

[46][47]

Everyone here will be glad to hear how this remedy cures heart disease, diabetes, and flatulence. Then I checked out some Wikipedia pages: Shilajit seems OK:

"While Shilajit has been used in traditional Indian medicine as an antiaging compound, its health benefits lack substantial scientific evidence"

but Triphala is full of woo:

"Studies using Triphala report antibacterial, anticancer, antiobesity, antiarthritic, anti-inflammatory, and hypolipidemic properties. Triphala also shows neuroprotective effects against methotrexate-induced damage"

-- cited to non-WP:MEDRS sources such as "Altern Ther Health Med" and "BMC Complement Altern Med."

All of these pages need more attention. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I keep reading "Shodhan" as "SHODAN". Ingest the mercury, insect... XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
We do what we must because we can. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Computer game music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22vbhTi1ieI Bah. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The reader really needs to hear The Original before they can truly appreciate your "Frank Sinatra Big Band Swing Version"... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
For the record, the first link here appears to be posted by the performer. It is not a copyright violation to post a link to someone making a transformative work under a claim of fair use. We do that all the time. GMGtalk 17:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't give a sparrows fart. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Do sparrows fart? GMGtalk 17:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
No ides. Its just a reflection on the shitty pointy uncooperative petty childish facile warning that plonker Vorbis gave me. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
... and another for the above. Are you gonna do it again? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
another video, featuring Duke-Nukem this time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU9GZyt6XCc&list=RD3IS8J4ex6Uc&index=10 -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Completely bogus removal --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Also reminds me of the shodan network/vulnerability scanner/tester, that I'm often asked help to detect and block, —PaleoNeonate – 06:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh and yes, mercury detox is dubious, —PaleoNeonate – 06:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate, for values of "dubious" that begin with fraudulent and end with highly dangerous. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)((
In case anyone reading this is considering mercury detox, (Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer) there are two completely different situations you may be in. If an M.D. has performed a blood test, diagnosed heavy metal poisoning, and put you in the hospital, the EPA has sent men in hazmat suits to your home or workplace, and the doctors are telling you things like "Chelation therapy is very dangerous, but having that much Mercury in your system is more dangerous", then you may be in actual need of legitimate mercury detoxification -- but don't believe me; ask your doctor. If, on the other hand, some website or alt-med practitioner says that there is a safe and effective pill that detoxifies Mercury -- or if an Ayurvedic practitioner tells you that mercury can be made safe with garlic juice or betel leaf juice -- run away first, and then call your doctor. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Coptic Government In Exile

At government in exile (and List of active separatist movements in Africa) there is an entry for a claimed "Coptic Government In Exile", referenced by this archived website (sadly the English version isn't archived, so I don't have a clue what it says). The best mention I can find of this alleged organisation is in The Coptic Question in the Mubarak Era by Sebastian Elsasser (Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199368396) page 274 which is a footnote saying In 1992, a formerly unknown Coptic expatriate in Germany, Fāyiz Naǧīb, even declared himself to be the leader of a "Coptic government in exile". I'm guessing the archived website is probably the same person, and that we should't really be promoting this as a government in exile at all? FDW777 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed by @Doug Weller:. FDW777 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

New editors pushing Ayurveda

See Talk:Ayurveda and edits to Indian Medical Association and Pseudoscience. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Vedic aircraft that could fly backwards and traverse planets

Invisible planes --Mumbai Mirror

Also see:[48]

Oddy enough, Wikipedia, which usually covers all aspects of aerospace technology, doesn't have an article on this. Go figure. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It will be under UFO.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Would Vaimānika Shāstra not count? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Holy cow! We do have an article on that!! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
2015 Indian Science Congress ancient aircraft controversy as well. Ravensfire (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
It’s a “controversy” in respect to the outcry as a result of the pseudoscientific paper being allowed to be presented to an otherwise respectable body. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That Russian "vaccine"

Is getting a lot of attention, and in view of the alarm from scientists which contrasts with the propaganda coming from the politicians, there are WP:FRINGE considerations in play. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Mole, Beth (21 August 2020). "Untested COVID-19 vaccine, Sputnik V, begins 40,000-person trial next week". Ars Technica. – may not add much, but great illustration. Apparently Mig, not Sukhoi. . . dave souza, talk 23:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
According to your source, this is mostly based on the claim by Putin: “I know it has proven efficient and forms a stable immunity,”. Can he be trusted? Is in an RS? Of course not. Putin considers his every public presentation as a session of disinformation for public. Former KGB officers were taught The Art of War ("if you are weak, pretend to be strong ..., and then the strength of your enemy will become his weakness"). Therefore, his words need to be "translated" to the opposite. When he tells "We did not do it!", this should be translated as "yes, we did it!" [true]. When he tells, "yes we did it!", it means the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I am reminded of the Nigerian veterinarian who claimed to have discovered a cure for AIDS a few years back. In fact, they did not. The issue with this claim is that while Russia is not a third world country, there are other countries with communities with substantially more experience in developing vaccines, and consequently with substantially more advanced resources and research structures for this purpose. Russia eventually successfully developing such a vaccine is not implausible, but doing it much faster than any other country in the world is an extraordinary claim. It must also be noted, of course, that vaccines typically go through 5-7 years of clinical trials not because their manufacturers are slow-walking them, but because it takes months to gauge the long-term effects of any pharmaceutical, and it is typically necessary to complete the first phase of clinical trials and fully evaluate the outcome before starting the next phase (which will be designed based on the results of the first phase). What researchers are doing now (with permission from the regulatory agencies) is overlapping phases and adjusting later-phase trials on the fly, which is itself a risk, but it is literally physically impossible for a vaccine with known long-term effects or effectiveness to have been developed in the short time since COVID-19 vaccine development began. BD2412 T 05:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Well explained! Exactly as Fauci said [49], rushing a single poorly tested vaccine of a unknown efficacy can be extremely damaging for the whole process, and that is precisely what Putin does. But something similar may happen also in the US, especially under the current administration and current FDA [50]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Maximum Genetic Diversity

This article is filled with some pretty bold claims about consensus evolutionary theory Maximum genetic diversity? TNT to stub justified? Based off some observations about the creator 1 generally there are a few genetics fringe points. I got interested because both users involved in that discussion were also involved in this page. Its very long and hard to parse generally, but it makes some fairly wild accusations about genetics research that don't seem to be backed up well. PainProf (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It should be renamed to Maximum genetic diversity hypothesis, but not an original research [51]. Can't help with this. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I only say fringe because it looks like basically one author. Shi Huang is involved in almost every paper with no 3rd party review I can see PainProf (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, the hypothesis was suggested/developed in a single lab (not by a single person). On the other hand, it was criticized in a review by the Faculty of 1000 (see here, this key ref must be included on the page). It was also cited elsewhere, for example [52]. Overall, it seems OK for a separate page, no reason to draftify. I can't comment on the substance of the hypothesis without spending a significant time to look at this.My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As a monograph by a WP:SPA, I say we should Draftify it for now. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Draftifying would make sense. XOR'easter (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I would support draftifying even sifting through and removing all the primary sources (that most definitely do not mention the hypothesis) took a long time. Also I found this researcher is a proponent of out of Asia which I think is another red flag. PainProf (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Committee to Defend the President

Committee to Defend the President (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyeballs would be appreciated on this article about a super PAC which was recently suspended from running ads on Facebook due to its repeated false posts. Although the source material is very clear that some of the super PAC's ads have been false, misleading, or deceptive (and indeed that is an important part of its notability), there has been a recent attempt to remove this information from the article or to water this down. Some more attention would be welcome. Neutralitytalk 23:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Don Colbert asked someone to clean up his page

I noticed a wholesale change to Don Colbert that amounted to a cut-and-paste of his official bio, which I undid as a COPYVIO issue. The editor involved came to my talk page and I explained why they can't do that. He basically then requested some edits, mostly removing the terms "Pentecostal" and "faith healing". I did the first, as I don't see where that comes out of the sources but I declined the second because I see the word faith plastered all over his website. Maybe he doesn't do the "Be healed" nonsense up on a stage but I don't see the problem.

