Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Did you know
- 15 Apr 2022 – Helen Hadsell (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Bruxton (t · c); see discussion
Articles for deletion
- 19 Apr 2022 – Paul Solomon (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by ජපස (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
Redirects for discussion
- 17 Apr 2022 – Mana (Anglo-Saxon) (talk · edit · hist) →Mana was RfDed by Shhhnotsoloud (t · c); see discussion
- 28 Mar 2022 – Transcendental Meditation® program (talk · edit · hist) →Transcendental Meditation was RfDed by Steel1943 (t · c); see discussion
- 28 Mar 2022 – Transcendental Meditation(r) program (talk · edit · hist) →Transcendental Meditation was RfDed by Steel1943 (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 09 Feb 2022 – Illusion of explanatory depth (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by I'ma editor2022 (t · c); start discussion
- 27 Dec 2021 – Warsaw concentration camp (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Szmenderowiecki (t · c); start discussion
Featured article reviews
- 28 Jan 2022 – Green children of Woolpit (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Q28 (t · c); see discussion
Requests for comments
- 11 Apr 2022 – JP Sears (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Jtbobwaysf (t · c); see discussion
- 08 Apr 2022 – Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by 98.192.82.105 (t · c); see discussion
- 26 Mar 2022 – Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Valjean (t · c); see discussion
Requested moves
- 07 Apr 2022 – Spirit (animating force) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Spirit (vital principle) by Fiveby (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 28 Feb 2022 – Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Russian–Ukrainian information war by Freedumbz (t · c); see discussion
- 26 Feb 2022 – COVID-19 party (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Pox party by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
- 16 Feb 2022 – Apocalypticism (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to End time by Beland (t · c); see discussion
- 07 Feb 2022 – Sol Invictus (holiday) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to The Satanic Temple by Singularity42 (t · c); see discussion
- 02 Feb 2022 – New chronology (Fomenko) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Anatoly Fomenko by TrangaBellam (t · c); see discussion
- 06 Jan 2022 – Astral body (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Subtle body#Western esotericism by Skyerise (t · c); see discussion
- 23 Jun 2021 – Disinformation (company) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Russ Kick by TipsyElephant (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be split
- 18 Nov 2021 – Hypnosis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Vizjim (t · c); see discussion
- 16 Jul 2019 – Humanists International (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Zythe (t · c); see discussion
Articles for creation
- 16 Apr 2022 – Draft:Kyushu Dynasty Theory (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by MaitreyaVaruna (t · c)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 |
Climate change denier vs skeptic[edit]
I noticed 2600:1011:B135:4BE3:21DE:6485:E887:A6C2 (talk · contribs) replacing "skeptic" with "denier" in the context of climate change. I'm under the impression that we favor "denier" only when properly referenced. The edit summaries from this ip suggest something different, Replaced deprecated term
and brought vocabulary up to date
--Hipal (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't know. "Denier" would definitively be the appropriate term (since there's essentially no room for reasonable, rational disagreement, on this). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- "Skeptic" is a euphemism and should be avoided. A few years back, the climate change denial article was renamed from the earlier "climate change skepticism and denial" because the skepticism term was recognized as inappropriate since it gives deniers more credit than they deserve. They have nothing, like creationists.
- The usual way we put it is "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change", which avoids the euphemism as well as the possibly unsourced word "denial". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is literal hate speech, please strike it Unblockabl (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Another thing: Reliable journalistic sources essentially stopped using the "skeptic" moniker at about the same time. It can only be found in sources older than that, or in denialist sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see plenty of recent sources using "climate skeptic" [1][2][3][4][5][6], although it's certainly fallen in use compared to denier. I think there's probably a place for the skeptic label versus the denier label, and we should follow sources. There seems to be, in the short amount of source surveying I've done, a difference between denier, someone who doesn't think humans are having an effect on the climate or thinks the climate isn't really changing, and a skeptic, someone who accepts our effect on the climate, but isn't certain of the scale and overall outcome.
- Basically, though, we shouldn't be using a label that sources aren't using, and we should be using the label that the weight of high quality sources use. For the most part this will end up being denier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, "stopped" was an exaggeration. Still, the sources that still use it tend to specialize less in science than in "markets", engineering and stuff like that.
a skeptic, someone who accepts our effect on the climate, but isn't certain of the scale and overall outcome
I never heard that definition before. Are there sources for it? The definition in our own climate change denial article would call that denial too. It's #4 in Michael E. Mann's "stages of denial".- If we use "skeptic" because all the sources are from the time when the journalists were still on the false-balance trip, we are using an anachronistic euphemism. I'd say we should avoid both. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'll add that while the Scientific American source uses 'skeptic' in the (likely editor written) headline, the text of the article by the author does not mince words, referring to his views (and those who promote him) as "denial" four times. The kicker:
He evidently doesn't need to win a debate, he just needs to make it seem like there is one.
I agree with the interpretation that 'skeptic', particularly as the primary description, is an anachronistic euphemism here. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC) - It's not exactly an uncommon distinction to make, and I've seen it made many time. Here's a few examples.
- [7]
While these scientists do not necessarily doubt all aspects of climate science, issues of reliability of methodology and validity of conclusions in some areas remain, for them, alive. Whether they are correct or not (and many have been responded to in the literature), they are at least working within the broad norms of academia. We might call these people “climate sceptics”.
- [8]
The use of the terms skeptic, denier, or contrarian is necessarily subject-, issue-, context-, and intervention-dependent. Blanket labeling of heterogeneous views under one of these headings has been shown to do little to further considerations of climate science and policy
- [9]
“I draw a distinction between sceptics and deniers. The sceptics are people I respect – they have raised legitimate issues and, from my experience, are open minded. The deniers are people who start with a conclusion and only pay attention to the data that support it. I do think that our results could change the minds of some sceptics about the reality of global warming.”
- [10]
Hence, I have some sympathy for people who make the "Denier-Skeptic" distinction. (I'll group "climate agnostics" with the Skeptics for this discussion.) They deserve a chance to show they are motivated more by curiosity than partisan fever. Among those who convincingly fit into the Climate Skeptic category, I include several engineers, fellow science fiction authors and the famed physicist Freeman Dyson.
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'll add that while the Scientific American source uses 'skeptic' in the (likely editor written) headline, the text of the article by the author does not mince words, referring to his views (and those who promote him) as "denial" four times. The kicker:
- What is the difference? Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The difference (to me, at least) is that "skeptic" suggests a reasonable, evidence-based position, whereas "denier" does not. Your idiolect may vary. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I was curious and found these source at least discussing the differences as seen by the authors [11][12][13]. All basically see this as a sliding scale and none see the terms as absolutely interchangeable. The AP has a style guide entry on the subject as well.[14] It generally says don't use either term. Don't use skeptic as, traditionally, skepticism followed by investigation is a core part of science. Thus "skeptic" is a good description for someone who is scientifically investigating and challenging current climate science views. Conversely, the AP sees "denier" as often a pejorative term. For these reasons the AP suggests "climate change doubter" or "someone who rejects mainstream science". Note that LABEL may apply to "denier" if it is seen as a pejorative term. Springee (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think an obvious MOS approach is to describe ideas and arguments rather than people. Thus "So-and-so has expressed support for the climate change denial argument thus-and-such." Rather than "So-and-so is a climate change denier." jps (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Then we go with what RS say they are. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Descriptions are both far more informative and far less denigrating than labels. Per Hob Gadling's advice and AP's style guide linked by Springee, I think the best way to phrase that is
So-and-so rejects the scientific consensus on climate change
. (Maybe for some people, that can be downgraded todoubts the scientific consensus on climate change
.) "Climate change denier" can also often be misleading, as some people don't deny the existence of climate change but claim it is natural rather than anthropogenic, but both claims would fall cleanly under "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change". BTW I don't think there's a MOS:LABEL issue with the term "climate change denier" though as I don't think "denier" is value-laden.
- For numerous reasons listed above I also don't think it's appropriate to ever use the phrase "climate change skeptic" or "climate change skepticism" in Wikipedia's own voice, i.e. the term should appear in quotes or be attributed wherever used. Skepticism is a normal part of science, so a reasonable and skeptical scientist may well say that for instance "nobody knows whether clouds speed up or slow climate change as they are too hard to model" or the even more skeptical "nobody knows the effect releasing aerosols into the atmosphere has on climate change as aerosals act as condensation nuclei for clouds which we do not understand". Such scientists are skeptics about our current understanding of climate change, and are well within normal scientific debate, but those who deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change are anything but. Endwise (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The articles in question:
- Lucia Liljegren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Rather stubby, contains almost nothing but the bones of an article, a bit of backslapping by someone who thinks like her, and a tidbit about fencing stolen e-mails. Should probably be deleted.
- Heartland Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Clearly a denialist organization. No BLP problem here.
- Sherwood B. Idso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Notorious part of the denial industry. See [15].
And of course, there is that lengthy Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#RfC:_MOS:LABEL discussion going on which is relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucia Liljegren. jps (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Ganzfeld experiment[edit]
A user is repeatedly removing the term "fringe" from the ganzfeld experiment. It's obvious that the ganzfeld technique used to test for ESP is fringe science. This is really not controversial. The user is repeatedly adding a citation tag claiming fringe does not appear on the article. The same user [16], [17] has stated that parapsychology is a science and has been in many debates before about their defense of psychic powers. I am not sure why we need a citation tag to claim the ganzfeld experiment is "fringe" but I added a reference for this and was still reverted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion, "fringe" is a bit of a Wikipedian-ism. Sometimes it is used in the literature, but often there are better and more precise ways to describe a situation considering "fringe" can mean such disparate things as "avant-garde" or even "flowery". Since we rely on WP:FRINGE to be an organizing principle, I think we can easily succumb to the misconception that the outside world uses "fringe" in the same way we do, but that is not the case. The Edinburgh Fringe Festival, for example, is hardly WP:FRINGE. :) jps (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- In this case, we do (and almost certainly should) use the more descriptive term pseudoscience, which is covered by a subset of our FRINGE guideline. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Read the lead:
- A ganzfeld experiment (from the German word for “entire field”) is an assessment used by parapsychologists that they contend can test for extrasensory perception (ESP) or telepathy. Consistent, independent replication of ganzfeld experiments has not been achieved, and there is no scientifically validated evidence for the existence of any parapsychological phenomena. Ongoing parapsychology research using ganzfeld experiments has been criticized by independent reviewers as having the hallmarks of pseudoscience."
- Since it already says it is AN ASSESSMENT USED BY PARAPSYCHOLOGISTS, the numerous disclaimers and warnings are superfluous. What next? Are we going to write disclaimers for Ghostbusters and the Flintstones that they portray pseudoscience and should not be watched by children under 21?
- Fringe in Wikipedia incidentally means has little or no support in mainstream sources. That could include an alternative theory that science may eventually accept.
- Incidentally, the lead should explain what the experiment is and why it is notable. We should do that before adding more disclaimers.
- TFD (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
What next? Are we going to write disclaimers for Ghostbusters and the Flintstones that they portray pseudoscience and should not be watched by children under 21?
- Wikipedia is headed there. We already now refuse to summarize any information about preliminary research because apparently we think readers are so dumb that we've given up on accurately portraying the information and now straight up just tailor the article to make them think what we think they should think. MarshallKe (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- The quoted text reads fine to me; the "disclaimers" summarize the main article below, which is what the introduction is supposed to do. XOR'easter (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think summarizing the experiment itself would be a great idea for the lede, but I note that the article as currently written doesn't do a fantastic job of it either. I've been working on that a bit. One thing I cannot determine is whether it was Charles Honorton who coined the term or whether it was used prior to his promulgation. Also, I believe that the 1980 cult classic Altered States may pay homage to this experiment, but I haven't found many sources to help with that. All this is to say it would be nice if people got out of the peanut gallery and tried to help write the article. If you want. jps (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- A friendly reminder (that is actually written in bold red text at the top of the page) that when referring to specific editors you should notify them.