Now that editor has escalated to the BLP noticeboard where they are picking nits about the meaning of "faith healing". I'll back off as I once blogged about Don Colbert, so I should probably not get more involved than I am. --Krelnik (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Where on [ https://drcolbert.com/ ] do you see faith healing? He looks like a typical seller of magic pills and miracle diets to me.
Note: up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Colbert. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
If you google "faith site:drcolbert.com" or "prayer site:drcolbert.com" there are lots of hits. I linked to them in the BLP noticeboard thread. --Krelnik (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
"magic pills and miracle diets" surely comes under "faith healing"? He advertises as a "doctor for faith and medicine". "Faith" and "healing" = "faith healing". GPinkerton (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
saying he is a "faith healer" is far too big a stretch, the religious schtick is just him saying "I'm a xtian, so I'm certain to be a really good doctor" to those who think that sort of thing important. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
No, it's way beyond that. The faith is part of the product and part of the marketing. to those who think that sort of thing important yeah, the faithful. Just add faith and stir. GPinkerton (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Faith healing is not what Don does. It'll be moot soon anyway. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, it is important to call things what they are. And what we are seeing is not Faith healing. When you write " 'Faith' and 'healing' = 'faith healing' ", you are making a basic mistake in how one interprets phrases in the English language.
The meaning of a two word phrase is not always the same as the meanings of the individual words combined.
You cannot simply combine the literal meaning of two words of a compound descriptive phrase and proclaim that you have discovered the meaning of the phrase. Just google "Grape Nuts", "Conspiracy Theory", or "Buffalo Wing" and start reading the search results you will see how these phrases are commonly used. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this patronizing list! Reginald B Cherry is certainly a faith healer and doctor and I struggle to see how Colbert is any different to him. Admittedly, Cherry does not have a WP page. GPinkerton (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Not helpful. I've never heard of Reggie, so that's a crap example, and if he's no different to Don, then you cannot call him a faith healer either. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
We absolutely should not be using this guy's website to figure out whether or not he's a faith healer (or anything else). One reason our notability guidelines require independent sourcing is to ensure that we can write articles that aren't just based on what subjects say about themselves. In this case, there doesn't seem to be adequate sourcing to establish who he is and what he does; everything is either a passing mention, an interview with no analysis or Colbert's own words. –dlthewave ☎ 17:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Reginald B Cherry is just another pusher of magic pills and miracle diets. He writes books like God's Pathway to Healing: Vitamins and Supplements.[53] GPinkerton does not understand what the phase Faith Healing means and is clearly not willing to learn. All he has to do is read our page on Faith healing:
"Faith healing is the practice of prayer and gestures (such as laying on of hands) that are believed by some to elicit divine intervention in spiritual and physical healing, especially the Christian practice. Believers assert that the healing of disease and disability can be brought about by religious faith through prayer or other rituals"
Prayer or other rituals. Not pills and special diets. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Obviously we differ on whether pills and special diets constitute "other rituals". Wouldn't you consider incubation a kind of "faith healing"? What of fasting? If fasting can be ritual, surely so can diet. In my view, the article faith healing is rather narrow in scope and citing it isn't the strongest form of argument. GPinkerton (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

We get it. You have a personal definition of "Faith Healing" that is wildly different from the definitions found in every encyclopedia[54][55][56][57] and dictionary.[58][59][60][61] You are, of course, free to use your "special" definition, but be aware that it hinders communication if the participants in a discussion don't use that same definition of commonly-used phrases. Yes, you can often get away with using non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You lost me at "Dnighth" but I agree with you on the broader point. also note that fasting is not eating, not faith healing, and incubation is really strange, and could be penis envy related? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
It's interesting that our article Asclepeion (the temple in which one would practise pre-Christian incubation) describes the practice as "faith healing" with a Wiki-link. It's further notable that the following sources explicitly treat the ritual of incubation as "faith healing":
We are now far from Don Colbert (whoever he is) but it is not true to claim I "have a personal definition of "Faith Healing" that is wildly different from the definitions found in every encyclopedia". I see nothing in any of the sources Guy cited (including the very same Britannica article that treats of incubation as faith healing) that excludes as faith healing that kind of faith healing done by means of (pseudo-)medicine. If the Wikipedia article omits mention of incubation and related rituals (including fasting in expectation of healing miracles, very common in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages) then it is that article that is defective, not my understanding of faith healing. "Faith healing" has been used to describe incubation and the rituals of the asklepeia for more than one hundred years. GPinkerton (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Vedic Mathematics

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

Has deteriorated somewhat over the last half year, with people removing references to Hindu wingnut organizations and adding claims that the book is legit, but I think I reverted it all while not destroying the useful changes. Still, will probably need watching in the future. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting choice of image for the book cover. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, which it has in common with an edition of Stephen Hawking's God Created the Integers. Vexations (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
William Blake, right? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 01:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
That famous adept of the Vedas ... GPinkerton (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Homeopathic mathematics: We start with pure mathematics, then dilute with the purest Veda to the point where not a single molecule of mathematics is left. Now available as CVS![62][63] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I assumed that the bearded man was God, but Urizen isn't that exactly, it seems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

David Fravor

New BLP that appears to be a WP:COATRACK for all the fringe stuff excised from Pentagon UFO videos. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Fravor. jps (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Changing section headings of biblical figures to "Biography"

These edits by User:ServB1. Aren't these inappropriate for most if not all biblical figures? Doug Weller talk 13:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have wholesale rolled back these edits and the associated ones that inserted devotional literature as sources. jps (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@ජපස:sorry, I forgot to thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine

Traditional Chinese medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page appears to have been affected by babysitting of a Singaporean IP (183.90...) who appears to be engaging in OR and also vandalism[64], depending on the situation around the article. Azuredivay (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The opening sentence manages to include redundancy in only a dozen words. Brunton (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
"Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is a branch of traditional medicine in China." is pretty bad, but what should come after the word "is"? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd rearrange the first two paragraphs to avoid the redundancy and be clearer:
Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) includes various forms of herbal medicine, acupuncture, cupping therapy, gua sha, massage (tui na), bonesetting (die-da), exercise (qigong), and dietary therapy. It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.
TCM is said to be based on Compendium of Materia Medica and Huangdi Neijing. TCM is widely used in the Sinosphere, where it has a long history; subsequently it is now also practiced outside of China."
(inline refs removed) Schazjmd (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, ... a creation of the Mao regime designed to provide the impression of national health coverage in the absence of sufficient medical doctors. Mao's "barefoot doctors" used a codified form of traditional folk remedies to provide the illusion of care in rural areas where there was no effective medicine. As a part of the mythos of Chinese Communist superiority, it was heavily promoted to Westerners, culminating in the fraudulently claimed "acupuncture anaesthesia" of James Reston, a propaganda coup that helped launch TCM in America. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Well while entirely accurate, I imagine that would piss off the Chinese government, large sections of its population, and adherants to TCM worldwide. No reason not to do it then... Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I remember that James Reston stuff. I was sceptical even then. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 00:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The only thing I might quibble with is that TCM wasn't so much a "creation" of the Mao regime as it was an enthusiastic repackaging of select folk remedies by the Mao regime. jps (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Fermi_paradox

This template on the "Femini paradox" [sic] looks like a pile of unrelated things:

What do cloning and head transplants have to do with the Wow! signal? XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

XOR'easter, I was going to nominate that for deletion later when I have time to write a nomination. It is unnecessary per WP:NAVBOX - there are only a few articles that would properly be related, and they're all covered much better by Template:Extraterrestrial life (although that could also use a few improvements). Most of the items being included now are WP:Synthesis. Crossroads -talk- 23:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads -talk- 23:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 1. jps (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

RFK Jr. and COVID-19 conspiracy theories

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article needs some updating. RFK Jr. has always been on the problematic antivaxxer side of things, but since the pandemic he's gone full-blown conspiracy theory. I'm not sure if we have enough sources yet to WP:LABEL him in Wikipedia's voice, but we certainly have enough that document his support of conspiracy theories that we ought to make some attempt to explain that's what he's doing. I tried to start that.