- Sadly you have not accurately represented here what happened. I shall leave it up to interested parties to review the edit history and the talk page to see what actually happened should they so desire. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Ebal curse tablet[edit]
This is the best example I've seen of why we should never use the media as a source for archaeology, particularly sensational claims. The main discussion is at Talk:Mount Ebal. See [18] for a discussion of the problems by Christopher Rollston who himself says "that there was some sort of Exodus, and that there was also some sort of entrance into the land of Canaan for at least some of the Proto-Israelites, and that there were at least some battles as part of that" so he can't be accused of being a "Bible denier" as the Creationist who found it (out of context) has accused others of being. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was just coming here to make sure this had been covered; I should have known Doug would be all over it. I am seeing all sorts of grandiose claims for this thing which should be interesting enough on its own philological grounds. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- See Israel Finkelstein’s FB page. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Page author has started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo of Gaza in what seems to me like an action that goes right up to the line of WP:POINT. jps (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- The AfD process hasn't been properly followed either - there is no entry for the Apollo article in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log. Someone (preferably someone uninvolved) should probably sort that out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Page author has started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo of Gaza in what seems to me like an action that goes right up to the line of WP:POINT. jps (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- See Israel Finkelstein’s FB page. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Spirit (animating force)[edit]
Spirit (animating force) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
What to do about the name of this article? The problem is, of course, that what is described is manifestly not a force in the way "force" is normally described. The article was renamed from simply spirit over concerns that it was describing something that is more narrowly defined than all the different things that "spirit" refers. This is perhaps a bit more problematic than energy (esotericism), but perhaps that is a solution here? I just think that keeping it at "animating force" is not a good idea. jps (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- What to do about it? Nothing at all, in my opinion. Instead credit readers with the ability to actually read the article, and figure out for themselves that it isn't describing something you'd learn about in a physics lecture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Spirit (vitalism)? I note that force is used in the colloquial sense of 'power', not in its scientific sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Vitalism, I think, is best left as a historical side project from the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Although some believers in spirits are self-described vitalists, many (perhaps even the majority) are not. Also, while I have heard it said that the colloquial sense of 'power', 'energy', and 'force' are not being used in the scientific sense, when you talk to actual believers in these subjects they will often contend that these things have measurable consequences. It isn't as easy as saying, "Oh, they're not talking about the measurable aspects of power, energy, and force." because, in many cases, they are making claims that such things really are occurring measurably. jps (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I guess I have less faith in potential readers than you do, Andy. Every semester, I have students that ask me if gods or spirits are just a kind of force in my classes because of this kind of misnomer. They literally mean a force that has physical influence. In any case, I think precision is important and here we lack it. jps (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Spirit (vitalism)? I note that force is used in the colloquial sense of 'power', not in its scientific sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Just redirect it to Soul. The article discusses the root words of spirit and soul being different, but does not elaborate on any functional difference in usage, and then goes on to provide a bunch of examples of it being used interchangeably with soul, or examples unrelated to the scope of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Seems like a possible plan to me, but it is not clear to me that the concept of soul captures absolutely everything that believers in "spirits" think exists. Many believers in souls argue fervently over whether animals have them, for example. Some of those believers who deny animals have souls also argue that those animals have spirits (pneuma). I don't pretend to understand the logic behind such nitpicking, but I know it happens. jps (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- How about something squirrelly like Spirit (animating concept)? Assuming of course that 'concept' is sufficiently neutral. Thinking about the do-animals-have-souls complication reminded me that "animal spirit(s)" can also refer to an economics concept, so we have that, too. And here I was thinking that Spirit (animating force) referred to the finer single malts. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Seems like a possible plan to me, but it is not clear to me that the concept of soul captures absolutely everything that believers in "spirits" think exists. Many believers in souls argue fervently over whether animals have them, for example. Some of those believers who deny animals have souls also argue that those animals have spirits (pneuma). I don't pretend to understand the logic behind such nitpicking, but I know it happens. jps (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- So the problem is that "force" is used in its common English sense, and not its strictly defined physics sense?
- If so, it's not an isolated problem. We might speak of the "forces of nature", the "Force of a man's character", the "Forces of civilization", etc.
- It seems that it's outside of Wikipedia's remit to encourage the English-speaking word to standardize language to match physics jargon. ApLundell (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, there are plenty of other ways the word "force" is used. I find that "animating force" is hard to identify among the various definitions. Yes, we all know what it means. But it carries with it a mechanical misnomer that I find myself working against in many situations. And as a (parenthetical), I think that precision is ultimately best. Do we even need this parenthetical? After all, we don't exactly describe "animating force" in the article (for good reason). jps (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's actually that first definition. " 1a(1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power" The examples given are "the forces of nature, the motivating force in her life "
- A spirit, in this sense, is the active power that animates living things. It is the active power that is the cause of a living thing's motion and vitality. ApLundell (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I guess we're now onto Aristotleian causes now. Factually, spirit is not a material cause of living things' motion and vitality. It might be an efficient cause or a formal cause. The confusion lies, of course, in that many believers in spirit argue that it is a material cause. jps (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am not arguing that the idea is true. I am talking about how the idea is commonly described, which is what dictates naming if I understand the guidelines.
- ApLundell (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is what I mean by "precision", however. The fact that this spirit is not a material cause or a physical force per se is hardly a matter for discussion in the article. But since there are those (many, in fact), admittedly non-experts, who argue that it is a material cause or physical force mean that the parenthetical is automatically argumentative and adopting a particular perspective that is "believer based" at best and entirely misleading at worst. My concern is not that people as sophisticated as you or I will be misled. My concern is that people who are just starting to investigate such ideas and are presented with the parenthetical will take the label at face value. I know that there are people who will read "spirit (animating force)" and think, "Oh! A spirit is the the force that animates things!" This is, however, not strictly true! It is only a poor approximation of the meaning this label is going for. jps (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I guess we're now onto Aristotleian causes now. Factually, spirit is not a material cause of living things' motion and vitality. It might be an efficient cause or a formal cause. The confusion lies, of course, in that many believers in spirit argue that it is a material cause. jps (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, there are plenty of other ways the word "force" is used. I find that "animating force" is hard to identify among the various definitions. Yes, we all know what it means. But it carries with it a mechanical misnomer that I find myself working against in many situations. And as a (parenthetical), I think that precision is ultimately best. Do we even need this parenthetical? After all, we don't exactly describe "animating force" in the article (for good reason). jps (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I overlooked the obvious solution? What about spirit (folk belief) since that is the identified category to which the concept belongs according to the first three words of the article? jps (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was thinking spirit (folk lore). Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Historically it wasn't just a 'folk' concept though. As the article notes, William Harvey and René Descartes both considered it something physical, something that science (as it was emerging) could comment on. 18:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely! Of course, they had no formal definition of "force" yet, but it is possible if they did they may have tried to apply it to such. jps (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- But "spirit (folklore)" could also refer to things like the White Lady or Nearly Headless Nick. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Is it possible to Find a better source for Descartes’s and Harvey’s view? The source used is well over a century old, and more importantly is somewhat ambiguous about Descartes. Although it says he believed in a “vital force which animated the whole bodily frame”, the previous paragraph says that he held the “soul” to be responsible only for consciousness, but “all other vital phenomena were due to properties of the material of which the body is composed”. Brunton (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe the reader would be better served by an expanding and improving the Spirit, Breath of life, and Life force disambiguation pages rather than trying to find a correct name for the mishmash of concepts in the content? Based on the title I would expect to see pneuma and Galen from Vitalism#Ancient_times, spiraculum vitae along with et spiritus Dei from pneumatology, Energy (esotericism), etc. but without the ghosts, fairies and other spiritual beings from the redirect. Wouldn't improved disambiguation be better than confusing article content? fiveby(zero) 17:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like this might be a great way forward. jps (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. This solutions seems to be the most reader-oriented / informative approach on the table so far. Generalrelative (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- We should also clarify that Spirit gum is not in fact made from ghosts, so that dumb people are not mistaken. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- "The school spirit is a ghost, who will kill me if I don't obey. Ghosts are scary, guy!" -Cal Evans, Undergrads Bakkster Man (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Similar issues with Gum Arabic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's already a huge disambig page, and y'all are just making it bigger with your spirit gums and school spirits. Looking at the titles with direct links to Spirit (animating force) i imagine many can be replaced with a more specific target, or cleaned up by altering the text or just removing the link. Guessing what's left over would be mostly artifacts of the recent move and others: immaterial beings that aren't properly ghosts. Probably wanted one of redirects: spiritual being or spiritual entity or some such. Will reduce the link count and then maybe it will be clearer what to do with Spirit (animating force) content, name and history. fiveby(zero) 15:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I like Supernatural#Spirit as the eventual target here rather than Non-physical entity#Spirits. fiveby(zero) 15:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ජපස: do you have an objection to a link like this: [20], based on
best left as a historical side project from the eighteenth and nineteenth century
? fiveby(zero) 14:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)- I don't know! Certainly vitalism *is* an example, but I don't know if this is the best pipe or not. jps (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Proposed Spirit (animating force) --> Spirit (vital principle). fiveby(zero) 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know! Certainly vitalism *is* an example, but I don't know if this is the best pipe or not. jps (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's already a huge disambig page, and y'all are just making it bigger with your spirit gums and school spirits. Looking at the titles with direct links to Spirit (animating force) i imagine many can be replaced with a more specific target, or cleaned up by altering the text or just removing the link. Guessing what's left over would be mostly artifacts of the recent move and others: immaterial beings that aren't properly ghosts. Probably wanted one of redirects: spiritual being or spiritual entity or some such. Will reduce the link count and then maybe it will be clearer what to do with Spirit (animating force) content, name and history. fiveby(zero) 15:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
More comments on the proposed move would be appreciated. jps (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Meat explosion at John Campbell[edit]
- John Campbell (YouTuber) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Youtuber John Campbell has mentioned his Wikipedia article to his ~2 million subscribers and the result is predictable. The fuss is entirely around fringe pandemic topics (ivermectin, vaccine safety, death counts, etc.). Eyes from fringe-savyy editors may help. Alexbrn (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I first thought there had been an accident in the soup factory... --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, I was getting ready to add Great Molasses Flood to the see also section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Exploding whale would be another candidate for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- How about the London Beer Flood? Brunton (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think List of edible disasters is just begging to be a blue link. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- a redirect to Wetherspoons maybe? Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- And here I was hoping for a sequel to the Kentucky meat shower--not exactly a disaster, but it certainly sounded on point. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- SFR, please don't eat the exploded whale. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Get on my level. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- a redirect to Wetherspoons maybe? Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think List of edible disasters is just begging to be a blue link. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- How about the London Beer Flood? Brunton (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Exploding whale would be another candidate for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, I was getting ready to add Great Molasses Flood to the see also section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I first thought there had been an accident in the soup factory... --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I have AFD'd it as they do have kind of a valid point about how its pretty negative, problem is is that this is why he is kind of notable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. If there's going to be an article about John Campbell, it's going to be pretty negative because that's the locus of his fame in RS. (I actually think Wikipedia's notability guidelines need to be revised to that we only carry bios of living people who have had a book/journal article written about, or who have repeatedly appeared in headline news in major news sources. Yes, that would mean deleting a lot of Wikipedia. It would be great.) Alexbrn (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, notability and fame should not be synonymous, but that is how society works. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- First we'd have to have a functional list of major news sources for every country and region, because otherwise the systematic bias will get worse. People would, without realising the issue, assume only the news sources with "nice" websites can possibly be major and reliable, and that would rule out a lot of legitimate reporting in less affluent/internet-y regions. That already happens, but it would be far worse because it would be an explicit requirement. But. That being said. If we had such a list, and the criteria had some wiggle room for unconventional sources (because again, systemic bias issues), then oh I'd love to have less Wikipedia. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, notability and fame should not be synonymous, but that is how society works. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- AfD seems like a jump. There's some cleanup to be done, but no indication that the article is beyond fixing. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- What's going to happen, most probably, is that Campbell will keep producing increasingly fringey videos and so fact-checkers etc. will keep issuing corrections. So the article will get "worse" as this accumulates. I live in hope a source will emerge with an overview of his Youtube career, which would allow us to wrap everything up into a more compact form. The closest so far is this, but trying to use it will probably provoke even more disquiet because it's not ideal. Alexbrn (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think one of the missing elements of the article is that transition, from praise in 2020 for factual science communication, to censure over specific items of misinformation later. Another example of the reason not to apply labels, or perhaps more specifically here to make such references to misinformation very specific. It seems closer to something like Nobel disease, where it's a few instances of fringe ideas overshadow a body of otherwise good work. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're spot on. "Audience capture" it's sometimes called. We really need a source to chart this. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nobel disease assumes a certain brilliance to the individual in the first place, (think Montagnier or Josephson), and then a fall from still great heights into oddthink. This isn't that. this guy was never up there in the first place, gets a doctrate, starts pronouncing on things way way outside his area of expertise, and gets caught out. That's his notability in a nutshell. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't mean in the sense of Nobel-levels of brilliance to start. But there's multiple sources on the article early in the pandemic by major publications calling him a 'sensation' or having 'gone viral' with his COVID explanations, and UNICEF giving him as an example of "real experts" who should be amplified. He wasn't perceived as a crackpot then, it's that later fall (whether audience capture or something else) that led to the misinformation allegations. Which, I'll add, is why I don't think he's a WP:BLP1E, having had mainstream coverage prior to the misinformation events. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nobel disease assumes a certain brilliance to the individual in the first place, (think Montagnier or Josephson), and then a fall from still great heights into oddthink. This isn't that. this guy was never up there in the first place, gets a doctrate, starts pronouncing on things way way outside his area of expertise, and gets caught out. That's his notability in a nutshell. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're spot on. "Audience capture" it's sometimes called. We really need a source to chart this. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think one of the missing elements of the article is that transition, from praise in 2020 for factual science communication, to censure over specific items of misinformation later. Another example of the reason not to apply labels, or perhaps more specifically here to make such references to misinformation very specific. It seems closer to something like Nobel disease, where it's a few instances of fringe ideas overshadow a body of otherwise good work. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- What's going to happen, most probably, is that Campbell will keep producing increasingly fringey videos and so fact-checkers etc. will keep issuing corrections. So the article will get "worse" as this accumulates. I live in hope a source will emerge with an overview of his Youtube career, which would allow us to wrap everything up into a more compact form. The closest so far is this, but trying to use it will probably provoke even more disquiet because it's not ideal. Alexbrn (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I kind of like the test case deletion discussion. Wikipedia seems to have an over-coverage of biographies of YouTube stars. Most of the content that is worthy of inclusion here could be contained in other articles, in my opinion. jps (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think this changes my mind. The two most notable issues seem to be about Ivermectin (got a whole article about that), and the death count stuff which was only notable because David Davis (British politician) cited it to Parliament (but not present on that article). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Poles in Lithuania[edit]
Essentially, this is part two of my submission from December "Belarusians are really Lithuanians?". Cukrakalnis spreads the idea that Poles in Lithuania, are not Poles living in Lithuania, but actually "Slavicized Lithuanians". He bases this statement on the works of the controversial Lithuanian linguist Zigmas Zinkevičius. He was a politically engaged academic and Minister of Education who claimed that Poles in Lithuania are not Poles, but more or less "confused Lithuanians". He also claimed that the Polish language does not exist in Lithuania, and that the language spoken by Poles in Lithuania is a separate language, devoid of grammar and literature, and as such is doomed to extinction. And Poles in Lithuania should return to the bosom of the Lithuanian nation. To which he himself contributed significantly by leading the action of Lithuanianization, being the Minister of Education. I described his character in more detail here: Talk:Poles in Lithuania#(Un)reliability of Zigmas Zinkevičius. His view has deep roots in Lithuanian nationalism. You can read about it in Ethnographic Lithuania.