I also think that the monstrosity that is COVID-19 conspiracy theories may soon warrant a separate article from the place it is now hosted at "Misinformation". Related, but perhaps a separate issue.

jps (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kate_Shemirani

Editors may wish to contribute to a draft page I have recently created. Kate Shemirani| is a promoter of fringe-theories related to vaccine denial, COVID-19 and 5G radio networks. She is due to be presenting a protest in Central London the weekend after next, and is likely to be in the news again quite soon, I therefore thought it would be helpful to create a page that summarises some of the secondary sources which have recently mentioned her. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"European American" style question

An editor pointed out to me an increasing trend in people attempting to use "European American" rather than "white" in various Wikipedia articles. On my advice, he has initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#European American vs. whites, white people, white Americans, or Caucasians. I note this here because of recent fringe efforts to insert uncommon descriptors similar to "European American", such as the recent discussion of "Northwestern European" as a group identifier. I think this is the same sort of thing. BD2412 T 04:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Does this then exclude Jews for instance? I've also noticed this trend. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I haven't delved into it that deeply, but you could ask Mitchumch (here, or in the linked discussion). I wouldn't be surprised, though, since the phrase is apparently inclined to exclude those from Northern Africa or the Middle East. BD2412 T 03:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I also don't know. Mitchumch (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl I would like your input on this issue. I'm aware of the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#Category:American people of African descent discussion. How does that discussion impact the following categories like Category:European-American society, Category:European-American history, Category:Eastern Europeans in the United States, Category:European Puerto Rican, and Category:European American templates? Please see this list for instances of "European-American" in category titles. Should that discussion affect the following template Template:European Americans and articles like European Americans, Eastern European Americans, Southern European Americans, and Northwestern European Americans? There appears to be a very large number of instances of the term "European American" on Wikipedia and sister projects here. Mitchumch (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, @Mitchumch.
This terminology plugs into two big themes of American society:
  1. The U.S. is a settler colony, and American culture attaches great significance to ancestral origins, which are widely celebrated both in the USA and in some of the countries which exported their people. (e.g. Ireland makes a big fuss over Barry from Moneygall).
  2. The U.S. is a racially divided nation, with a history of slavery and a type of apartheid. That racial divide is described in many ways, one of which is by ancestral origin: "African American" vs "European American", which means black vs white.
Wikipedia accepts categorisation by national origin as ethnicity. For various complex reasons, Wikipedia categorisation accepts "African American" an ethnic term, and accepts categorisation on that basis ... but categorisation practice deprecates "European American" as a racial categorisation.
This is complex stuff, as we try to find neutral terminology to describe a bitterly-fractured society, while also reflecting widely-used terminology. It's a delicate balance.
I think that at category level, we have it right. The reasons why "African American" is ethnic but "European American" is racial are subtle and complex, but broadly right.
However, usage in articles is a more complex issue than the binary choices involved in categorisation. I suggest the articles should follow the reliable sources for that article: if the sources commonly describe someone as "European AMerican" (or "Northwestern European"), then the article can use that term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl I'm somewhat confused. For categories, is this list acceptable? Mitchumch (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Mitchumch, if we apply the principle agreed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#Category:American people of African descent, they should exist only as container categories. If that leaves them empty, then WP:C1 applies.
However, I think a full CFD discussion would be advisable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acupressure mat

This AfD may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleted walled garden includes:

See also Pranamat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (help! - typo?) 09:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Pave over the entire walled garden. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Triphala

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) above.

"Studies using Triphala report antibacterial, anticancer, antiobesity, antiarthritic, anti-inflammatory, and hypolipidemic properties. Triphala also shows neuroprotective effects against methotrexate-induced damage..."
"The presence of these active constituents has been attributed to its in vitro antiproliferative activity against cancer cells."
"In traditional Ayurvedic medicine, triphala is believed to be useful for numerous disorders. According to the Charaka Samhita, taking the Triphala Rasayana (Triphala with honey and ghee) daily has the potential to make a person live to a hundred years, free of old age and diseases. The physician Sushrut indicates that the formula is useful for treating ulcers and wounds. The alleged uses of Triphala include: gastrointestinal problems, inflammation, gingivitis, hypercholesterolemia, cancer."

Wow. Another herb that cures cancer. What a shock. I know it's true because I read it on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Golly, I take triphala for dietary reasons. I never read of any of those claims for triphala. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
What dietary reasons? I'm curious. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Jackalopes and Bigfoot in Idaho

Re: Castleford, Idaho. I doubt the cited book counts as a reliable source, but is it acceptable to include mentions of bigfoot and jackalopes in articles about places where they have been claimed to have been seen? ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

From the source: "Readers will learn about a Seattle man's contact with a group of aliens that landed in Ballard; ponder the claims of two Washington men that Elvis was an extraterrestrial breeding experiment; hear about an Oregonian's extended discussion with Bigfoot..." So, not a WP:RS for factual assertions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Gosh. A "city" with a polulation of 226. Did they count the dogs? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Predictive Programming

If anyone can check to see if 9/11 Predictive Programming is substantially similar to the deleted "9/11 In Movies Theory" page, that would be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

They were substantially identical, and both were created by User:Zerolandteam385, whose specialty seems to be crappy conspiracy theory articles, mostly about a conspiracy-theorizing priest in Greece. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)02:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. See Nektarios Moulatsiotis and Paparokades. XOR'easter (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

UFO sightings in South Africa

Apparently the wildest UFO claims are accepted at face value in South Africa. At least that's the way a lot of this article reads. I've pruned out the most egregious fringe sourcing (e.g. some fantastical stuff, like this), but a lot of copyediting remains to be done by those with time on their hands. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and "a lot" is an understatement. I haven't a lot of time, but I'll try to help. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Adding Black triangle (UFO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as it's always been a shady article with extraordinary speculation and the above article links it, that reminded me of it... —PaleoNeonate – 03:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
On it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, also to LuckyLouie, —PaleoNeonate – 07:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation

Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Book by Ian Stevenson. The article looks a bit crank-friendly to me, but I could be wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The book certainly seems 'cranky', though the article seems pretty good, not generally as negative as these articles sometimes get. Likely it is one to keep an eye on, as i could see some folks getting fired up and adding lots of non-sense. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I actually read the book many years ago while writing a rebuttal to a chapter about heaven and hell in a hyper-religious book by rightwingnut D. James Kennedy. I recall that the author struck me as an honest researcher who presented a collection of cases that would support reincarnation being the best explanation for the whole collection taken together (coincidence could explain each individual case), but was careful not to make that conclusion outright — a fact that the credulous cranks like to ignore.
I haven't reviewed the sources in the article, but it's worth keeping an eye on to ensure that it continues to report only verifiable reliable-source reporting about the book. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran

The following sentence was removed from People's Mujahedin of Iran on the basis that it is WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL:

Here's the subsequent Talk page discussion. Based on what's in that discussion, would others agree that O'hern's claim is WP:FRINGE? Or could this be included in the article with attribution? Thoughts? Thanks! :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that certain sources being considered are not at the highest standards of reliability. Try to look more widely into this, is my suggestion. There are hundreds if not thousands of books written on this history. The discussion should be about which sources are acceptable. Perhaps this discussion is better had at WP:RSN. jps (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to say it is not true, but I cannot find any other sources supporting the assertion. - Location (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Iran's Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps" by Steven O'hern and published by Potomac Books