It is a historical fact that the Polish minority in Lithuania emerged as a result of a long-lasting process of adoption of the Polish language and culture by the inhabitants of Lithuanian territories. Migration from central Poland was of marginal importance. It is also a fact that the process of Polonisation among the lower classes took place mainly in the second half of the 19th century. I described it in the article Polonization, which I am currently working on. But this does not mean that Poles living in Lithuania today are only "Slavicized Lithuanians" or "Polonized Lithuanians". In the last year 183 thousand people marked Polish nationality in the census. And this is how they should be defined. Just because someone's great-great-grandfather or even grandfather spoke Lithuanian as his first language, it does not mean that person is "Slavicized" if he self-identify as simply "Polish". Marcelus (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- This concerns this phrase from Poles in Lithuania: They are either mostly descended from or are themselves Slavicized Lithuanians,[1][2][3][4][a] and the American political scientist Walter Clemens mentions a Belarusian origin.[6] This WP:NPOV phrase is directly supported by numerous sources and also supported by content in the article itself, which was added by Marcelus. Moreover, Marcelus initiated a WP:EDITWAR and continuously removed material that had multiple sources supporting it. Instead of initiating a conversation on the page's talk page, there were about ten major removals by Marcelus. As for me, I kept re-adding the sourced material and also improving other sections of the article.
References
- ^ Lipscomb & Committee for a Free Lithuania 1958, p. A4962; "It is very enlightening that a sharp cleavage separating Catholics and Orthodox runs along the boundaries drawn up in 1920 between Lithuania and Soviet Russia. During the negotiations in Moscow, it was admitted that this cleavage shows where the ethnographic border between Lithuania and Byelorussia ran, since the Lithuanians accepted Christianity later from the Roman Catholic church; they remained Catholic although later some of them were Polonized or Byelorussified. That religious-ethnographic boundary, further emphasized by the style of farmhouses and buildings, runs well to the east of Vilnius, through the regions of Molodechno, Lyda, and Gardinas (Grodno)."
- ^ a b Budreckis 1967; "Halinos Turskos studija apie lenkų tarmę Vilniaus ir Švenčionių apskrityse įrodo, jog Vilniaus krašto lenkai, tai, daugumoje, sulenkėję lietuviai, o ne žmonės, atkeliavę iš etnografinės Lenkijos."
- ^ Šapoka 2013, p. 216.
- ^ a b Zinkevičius 2014.
- ^ Turska 1930, pp. 219–225.
- ^ Clemens 1991, p. 150; In reality, many Poles in Lithuania were the offspring of Polonized Lithuanians or Belarussians
- Bibliography:
- Budreckis, Algirdas (1967). "Etnografinės Lietuvos Rytinės ir Pietinės Sienos". Karys.
- Clemens, Walter C. (1991). Baltic Independence and Russian Empire. 0-312-04806-8: St. Martin's Press. p. 150.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (link) - Šapoka, Adolfas (2013). Raštai (in Lithuanian). Vol. I - Vilniaus Istorija. Vilnius: Edukologija.
- Lipscomb, Glenard P.; Committee for a Free Lithuania (29 May 1958). "Extension of Remarks". Congressional Record. 104 - Appendix.
- Turska, Halina (1930). "Język polski na Wileńsczyzne". Wilno i Ziemia Wilenska (in Polish). Vol. I.
- Zinkevičius, Zigmas (31 January 2014). "Lenkiškai kalbantys lietuviai" [Polish-speaking Lithuanians]. alkas.lt (in Lithuanian).
- ^ Lithuanian professor Zigmas Zinkevičius considers the Poles in Lithuania and especially in the Vilnius Region as Polish-speaking Lithuanians,[4], while the Lithuanian historian Algirdas Martynas Budreckis wrote that "Halina Turska's study[5] of the Polish dialect in Vilnius and Švenčionys counties proves that the Poles in the Vilnius region, for the most part, are Polonized Lithuanians, not people who came from ethnographic Poland."[2]
Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note that none of the sources you cited use the term "Slavicized Lithuanians" or "Polonized Lithuanians". Even Zinkevičius talks about "lenkiškai kalbantys lietuviai" - Polish-speaking Lithuanians (in a 2014 article, then by the way he claims that their speech has nothing to do with Polish). Let me repeat, it is true that the Polish minority in Lithuania arose as a result of Polonisation, which took place mainly in the second half of the 19th century (this is what Turska writes about), and not as a result of some great migration of Poles to Lithuania (such theories appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, today no one seriously claims so). This does not change the fact that Poles in Lithuania today are Poles, because Polishness is not a community of blood and soil, but a community of language and culture.Marcelus (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Marcelus' statement is flat out false - The American political scientist Walter Clemens uses the term "Polonized Lithuanians", as do the other sources (e.g. sulenkėję lietuviai and other similar terms). Marcelus making false statements is clear for all to see. This nomination should be removed, because Marcelus wants to remove content based on sources just because he dislikes what they say. He did not acquaint himself with what they said and instead just wants to remove them. He accused me of
Either you don't read Polish or you are deliberately misleading
, even if the source in question supported what I said (see the bottom of section Talk:Poles_in_Lithuania#(Un)reliability_of_Zigmas_Zinkevičius, where Marcelus smears the professor Zigmas Zinkevičius for saying what many others, even Poles, have said). Finally, the article's content supports the phrase Marcelus seeks to remove. Marcelus' actions are simply not according to Wiki guidelines. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)- I don't have access to Coleman's book, but all it matters is context. It's one thing to call Lithuanians who adopted the Polish language and culture "Polonized Lithuanian", but the whole other thing is calling that established national minority in Lithuania, which members clearly self-declare as Poles. Can you cite the whole context Coleman is using that term? That's one thing. Other is that you still failed to pinpoint a source that uses the term "Slavicized Lithuanians". Also term Sulenkėję lietuviai, which I believe translates as something like "bent/broken/fallen Lithuanian" is something very different, more like a slur than anything worth using in the encyclopedia. Can you quote the part of Turska's article that supposedly supports what you are saying? Because I read it, and there is no nothing like what you are claiming. Hence my assumption you don't really read well in Polish. Zigmas Zinkevičius is very anti-Polish, his theories are just reflections of his nationalistic views. Of course content of the article doesn't support claim that Polish people in Lithuania are "Slavicized Lithuanians".Marcelus (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- The work of the Lithuanian historian Adolfas Šapoka has the sentences
Lithuanian areas in many instances were cut up or bisected by Slavicized "Locals", and appropriated by both the Whiteruthenians and Poles for their propaganda purposes.