Ayurveda lead paragraph

Input is needed at this discussion on the talk page of Ayurveda. Crossroads -talk- 05:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I restored the version without the alt-med POV pushing. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Good; thank you. I expect there will be more complaining about it however. Crossroads -talk- 06:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that editors working in this area remember the phrase "nonsense on stilts." -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, this seems to be almost entirely unsourced. I count a dozen “citation needed”s, and what sourcing there is is either primary or what looks like a directory site, lists of textbooks, and a list of awards of some sort (hard to tell because the links don’t seem to work). Brunton (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

On another related note, given the performance of ARBCOM in the recent past, could somebody tell them that they cannot change reality on this subject and there will be ripples in the space time continuum if they try to decide against reality! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
One wonders how many arbs sympathize with this WMF affiliate's mission to "decolonize" Wikipedia by "center[ing] indigenous ways of knowing,...plural ways of knowing". Crossroads -talk- 18:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
It may be a question to ask of candidates next go-around. In the meantime, arbcom have no jurisdiction over content. Alexbrn (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that's a good idea. Crossroads -talk- 20:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Can you link to the arbcom connection? I feel like I'm missing something. jps (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find it. I'm not very organised. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
here -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! This should have been linked sooner! I hope my contribution sheds light on this subject.
To wit: Yes, ayurveda is pseudoscience. Yes, DS apply. No, it is not necessary that we beat people over the head with this demarcation. No, I do not want arbcom trying to decide what is or is not a pseudoscience (not even when it's obvious). A full case could be asked for it disruption continues. jps (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • And just because it's very related, I welcome anyone to improve or rewrite Dosha, I gave it a small fix but it still needs work. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Anyone who's feeling up to it can also pop over to Unani medicine and Siddha medicine and see if we can get those leads to follow Ayurveda's example prominence-wise. Crossroads -talk- 03:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This RSN thread may be of interest to this noticeboard: WP:RSN § Journal of Young Pharmacists —PaleoNeonate – 11:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In case it interests anyone, The Himalaya Drug Company's talk page has a few suggested sources that may serve to improve it. This article was at times excessively promotional... Liv.52 was recently mentioned at the Ayurveda talk page, bringing attention to it. —PaleoNeonate – 02:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Microchip Is The Mark Of The Beast Theory

Good old-fashioned woo-woo nonsense. Moulatsiotis in one of his interviews in 1995 said that "In the future, a mark will be most likely made, it will be a chip, a biometric ID or a scanner in the forehead". Judging from what Moulatsiotis said his predictions were probably right. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Old-fashioned indeed, it's part of New World Order conspiracy theory culture, —PaleoNeonate – 11:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

David Berlinski

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

May need more balance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It's too bad that the best reviews of A Tour of the Calculus that I've found were blog posts [65][66]. XOR'easter (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
It's decent I think, although there's a CV-style writings collection. If there's any good review of The Deniable Darwin out there it may be worth covering or mentioning perhaps (its claims of lack of evidence are themselves wanting)... —PaleoNeonate – 07:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Afterlife

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

Has a "Science" section. I don't think all of it is actually science, but I can't tell if any of it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It's just a short summary of the consciousness after death article. It's appropriate to summarize it in afterlife. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The current section (I didn't look at the history) seems to summarize related WP:DUE conclusions of neurology and evolutionary psychology, —PaleoNeonate – 07:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Adding: there's the "if"/question about if the mind is a product of the brain and its physical neurology, but it's probably acceptable considering all the literature on philosophy of mind... —PaleoNeonate – 07:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Roger A. Pielke Jr.

Roger A. Pielke Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extensive edits on 1 September 2020 have made this article into uncritical support of Pielke's views, largely sourced to Roger A. Pielke Jr.. My expertise on this is very limited, but my understanding is that it's questionable to say; "Pielke has done pioneering work for several decades showing that rising wealth and property, not climate change, is the main factor behind the rising cost of natural disasters." Think this needs expert review.

On a topical note, apparently today the NSF "announced that it had awarded Pielke and an international team of investigators a Rapid Response Research (RAPID) grant to investigate how seven countries used scientific advice to address the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. . . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This edit definitely fails WP:RS and WP:SPS. This one strays beyond the lines of WP:PRIMARY. This edit removes text that could have been fixed instead (see [67]). This edit is WP:SYNTH, not to mention that the h-index has well-known problems and that we generally don't include them in scientist biographies, since they change over time and depending on who's calculating. So, yes, these edits do generally seem to have taken the article in a worse direction. XOR'easter (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I am pretty concerned about EnvironmentExpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This looks a lot like an account that is intended to game Wikipedia rules. Perhaps the person behind this account can put our minds at ease, but having been active in these areas for some time, I'm a bit concerned that essentially every edit so far may be problematic. jps (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted essentially every edit that this user has made so far as a POV-PUSH. Could someone warn them about discretionary sanctions? I'm also concerned that this may possibly be either a paid account or a sockpuppet. jps (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
The edit summary of this change (that I pointed to above) correctly noted that the text had named the wrong politician. I have restored a fixed version and provided an additional reference. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. This is hard to deal with. jps (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

See also: Michael Shellenberger. jps (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I am EnvironmentExpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). What is your concern, exactly?

You write, "This looks a lot like an account that is intended to game Wikipedia rules."

No, it's not. I have contributed in good faith to several Wikipedia pages.

"Perhaps the person behind this account can put our minds at ease, but having been active in these areas for some time, I'm a bit concerned that essentially every edit so far may be problematic. jps (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)"

You have presented no basis for your concerns either about my edit or about me.

You write, "I have reverted essentially every edit that this user has made so far as a POV-PUSH."

I welcome other Wikipedia editors to look into your arbitrary action here. You've offered zero justification for it.

Thank you for responding, User:EnvironmentExpert. Let me clarify a few things:
1) Obviously, Wikipedia has been a venue where controversies have played out for almost 20 years. We are very used to dealing with new approaches and new ideas. I hope that you will help us write more accurate articles on Wikipedia, but you need to do this carefully and right now it looks like you are approaching the edits from an WP:AGENDA, which, if I may be so bold, is problematic to say the least.
2) Wikipedia doesn't just take single pieces of literature as you are doing and declare, "BUT MINORITY REPORT SAYS THIS". We have to be WP:MAINSTREAM with proper WP:WEIGHT. Your edits, as indicated, did not seem to do that. So we need to see what we can incorporate and how. Right now, there is an obvious bias seen in your edits that does not comport with WP:NPOV.
That's all for now, but there is a lot we need to do if we are going to involve edits like this into Wikipedia.
jps (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and hope you appreciate that I am a new Wikipedia editor, but also one that has followed the controversy very closely. I do not believe my edits were outside of the mainstream. IPCC comes to the identical conclusion as Pielke on climate change and natural disasters. The controversy with Holdren was poorly explained. I explained it and its context. Holdren's criticism is represented, which is the balance you seem to be seeking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnvironmentExpert (talk • contribs)