orIslands of Lithuanians are to be found guite far in the east, and Slavicized islands are encountered west of Vilnius.
- pretty much obviously implying the term of Slavicized Lithuanians. The term Sulenkėję lietuviai translates to Polonized Lithuanians and not "bent/broken/fallen". The "translation" you provided comes from Google Translate or etc. and is obviously wrong - it confused lenkti (to bend) and lenkas (a Pole). Sulenkėję has the stem lenk, which is connected to Poland (Lith: Lenkija) and Poles (Lith: lenkai). I guarantee you this as a native speaker of Lithuanian. Moreover, Slavicized includes both Polonized and Byelorussified (both Poles and Byelorussians are Slavs) and both of these terms are used in the 1958 source. - Turska's article writes in the very first page of it:
O języku polskim na Wileńszczyźnie pisano dotychczas bardzo mało, nie doczekał się on jeszcze gruntownego, monograficznego opracowania. A szkoda, posiada bowiem swoistą, bardzo charakterystyczną i niezmiernie ciekawą postać, odrębną od postaci innych nowych narzeczy polskich, wyrosłych bądź na gruncie ruskim, bądź też litewskim. Odrębność ta dotyczy nietylko właściwości językowych, ale także historji powstania i rozwoju polszczyzny wileńskiej: jak wiadomo, nie powstała ona ani przez jakąś godną uwagi polską kolonizację, ani drogą stopniowego wypierania języka obcego przez sąsiadujące dialekty polskie, nigdzie bowiem nie łączy się z obszarem czysto polskim, a stanowi wyspę, ze wszystkich stron otoczoną morzem białoruskiem i litewskiem. Od jak dawna wyspa ta istnieje, kiedy, w jakich warunkach i w jaki sposób powstała? Na te pytania można będzie z całą pewnością odpowiedzieć po gruntownem zbadaniu zarówno mowy współczesnej, jak też języka zabytków przeszłości. Dziś można powiedzieć jedno: polszczyzna na Wileńszczyźnie powstała na gruncie obcym w sposób swoisty, niespotykany poza tem, jako wynik działania siły atrakcyjnej kultury polskiej.
The conclusion is obvious from this. Zigmas Zinkevičius is very anti-Polish, his theories are just reflections of his nationalistic views.
No, and you have not proven anything of what you are accusing Professor Zigmas Zinkevičius of being. Going out of your way to call them "theories" without proving that they are wrong is intellectually dishonest. He, as a professor, is much more knowledgeable than you about the subject - especially the one where he specializes in.Of course content of the article doesn't support claim that Polish people in Lithuania are "Slavicized Lithuanians".
The phrase in question is They are either mostly descended from or are themselves Slavicized Lithuanians, and the American political scientist Walter Clemens mentions a Belarusian origin. The article clearly supports the claim made in this sentence, and denying that is dishonest. And you are trying to remove this sentence, which is well supported and factually true. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)- Thank you for clarifying the meaning of "Sulenkėja lietuviai", Google translate has misled me.
- Adolf Šapoka died in 1961, so his words clearly cannot apply to the current situation in 2022. His work is obviously very biased, written in the spirit of the understanding of the nation as an "ethnographic-racial" community, characteristic primarily of pre-war Lithuania. On page 215 he writes: "Lastly, the language alone does not determine nationality. It is determined by ways of life, customs, folklore and other elements of national culture, and finally -racial peculiarities". As we can see, the nation is treated here as an objectively existing community of blood, independent of personal self-identification. So for people like him, Lithuanians who have adopted Polish national self-identification, and even their descendants cannot be Poles, they will always be Lithuanians. Because "Lithuanian blood" flows in their veins. This is obviously unacceptable. If someone was Polonised even in 1939, can their children and grandchildren be described as "Slavicised Lithuanians"? Obviously not.
- Turska's article, the passage quoted contains nothing controversial for me, I fully agree with it. Let me translate: Very little has been written about the Polish language in the Vilnius region so far and it has not yet received a thorough monographic study. It is a pity, as it has a specific, very characteristic and extremely interesting character, distinct from the characters of other new Polish dialects, developed either on Ruthenian or Lithuanian grounds. This distinctiveness applies not only to its linguistic qualities but also to the history of its origin and development. As we know, it was not created by any noteworthy Polish colonisation or by the gradual suppression of a foreign language by neighbouring Polish dialects, for it is nowhere connected with a purely Polish area, but constitutes an island, surrounded on all sides by the Belarusian and Lithuanian seas. How long has this island existed, when, under what conditions and in what way did it come into being? These questions can certainly be answered after a thorough study of both the contemporary speech and the language of the monuments of the past. Today we can say one thing: the Polish language in the Vilnius region came into being on foreign soil in a peculiar way, unprecedented elsewhere, as a result of the power of the attractive Polish culture. Her conclusion is that the Polish language in Lithuania emerged as a result of the adoption of the Polish language by the local Lithuanian and Belarusian population, which resulted in a dialect different from the one spoken in central Poland. This is absolutely true. Turska in her article distinguishes between the tongue of the intelligentsia and the tongue of uneducated people, which has two varieties: one similar to Lithuanian and the other to Belarusian. This does not confirm Zinkevičius' "theory" that the Polish language in Lithuania is some kind of a completely separate language. And the fact that the Polish language island in Lithuania was created as a result of Polonisation, and not mass colonization, is of course true. Nobody denies that.