This is not correct. Pielke's claims are WP:FRINGE and the controversy with Holdren was not poorly explained in terms of the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding. Wikipedia is not in the state to do revisionism. Also, this strikes me as a classic example of WP:GEVAL. Pielke is, whether he likes it or not (and he certainly does not), on the outside looking in. jps (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of long-term increases in economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence). Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded (high agreement, medium evidence). from the IPCC (p. 9) be the mainstream view? The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados (Boruff et al., 2003; Pielke Jr. et al.,2003, 2008; Raghavan and Rajesh, 2003; Miller et al 2008; Schmidt et al.,2009; Zhang et al., 2009; see also Box 4-2). (p. 269) I count 25 cites to Pielke Jr. in that report, why is the IPCC citing someone with fringe claims and "on the outside looking in"? fiveby(zero) 15:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
The IPCC SREX report should be a reasonable summary of the 2018 state of the science, and it clearly doesn't look the same as what the article said: "Pielke has done pioneering work for several decades showing that rising wealth and property, not climate change, is the main factor behind the rising cost of natural disasters." That view has been contested, for example Schmidt et al.,2009 concludes that costs "excluding socio-economic effects show an annual increase of 4% per annum. This increase must therefore be at least due to the impact of natural climate variability but, more likely than not, also due to anthropogenic forcings." Pielke's arguments have been strongly criticised in the past. Fringe claims do get examined in IPCC reports when they're published in suitable journals, the IPCC has to respond to criticisms raised by member governments, so him being cited isn't in itself proof of mainstream acceptance. . . dave souza, talk 18:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Dave souza, looking at the wider set of contributions, I am wondering if this should go to AE. There's a lot of "don't look at the man behind the curtain" going on in those edits. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
They're currently inactive although I now issued the standard DS/Alert. —PaleoNeonate – 02:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Guy, had a look at some of the contributions from User:EnvironmentExpert, very active from 24 August to 2 September then stopped. In the other articles edited, keen to play down effects of human-caused change, to a large extent reducing undue gloom. Noticed at Talk:Natural disaster a tweet being proposed as a source, a reply rightly pointed to Wikipedia:TWITTER. Don't know if AE is appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 10:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Dave souza, Xoreaster rightly calls out the problems with the article edits, what is the need for WP:FRINGE here? The assertions by you and jps are simply unsupported. Ignoring the "pioneering work" fluff, the edit you quote is mostly inline with the IPCC statement. The citations to Pielke within the report are made to support IPCC conclusions, and not as you state some examination of fringe claims. Notice that within the report both Pielke and Schmidt's work you point to are both used in support of the very same conclusion, namely that long-term trends have not been attributed to climate change. The IPCC report provides a big tent, finds common ground and carefuly words its conclusions to report with high confidence. The numerous citations to Pielke are evidence of mainstream acceptance for at least some of his work. You can point to disagreement about shorter term trends, criticism and conflicting conclusions: but differing methodologies, conclusions, criticism and disagreement—even in most cases being proven wrong—should not be labeled fringe, but in most circumstance a contribution. WP:FRINGE should be applied for departing from proper methods, or maintaining a conclusion with no evidence or despite overwhelming contrary evidence, not for disagreement when a role for climate change has not been excluded is the most that can be reliably stated.
The above does not apply to Pielke's popular work and blog posts, or any other edits by EnvironmentExpert, just this blanket characterization of Pielke as WP:FRINGE. fiveby(zero) 18:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
fiveby, think your dispute is with jps rather than myself, I've not made a "blanket characterisation" but have noted that it's not been shown that Pielke's position isn't fringe. In support I've cited Trenberth, K. E. (25 November 2010). "Fixing the Planet?". Science. 330 (6008). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 1178–1179. doi:10.1126/science.1197874. ISSN 0036-8075. and one of the papers cited in the IPCC quote you gave. As the same report points out, attribution is hard, and takes time. In the circumstances, for the IPCC to conclude a role for climate change has not been excluded (high agreement, medium evidence) is a pretty strong statement. It's not enough to justify "were all doomed", but equally it doesn't justify "In reality, the numbers reflect more damage from catastrophes because the world is getting wealthier. We’re seeing ever-larger losses simply because we have more to lose".[68] For all his hedging, Pielke doesn't seem to concede that uncertainty carries significant risk. He's fond of quoting Munich Re, and by coincidence in Talk:Natural disaster selective quotations were taken from this article dated 2020/07/23 which is actually careful to note that climate change is likely to play a role in increasing risks. [on second thoughts, getting offtopic] I noticed "There is always the chance of a benign wildfire and/or hurricane season. But since background conditions indicate the potential for a more active wildfire season in California and elevated hurricane activity in the Atlantic, it is more important than ever to be well prepared". Though largely about variability, interesting in light of current news. . . . dave souza, talk 00:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't blanket characterize anything. I was referring to very specific claims that were included. jps (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that point, which I'd not properly appreciated. Looks like we're in agreement about specific claims. . . dave souza, talk 20:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Expect Roger will let the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission know it's just an illusion, as the world getting wealthier. . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Given that this included references to Natural News and The Townsend Letter, I suspect there may be a few issues. One obvious one is that 2/3 of the sources are a single book. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"He claimed to have discovered raw meat's putative healing capacity when fasting in the wilderness, where a pack of coyotes killed, tore open, and offered him a jackrabbit, then watched him until he ate it." sounds like it's lifted directly from the B510s of the Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. A lot of it reads like Scientology's claims about L. Ron Hubbard's early career. There is also a disconcerting tendency to give the subject's age rather than a year. GPinkerton (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I posted my assessment at its talk page for now (and included some of your criticism there), —PaleoNeonate – 01:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Folk belief

Folk belief appears to be a euphemism or academic synonym for superstition. Would it be a suitable candidate for redirecting/merging/deleting? GPinkerton (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If by superstition you mean anything not in the mold of modern science, sure. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Is Beauty in the mold of modern science? Or Poetry? Or History? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's the same thing. Superstitions are irrational beliefs by modern people that may have descended from folk beliefs. But in their time, it was rational to adhere to them. For example, folk medicine provided cures for diseases. Many of them contained active ingredients that modern medicine has isolated. For example, Canadian aboriginals drank a bitter tea that contained vitamin C in order to prevent scurvy. TFD (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
While I agree that many folk beliefs are effectively superstitions, there is extra context related to folklore that is probably worth keeping separately. It's appriopriate for the article to include a mention of superstitions (it currently does). Maybe a better merge target would be folklore... —PaleoNeonate – 01:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I tend to see it as the other way around, superstition as a pejorative way of describing folk belief/religion/practice, etc. I don't believe that rationality is a good yardstick for definitions of beliefs, most people just think what they think, they don't categorize it down. Plus, many people who hold folk beliefs themselves will describe others' beliefs that they do not agree with as superstitions. I'm just not sure it can be used in a neutral fashion. I do want to match what the sources say, however. Edit: I also wanted to add that superstitions, folk beliefs, whatever they're called, aren't really fringe. In fact, they tend to be very commonly believed. AnandaBliss (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
"Fringe" does not mean "few people believe it". Climate change denial and creation science are fringe, and both are very popular, especially in the USA. Homeopathy and ayurveda, which are very popular, especially in India, are fringe. Conspiracy theories about Jews are fringe, but very popular, at the moment especially in Muslim countries, but also, for the last two thousand years, especially in Christian ones. And so on.
Yes, superstitions are definitely fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I guess that depends on what definition of fringe you're going with, but I'm not sure how something can be on the edges and popular at the same time. What puts it on the "fringe?" This is me asking out of my own ignorance, it's not a topic I'm very read up on. Again, it depends on what the sources say, but superstition is just a plain loaded word (to me) without substantive differences from folk religion or belief. It reads far more like an accusation than a description, as seen when no one wants to call their own beliefs superstitious. AnandaBliss (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that superstition is often used (including by the superstitious) to dismiss other people's beliefs. It however also has a proper use and a number of folk beliefs are superstitious. There's been a tendency in the literature to avoid the label even when correctly used about some beliefs when part of a large religion's culture. Folkore is of course more general than only such beliefs too, it includes some history, art, traditions, like for religions... I already wrote it before and I could be wrong, but my impression is that folk belief might best be merged in folklore, considering it's also mostly a stub... —PaleoNeonate – 01:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Fringe theory: "A fringe theory is an idea or viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship in its field." --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Superstitions are a form of folk belief, specifically, belief in a certain limited sort of magic. But there are lots of other folk beliefs that do not fall into that pattern or where the line is blurry, such as weather maxims and folk medicine. Merging to folklore is probably a good idea. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Folk belief is one of many varieties of folklore, and what is known in popular discourse as "superstition" is just a variety of folk belief. English Wikipedia's folklore article is currently extremely bad and in dire need of a total rewrite, and I very strongly advise against any push to merge folk belief into it. Folk belief just needs expansion and folklore just needs to scrapped and rewritten from scratch. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
That's also how I see it, some folk beliefs are certainly superstitious but the scope is wider... —PaleoNeonate – 01:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Henriette Mertz - pseudoarchaeology called "ancient history research