- Zigmas Zinkevičius was a nationalist politician, and the fact that his "theories" about the Polish language and Poles in Lithuania are simply propaganda is an opinion shared by researchers. And it is, of course, understandable for anyone who has any idea about the subject.
- The article concerns the Polish minority in Lithuania, i.e. the group of people who declared self-identification with the Polish national group. Thus, calling them "Slavicized Lithuanians" is false. The results of the Lithuanian census are indisputable.Marcelus (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- The work of the Lithuanian historian Adolfas Šapoka has the sentences
- I don't have access to Coleman's book, but all it matters is context. It's one thing to call Lithuanians who adopted the Polish language and culture "Polonized Lithuanian", but the whole other thing is calling that established national minority in Lithuania, which members clearly self-declare as Poles. Can you cite the whole context Coleman is using that term? That's one thing. Other is that you still failed to pinpoint a source that uses the term "Slavicized Lithuanians". Also term Sulenkėję lietuviai, which I believe translates as something like "bent/broken/fallen Lithuanian" is something very different, more like a slur than anything worth using in the encyclopedia. Can you quote the part of Turska's article that supposedly supports what you are saying? Because I read it, and there is no nothing like what you are claiming. Hence my assumption you don't really read well in Polish. Zigmas Zinkevičius is very anti-Polish, his theories are just reflections of his nationalistic views. Of course content of the article doesn't support claim that Polish people in Lithuania are "Slavicized Lithuanians".Marcelus (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Marcelus' statement is flat out false - The American political scientist Walter Clemens uses the term "Polonized Lithuanians", as do the other sources (e.g. sulenkėję lietuviai and other similar terms). Marcelus making false statements is clear for all to see. This nomination should be removed, because Marcelus wants to remove content based on sources just because he dislikes what they say. He did not acquaint himself with what they said and instead just wants to remove them. He accused me of
- Note that none of the sources you cited use the term "Slavicized Lithuanians" or "Polonized Lithuanians". Even Zinkevičius talks about "lenkiškai kalbantys lietuviai" - Polish-speaking Lithuanians (in a 2014 article, then by the way he claims that their speech has nothing to do with Polish). Let me repeat, it is true that the Polish minority in Lithuania arose as a result of Polonisation, which took place mainly in the second half of the 19th century (this is what Turska writes about), and not as a result of some great migration of Poles to Lithuania (such theories appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, today no one seriously claims so). This does not change the fact that Poles in Lithuania today are Poles, because Polishness is not a community of blood and soil, but a community of language and culture.Marcelus (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Criticism of modern Paganism[edit]
I'm looking through the page Criticism of modern Paganism and I see that multiple references are made to known Russian state-sponsored fake news website Ukraina.ru in the section on Slavic neo-pagan violence. I've removed some sections solely sourced to known fake news websites, but I am not exactly familiar with the subject matter so my ability to do so is somewhat limited. Additional eyes on the page to preen out statements sourced solely to dubious sourcing from somebody with familiarity in the topic area would be helpful in improving the article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am the person who added them and I support this. That section is translated from Russian Wikipedia. Can you check this source too? https://www.ng.ru/ng_religii/2015-04-01/4_donbass.html it looks legitimate to me, but also came from an author who wrote for Ukraina.ru MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- This artile is an absolutely mess. A look at its sourcing, including the use of self-published sources, tells me that it needs to be scraped and rewritten from scratch. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is this even a legitimate subject anyway? 'Modern Paganism' is an umbrella term covering a multitude of diverse belief systems, in all sorts of cultural contexts - it isn't a single system at all, and accordingly any general 'criticism' beyond 'we don't like it because they don't follow our religion' is likely to be based on facile generalisations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's also the general POV risk that happens with a criticism article. Any genuine criticism would ideally be present in the article on the relevant modern pagan belief, rather than it all being shunted into a poorly scoped (as Andy explained) sub-article. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is this even a legitimate subject anyway? 'Modern Paganism' is an umbrella term covering a multitude of diverse belief systems, in all sorts of cultural contexts - it isn't a single system at all, and accordingly any general 'criticism' beyond 'we don't like it because they don't follow our religion' is likely to be based on facile generalisations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Fascinating Article, though I thought people should be aware....[edit]
...as I would not be surprised for some related "King Arthur" content to appear. Either way, worth a perusal. Graves of dozens of kings from the time of King Arthur uncovered in Britain. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Just drink water, bro[edit]
Fereydoon Batmanghelidj seems untouched by the latest anti-fringe editing style. Note the separate criticism section, and the non-disparaging lede. MarshallKe (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- We're all volunteers here, and open, clear communication helps us collaborate effectively. Have you said what you actually want to say, and if not, is this the best place to say it? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 17:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- The article obviously needs work. This is where you post "fringe" articles that need work. I am literally just doing that. MarshallKe (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm glad you clarified. I had interpreted your comment as sarcastic criticism of this noticeboard and the people who address issues brought up here. I'm taking a look at the article now. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- The article is about a "doctor" who thinks water cures all disease and his lede is practically promotional. Maybe actually look at the article before assuming I'm up to no good? MarshallKe (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Based on history, the assumption was appropriate. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
the latest anti-fringe editing style
? That's a pretty good indicator that you're only here to soapbox. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Based on history, the assumption was appropriate. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- The article is about a "doctor" who thinks water cures all disease and his lede is practically promotional. Maybe actually look at the article before assuming I'm up to no good? MarshallKe (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The article obviously needs work.