Fringe archaeology book, needs a cleanup, and I don't care what Wikidata says, we shouldn't be calling her any kind of history researcher. David Childress is a terrible source, as is William F. McNeil. Visitors to Ancient America. The Evidence for European and Asian Presence in America Prior to Columbus - see this review.(scroll down). Doug Weller talk 17:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Where to start . . . to refute her claims of Atlantis by saying that a 1436 map actually shows Cuba or Hispaniola is itself extremely problematic, but a quick search didn't turn up anyone criticizing her works except other fringe authors preferring their own fringe alternative. Agricolae (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
If no mainstream sources cover her, per WP:NFRINGE should an AfD be started? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henriette Mertz. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist)

Editors may wish to review Draft:Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist). Mark Steele will be speaking at a protest in London on the 12th of September, hence I felt that an article about this subject may be useful to readers. All review is welcome. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This article has been published now. Thanks to all those who reviewed it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Unani medicine

At Unani medicine, see this, this, and my edit. More eyes will be needed. That same editor has also made some changes at Ayurveda. Crossroads -talk- 04:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Now another editor is saying the source isn't good enough. Thoughts? Crossroads -talk- 05:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional source there, it's very succinct, —PaleoNeonate – 03:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Biorhythm

It's a theory now! --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, as creationists would say, "it's only a theory"....
I'm actually surprised that Biological rhythm isn't called "Biorhythm"; I thought that was the common term. At least it was when the topic came up in my college psychology class in the 1980s.
As for the pseudoscience thing, "Biorhythm theory" is as good a name as any I suppose. At least the article states up front that it's pseudoscience, and expands on that in the body. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
My impression is that it could be renamed to Biorhythm that is now a redirect to it, it was only moved recently in August 2020, —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
And it seems that Biological rhythm is a list of more scientifically accepted uses, with Biorhythm about Fliess' use, —PaleoNeonate – 01:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: Input welcome at Talk:Biorhythm theory § Recent move —PaleoNeonate – 05:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hemolithin

From the way this article is presented, you'd think there's some good new evidence for extraterrestrial life and whatnot. Sure, some people are skeptical, but as long as we can cite churnalism sites in WikiVoice, then we can up-play the significance of it. A previous AFD for this back in March came to the conclusion that it's likely bunk, but still notable bunk (although there was some call for draftification too), but you wouldn't really get that from the current state of the article. I removed one egregious FRINGE vio, but I'm just not really good at this stuff. If anyone feels like taking a closer look, it could probably use it. Thanks in advance, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I took a stab at cleaning it up. The sheer amount of science churnalism is quite dispiriting at times. XOR'easter (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YAD06

This AfD related to discussion here which led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hockey stick controversy, and deletion with a redirect to Hockey stick graph. The YAD06 article is a minor aspect of a very minor aspect of that controversy, if deleted it could be briefly merged into the hockey stick graph article, but would need care to avoid undue weight to a fringe claim. . . dave souza, talk 11:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Eco-anxiety

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-anxiety

Looks like fringe political machinations to me!

jps (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure who this is directed at, but eco-anxiety has received widespread media coverage including by Washington Post and has been documented quantitatively through several surveys that I linked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnvironmentExpert (talk • contribs) 02:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
The place to make this case is at the link above. This is a noticeboard that just points out where discussions are happening. jps (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Coming soon ... Quantum-anxiety. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to restate my comment in the AfD: Psychological effects of climate change currently redirects to a rather lengthy section in Effects of climate change on human health. I think the appropriate resolution is to break this out into a separate article at Psychological effects of climate change, and selectively merge this article into that one. BD2412 T 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
If eco-anxiety survives AfD a possible rename target would be psychological effects of environment degradation, perhaps, that could either remain separate or eventually merge in psychological effects of climate change... —PaleoNeonate – 00:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Environmental psychology is a thing. "Eco-anxiety" is a buzzword that means something different every time it is used, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

A good reason it should be covered under a better name, —PaleoNeonate – 05:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

If this seems strangely familiar to anyone besides me, it's because Climate Psychosis was up for deletion last year. The result was to merge into it's less woo-woo cousin: Eco-anxiety.
At the time, I don't think I realized that the two articles had been created at roughly the same time, but I guess that doesn't matter. ApLundell (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The AfD closed as a merge, so the fringe content needs to be cleaned up. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

Greetings. Can you tell me if IHME is a reliable source? The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model has been used along with dozens of others by the US government to project outcomes. It has been widely cited and widely criticized. This is for COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. I did not find it listed in the archives here or at the reliable sources noticeboard. I previously posted this question to WT:MED and was advised to try here. Thank you in advance. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Dubious. In April 2020 The IHME forecast that the United States will not suffer even a single death from coronavirus after June 21 2020. In August 2020 the IHME projected 295,011 COVID-19 deaths in the United States by Dec. 1, 2020.
--Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
It depends on what you want to use it for. Any prediction of the future is based on the underlying assumptions, and their modeling has only been as good as 1) the current knowledge of the disease and its treatments at the time, and 2) the assumptions on which they have based their model. These assumptions are not made obvious in the presentation of their predictions. Some of their modeling has been reasonably close, some not so much, because some of the assumptions have been good, some not. As an example, as Guy points out, they predicted the virus would be snuffed out, but this was based on assumptions that the virus had not already achieved undetected widespread community spread, that the testing and tracing regimens in place would be able to keep up with and then get ahead of the infection rate, and that Americans would be willing to follow a level of public health intervention (such as lockdowns and social distancing), none of which proved to be the case, so this proved a very bad prediction. More recently they have been a lot closer, but it still goes up and down as they adjust for public behavior. That doesn't make the model unreliable, it makes it only as good as the underlying assumptions, but for Wikipedia purposes, it makes the conclusions WP:CRYSTAL, as are any such projections. On the other hand, when they present such things as current available hospital and ICU beds by state, those are just the product of data collection, not modeling, and should be reliable. So, what do you want do you want to put in an article that you think IHME would be a good source to cite? Agricolae (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both. I would like to cite the following two things and would be happy with just #1. Certainly IHME has come under heavy and deserved criticism, but they are pretty quick to make corrections. Guy Macon found two excellent critiques in lay language (Stat, and NPR). To them I would add Jewell et al., an early critique originally from April 14.
1) "An IHME model in late August 2020 projected that nationwide deaths would exceed 317,000 by December 1 if people did not wear masks, but 67,000 lives could be saved with 95% universal mask-wearing.[1]"
Maybe it is better for projections to leave out the deaths and just talk about possibly 20% more lives saved?
2) "On July 30, the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) projected 230,000 deaths by November 1 assuming the general population would maintain its then rate of mask-wearing.[2] On August 27, IHME projected 317,000 deaths by December 1 assuming the general population would maintain its then rate of mask-wearing.[3]"
Please see what you think. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Health Highlights: Aug. 28, 2020". US News & World Report. August 28, 2020. Retrieved September 2, 2020.
  2. ^ "Latest UW model projects 230,000 COVID-19 deaths in United States by Nov. 1". KOMO News. July 31, 2020.
  3. ^ IHME (27 August 2020). "COVID-19 Results Briefing: United States of America" (PDF). IHME. Retrieved 28 August 2020.
I suspect that this is impossible to predict given the information we have. If so, I would expect the popular media to glom on to anybody willing to make a prediction no matter how bad it is and publicize it widely.
Here is my advice. Don't cite any Covid-19 predictions that don't come from peer-reviewed science from an organization with a proven track record of successfully predicting infections, deaths, etc. for several previous time periods.
Instead. I advise putting together some material that reflects the following sources:
--Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here. Were you to cite that IHME made such and such prediction, then their press release doing so would certainly be a reliable source for the fact that they did so, but I don't quite follow the point. If you want to compare this in the article to an actual outcome, or to a different predication from a different date, that would be WP:SYNTH. If you don't want to make it explicitly, but want to lead the reader to a specific conclusion, you are better off finding a secondary source that explicitly draws the comparison you want, and citing that instead. If you just want to present it for its own sake, it is more a question of whether any particular IHME prediction is really noteworthy. I guess I would go further than Guy and say don't cite any COVID predictions, even peer reviewed ones, because behavioral changes and changes in our understanding of the viral epidemiology are so outpacing the review process as to make papers meaningless before they are published. Stick to secondary sources for this. Agricolae (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
A literature search for this project inside this one article would take me a week and likely longer. My school starts tomorrow morning so I can't invest the time to evaluate even the first one of Guy Macon's suggestions! I started reading "Wrong But Useful" and found they only cited Jewell et al. on IHME. Heaven help us with Dr. Atlas in charge at the White House and the opposing editor in charge of our article and he now wants to disallow all "mainstream media." That pretty much wipes out any possibility of Wikipedia using a secondary source citing IHME. I'm going to leave you guys here. KUTGW. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, when I wrote "I advise putting together some material that reflects the following sources" I was not implying that the sources mention IHME, even though some do. I was suggesting that if we follow the sources we will add well-sourced content that say that making such predictions is extremely hard to do, that most real scientists don't even try, and that all such predictions are suspect. They do make for excellent clickbait, so there is that...   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Guy, et al., I think it would be far more helpful if you continued this conversation on the article's talk page. You might search for the word "vaccine" as a way to orient yourselves to the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Very clever Waid, you know that "vaccine" is a trigger word round here!! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Merits the awesome smile:   —PaleoNeonate – 11:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

A riddle

Q: What do the Genesis flood and Homeopathy have in common?

A: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/antedilution

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey Mishlove

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

This article was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Mishlove. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thinking Allowed (TV series) can't seem to find a good source that this was actually distributed by PBS, probably was but should be more if stations bothered to broadcast. fiveby(zero) 23:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I think I remember seeing the program some late night. I imagine it wasn't a very expensive buy. In any case, wonder if this might be the most notable feature of the fellow? jps (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The pictures used there are on Commons and claimed to be the article author's own work and under CC, but I'm not really sure. If they are not, the editor knows how to prevent these immediately getting deleted... —PaleoNeonate – 02:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Bupleurum chinense

  • "One of the active components of Chaihu, saikosaponin-d, exhibited anticancer effects via autophagy induction. See linked article for reviews of the pharmacological findings for the roles of autophagy in the pharmacological actions of Chaihu and saikosaponins."
  • "Consumption of B. chinense may increase the risk of liver damage. This formula should not be taken without a prescription from a licensed practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine"

...Really? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 04:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing reliable there; have gutted. Searching, there seem to be a couple of decent WP:MEDRS (PMID 27693772 & PMID 23975682). Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Joseph D'Aleo

Joseph D'Aleo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contains the guy's views about climate change, but no mainstream science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Vast stretches of that page can be trimmed due to their reliance on primary sources. XOR'easter (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Efficacy of prayer needs a review

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. What a trainwreck. I don't even know what the subject of the article is supposed to be about. jps (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, there are numerous RS on this subject. So whatever was described in these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The problem is these sources describe very, very different approaches to the phrase. We run the risk of WP:SYNTH. jps (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
according to Conservapedia, prayer works just fine. Only for Christians, though. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Explains the lack of Lamborghini's in my garage. Oh, and world peace. O3000 (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
It's only because you didn't donate enough to your pastor, or that your request wasn't "according to His will" (1 John 5:14) [Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 04:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure, even the laughter is good for your health. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking back over the article history, I think the problem is that the lead was rewritten several years back to drop in a giant confusing paragraph that basically defined prayer (as though that was the actual topic) and which said it's complicated over and over in various ways. Prior to that the article was pretty clearly a straightforward one about studies on the efficacy of prayer, which is what the body still reflects, so I've mostly rolled back the lead to that one (with some tweaks to try and preserve improvements from in-between - there's probably still a lot more that can be done, and probably some other stuff from the old lead that could be tweaked or stuff I revived that ought to be removed, but that impenetrable first paragraph had to go.) I'm especially bothered that that lead rewrite essentially buried the core point of what WP:RSes say on the subject (summarizing major studies on the efficiency of prayer) under a massive rambling paragraph that was mostly both uncited and not reflective of anything cited in the article. The one cited bit - sources trying to explain away the repeated negative results by arguing that prayer is not testable - should absolutely not be presented before the summary of the studies they were replying to, if it goes in the lead at all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    "sources trying to explain away the repeated negative results by arguing that prayer is not testable" - well it isn't.
    testable
    /ˈtɛstəb(ə)l/
    adjective
    A phenomenon is "testable" if a scientific study of its existence yields the result you want. If the study later turns out to be faulty or irreproducable, the phenomenon ceases to be testable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure if that was humor, but a hypothesis is "testable" if scientific study can show it doesn't work, in which case a better hypothesis is needed to explain the phenomenon. Attempts so far have failed to give clear evidence supporting the prayer hypothesis, but anyway faith is impervious to results, thus not testable. .. dave souza, talk 10:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    My definition described the usage actually applied by homeopaths, advocates of intercessory prayer, and people similarly bad at science. It was intended as humor. Sorry it did not work for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    Oops, Poe's law. . . dave souza, talk 20:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I see a ton of room for improvement in this article and related ones like Studies on intercessory prayer. If anyone here want to help improve them, I'm all in. As noted in the article, praying for healing is the more common than any other alternative medical remedy. These articles may be among the most impactful out of all of Wikipedia's articles on fringe medicine. Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Note we also (why?) have Studies on intercessory prayer which, looking at its sourcing with a MEDRS-o-meter, should probably be gutted and merged. Alexbrn (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    An idea may be merging both articles and moving to "Research on prayer"? —PaleoNeonate – 08:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    That looks a good idea. . . dave souza, talk 10:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    Good idea. Just what I was praying for!   ")   --Guy Macon (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand the Studies on intercessory prayer is only about the alleged medical benefits of the prayer, whereas the Efficacy of prayer is about everything. For example, a believer will pray to get a parking spot for his car, for success in his business or whatever, which may or may not be successful. This is a much wider subject. But I am not familiar at all with the literature in this area which does exist [70]. Personally, I would not be surprised if prayers worked well for many people simply because the prayer can help someone to focus on his or her goals, to get rid of bad habits, etc. And of course it might work in the opposite, bad direction, as has been exploited by leaders of various cults. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    My very best wishes, and the main difference is that intercessory prayer has been studied by those who evaluate bogus medical claims, and found to be bullshit, whereas prayer per se is still largely subject to the same rigorous assessment that most people give their horoscope. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    Or that the requests were realistic, i.e. "please make the pain stop", when statistically most pain is temporary. Or that it's also psychological self-coaching: "Help me to cope, remain patient and calm", etc. —PaleoNeonate – 00:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I am not saying that the efficacy of prayer for improving health was scientifically proven. I am only saying that personal beliefs of people, including prayer can affect significantly what they do and how they feel, hence the prayer may be efficient (or the opposite) for that reason and in that sense. Everything depends on the definition of "efficacy". That does not contradict any science. Something like psychology of religion can be legitimate science. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Living things in culture/Human uses of living things

Does anyone else find this nav template name and collection of links odd, as well as the associated article Human uses of living things? It all seems rather WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACKed to me. The template has a section for "dinosaurs" with multiple associated links. It makes me wonder if this is some sneaky way to to get "kinds" and "types" from ID into the 'pedia. I'll be happy to be proved wrong if it's not the case, I haven't done a deep dive of the edit history (and don't have time to, I ran across it as the only nav template at the bottom of the article on Toad), but it just seems suspicious to me. Heiro 18:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is very weird. It was also listed as GA, but I could find no review. jps (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
What is the gorilla suit for? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 03:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
And why are all the others missing? --mfb (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Patterson-Gimlin film. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
A little funny IMO... So dinosaurs are well, "used by humans", because we make depictions (it doesn't seem to be a claim that we coexisted, but, it's still remote to depict it as human uses, the list could grow infinitely with such inclusion criteria). —PaleoNeonate – 08:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Is the article about a notable subject or just a conglomeration of subjects? Doug Weller talk 10:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I cannot find anything similar in any reference work. It looks completely novel to Wikipedia. Then I see the GA review and I'm a bit bemused: Talk:Living things in culture/GA1 jps (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, a conglomeration of potentially infinite disparate subjects WP:SYNTHed together. That somehow passed GA. Heiro 14:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The GA was rubberstamped by an sockpuppet account User:HalfGig. It needs to be relisted and removed. I am concerned that User:Chiswick Chap may not have known about this. Perhaps he can comment. jps (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've taken my gorilla cossy off now. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
As to the question of if this is a Fringe issue, while the whole thing struck me as odd, I brought it here because at first glance the layout and division of "types", especially with the inclusion of dinosaurs as living things with modern humans, it made me wonder if the whole thing was connected to this : "Created kind", from Intelligent design propaganda. At the time I didn't have the time at the moment to fully investigate the creation and expansion of the template and article. Initially I just wanted a second opinion on that issue. Apologies if the issue belongs elsewhere. Heiro 18:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
No need to apologize. At least we're dealing with this now. I think this is a pretty massive WP:SYNTH violation. I may just take it to AfD. jps (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we ever really know what crashed at Roswell?

Some dispute over this at Roswell UFO incident. Specific proposal was to say[71] "debris was found" rather than that a balloon crashed. Alexbrn (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Yes we can really know what crashed at Roswell.
-Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The current lead sentence of that article is terrible.
Not because there's any doubt that it was a balloon, but because the lead sentence tries to debunk the woo-woo explanations of the incident before even explaining what the incident was!
The "incident" is that debris was found.
Lead with that. The balloon is not the topic of the article. The topic of the article is the event in which the debris was found. ApLundell (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
A balloon crashed. Starting off by saying that a balloon crashed may be less dramatic, but it is clear. XOR'easter (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
No it's not clear. It obfuscates it.
The incident of interest is the discovery of the at-the-time unknown debris. It's not about a balloon crashing any more than it's about a real UFO crashing.
You wouldn't start the Loch Ness Monster article talking about boat wakes and doctored photographs. You start by describing the notable thing. ApLundell (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
From the serious sources, the "incident" is of interest because of how a mundane balloon crash, err, ballooned into a big thing decades later because of some hack authors and conspiracists who cleverly aligned themselves with the US zeitgest, which was receptive to such things because of the culture of suspicion fostered by Watergate &c. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
That's still not about the crash. Nobody actually cares about downed balloons.
The incident of interest and notability is the **discovery** and what that caused. The physical thing at the center of the incident isn't really that interesting except to people obsessed with owning the conspiracy nuts. Unless you're trying to mock the nuts, the physical thing is just a real-life MacGuffin, and it's a weird and confusing way to open an article. ApLundell (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Good RS is not interested in the "discovery" no matter how many stars you put round the world. A rancher found some bits of wood, tin foil and sticky tape from a balloon crash. Big deal. What's interesting is: first, how the army spun the news to deflect from their true activities, and then how this nothingburger ballooned, decades later, into being a big thing with a credulous and conspiracy-hungry public. Our closing down any fringe perspective straight away is good style, entirely in line with the spirit and letter of how we are supposed to treat fringe topics on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The bigger issue as I see it is that the first sentence was a bit out-of-the-ordinary when it comes to the way we normally start articles. I tried to rectify that, no doubt satisfying no one. jps (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Varginha UFO incident

I have never seen an article sourced entirely to ufologists and sensational news items, until now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

David Legates

With the recent appointment of a climate change denialist the article may need review and watchlisters... [72] [73] —PaleoNeonate – 20:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

1 degree warming between 2000 and 2100, very interesting prediction. We had half of that in the first 20 years, that leaves the other half for the next 80 years? I can totally understand why SciAm endorsed a political candidate for the first time. --mfb (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Too bad they didn't endorse the one who listens to science...[74][75] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Familiar name, one of the deniers involved (as an additional author) in the Soon and Baliunas controversy. For some reason that's not in the Legates bio, despite use of the paper by the Bush administration's Philip Cooney, a lawyer who had formerly been a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, to justify his editing the draft first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment to remove all references to reconstructions showing world temperatures rising over the last 1,000 years. My goodness, could that happen nowadays? Can't sort it myself fi the near term due to other commitments, so will be grateful if someone can cover that topic in the Legates bio. . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    You originally shared the second link I posted above (found in the FTN archives). Thanks for that as it helps to understand the context, —PaleoNeonate – 05:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Walter Russell again

Can anyone else cast an eye over recent edits to the article and talk page? Brunton (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it is in much better shape than the last time I reviewed the article. jps (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The article, maybe. But the Talk page... --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Can someone take a look at the article and recent editing? In response to my asking what the sources say on the subject of "brainwashing", I got this response:

There is a large number of sources, and they say a lot of different things (I think the lead of our page summarizes them well). For an outside tertiary summary source, one can look at EB: [76]. It does not say anywhere this is pseudoscience. [77] --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

QAnon in the United Kingdom

See Talk:QAnon#New section for QAnon in the United Kingdom. Scary. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It'll be a tax-exempt religion within decades then ... GPinkerton (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Javanese contact with Australia

This new but obscure article may need some more eyes. Obscure theories of contact/discovery pop up on wikipedia from time to time, and unless closely examined they then find themselves set in stone. I have prompted the author.Nickm57 (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • @Nickm57: This material belongs at Jave la Grande, Terra Australis, Makassan contact with Australia, and elsewhere, probably in that order. There doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of Javanese contact with Australia, only a half-baked recollection of somewhere that could be New Guinea or a complete fantasy as much as it could be the real continent of Australia. GPinkerton (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @GPinkerton: Makassan contact with Australia is indeed very well documented. The problem with this new article is that all of it appears to be original research by just one WP editor - a cobbling together of disparate material to equal the desired outcome. There is no history of "Javanese contact with Australia" before the Makassan contact. Some of the spurious claims made include, for example - Indigenous Australians taken as slaves to Java from the Tenth Century. The sources listed are impossible to check and there are no English language sources that make the same claim. Or no sources are used – observe the commentary beneath the Dieppe Map illustration. This appears to be the editor's own. Attributions to real historians are made that are misleading. The very last reference is to a short 2012 Kompas.com (an Indonesian newspaper) article that seriously misrepresents Professor Regina Ganter's work on Makassan influence in northern Australia. The second last reference infers Campbell MacKnight, who wrote the classic on Makassan contact with northern Australia in 1976, states something like "by the time Makassar people contacted Australia the Javanese presence seems to have been diminished or gone." Except his book makes no such claim. I note the article's one author has been previously cautioned about original research by @Doug Weller:. This article is a train wreck, and meantime the author has stopped editing. Nickm57 (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Terrain theory

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

Has this rival of germ theory been resurrected? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

That was fun. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Redirected to germ theory denialism. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Better. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm on a mobile device so can't be bothered to try and fix it but Antoine Béchamp suggests people proficient in dark field microscopy are GTDs. Nil Einne (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Well okay I removed the worst bit, but the whole thing looks to be a sourced to a book which talks about medical Vietnam and actively suppressed so I think it needs more work. Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_74&oldid=982756188"