Can you clarify what work you think it "obviously" needs? jps (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)- I'm just going to edit it myself. I'm not going to spoon-feed editors who should already know what is wrong with the article at a glance. MarshallKe (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm glad you clarified. I had interpreted your comment as sarcastic criticism of this noticeboard and the people who address issues brought up here. I'm taking a look at the article now. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- The article obviously needs work. This is where you post "fringe" articles that need work. I am literally just doing that. MarshallKe (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- The only thing wrong with this article is that it doesn't redirect from "Dr. Batman". Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Magical extraterrestrial jelly (again)[edit]
Star Jelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I already reported this article (just scroll up), but my communication style got me WP:ABF'ed. The article is packed with speculation and WP:NOTDATABASE. MarshallKe (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- It appears to be mostly fully cited, and does not really take a credulous stand; it certainly doesn't present the topic like it's actual star jelly or whatever. It is a well documented phenomenon, and the Wikipedia article does distinguish between folklore and other more rigorous explanations. It could, of course, be cleaned up a bit, but so can't every article. --Jayron32 16:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Robert W. Malone[edit]
Robert W. Malone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The New York Times profiled this individual today who has been the subject of past FTN threads. May be a good source for current wording or expansion of the article. [21]
jps (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
JP Sears described by New York Times as "conservative conspiracy theorist"[edit]
Wikipedia's article on JP Sears, a YouTuber, comedian, and, as the New York Times recently put it, "conservative conspiracy theorist". Sears has become a regular in anti-vaxx circles, which has become pretty widely reported in the media. It appears to have become his bread and butter: Pretty much all coverage he receives from media sources now comes from his attendance at vaccine conspiracy events. However, we see repeated attempts at scrubbing this page, and the talk page appears to be pretty stacked with Sears-aligned editors. I've recently added a bunch of new sources to the article's talk page and the New York Times description to the lead. The article needs a lot more attention. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- It appears only the NYT source actually calls him a conspiracy theorist. The other two sources don't use that label. It would probably be better to have an explanation in the lead, rather than using the label. Similar to my view above in the discussion on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Beyond the recent New York Times source, the McGill source refers to him as "pushing COVID-19 conspiracy theories"
and the Rolling Stone article, which is called "‘I’m a Full Anti-Vaxxer Now’: How the Conspiracists Are Winning Over Fresh Converts", refers to him as "a comedian known for spreading conspiracy theories through sarcastic comedy". It would seem to me by far the easiest way to put this information is conspiracy theorist. What do you suggest? :bloodofox: (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011
at WP:RSP, so that should be removed anyway. I would first look at a broad selection of recent sources to make sure it's due for the lead. Then I would select a group of them and summarize, likely with something like "He has spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19." That's an example, as I haven't done any of that leg work, and I'm not familiar with yet another YouTuber. The whole lead should be expanded, then there's space for a sentence or two about COVID-19 or whatever, with context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for the noticed about that RfC, I was not aware of that. I've collected a bunch of recent coverage about the subject at Talk:JP_Sears. They add up to say pretty much the same thing: A few years ago, Sears pivoted from standup and YouTube to being an active and visible anti-vaxx influencer. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't doubt that. I just think it reads better, and the reader is better served, when we explain what someone has done, rather than just applying a label. "Sears is a YouTuber and comedian that uses satirical humor. They initially rose to notability in whatever year with their gluten intolerance video. During the COVID-19 pandemic he used his platform to spread conspiracy theories about the disease and the United States government's response to it." I think something like that better communicates who they are, why they're notable, and explains the COVID stuff with some context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the noticed about that RfC, I was not aware of that. I've collected a bunch of recent coverage about the subject at Talk:JP_Sears. They add up to say pretty much the same thing: A few years ago, Sears pivoted from standup and YouTube to being an active and visible anti-vaxx influencer. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Beyond the recent New York Times source, the McGill source refers to him as "pushing COVID-19 conspiracy theories"
- Sears is clearly not known as a conservative conspiracy theorist, that is absurd. Sears has had an article here for a long time and mostly is known as a satirist on a number of subjects, yoga, etc. Maybe NYT doesnt like him ridiculing them and wants to cancel. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The wording now,
During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Sears shifted his focus to conservative politics and to promoting of conspiracy theories through anti-vaccine activism
seems okay -- there is a big section on his article about that -- but there definitely should be more attention paid to his work as a satirist in the lead, as that is still most of the article and primarily why he is notable. Endwise (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)- I think the idea is that he became famous as a satirist but after fame happened it became increasingly clear that his beliefs were not WP:MAINSTREAM and that has become the sort of sensational story ever since. It's not like independent sources are being produced today that don't address that fact any longer. I've seen this sort of thing before. Dr. Oz, for example, comes to mind. He was initially famous for just being a TV doctor and only later did his weird predilections for alternative medicine and (lately) conservative politics come to the fore. jps (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The wording now,
- As is typical each time this kind of question comes up, best course of action is to describe specific issues he's advocating for, rather than blanket labels. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Per Bakkster Man, describe his actions, don't assign labels. Say "He has promoted conspiracy theories" not "he is a conspiracy theorist". --Jayron32 16:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- +1. Say it loud. Say it clear. Maybe even make a supplement to WP:LABEL so that it is easier for people to refer to in the future. Wikipedia:Describe actions instead of ascribing labels. jps (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- WP:BLPSTYLE in the Tone section does cover this:
Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.
Perhaps either a shortcut link for WP:BLPTONE or including this specific idea among the WP:LABEL section. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)- I actually think the idea of avoiding "contentious labels" is overplayed in that and in WP:LABEL as well. The reason labels are bad is not on the occasion that they are contentious. They are bad because they often don't provide enough context. jps (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Are you implying that contentious labels often provide enough context, or just that the reason they are bad is because of context and the not the contentiousness? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- At least BLP mentions 'terms that lack precision', which a non-contentious label often is. Similar with WP:LABEL, referring to 'value-laden'. Not all labels fit those criteria, though. Credentials often come with labels and titles, and most professions have a descriptive title. Focus on contentiousness, imprecise, and value judgments seems key. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Contentiousness is itself a value judgement. Focusing on whether the label makes a value-judgement (any value judgement) or is imprecise seems a much better editorial approach as to what to consider when avoiding labels. jps (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- On my reading of WP:LABEL, that does seem to be what it suggests: avoid value-based labels, but only if there's potential contention. Pseudoscience assigns value, but if universally rejected by mainstream science is an acceptable label. Cult is similarly recommended against unless widely used, which is why Heaven's Gate (religious group) doesn't use it in the title, but does in the lede. I don't agree that literally any value judgment is inappropriate, just with applying additional scrutiny to ensure it's an accurate label. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- It really is the only if there's potential contention clause that I object to. Value-based labels should be eschewed regardless of the potential for contention because they are value-based. Sometimes this is not possible. But where it is, it should be encouraged. jps (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- On my reading of WP:LABEL, that does seem to be what it suggests: avoid value-based labels, but only if there's potential contention. Pseudoscience assigns value, but if universally rejected by mainstream science is an acceptable label. Cult is similarly recommended against unless widely used, which is why Heaven's Gate (religious group) doesn't use it in the title, but does in the lede. I don't agree that literally any value judgment is inappropriate, just with applying additional scrutiny to ensure it's an accurate label. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Contentiousness is itself a value judgement. Focusing on whether the label makes a value-judgement (any value judgement) or is imprecise seems a much better editorial approach as to what to consider when avoiding labels. jps (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I actually think the idea of avoiding "contentious labels" is overplayed in that and in WP:LABEL as well. The reason labels are bad is not on the occasion that they are contentious. They are bad because they often don't provide enough context. jps (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- WP:BLPSTYLE in the Tone section does cover this:
- +1. Say it loud. Say it clear. Maybe even make a supplement to WP:LABEL so that it is easier for people to refer to in the future. Wikipedia:Describe actions instead of ascribing labels. jps (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Per Bakkster Man, describe his actions, don't assign labels. Say "He has promoted conspiracy theories" not "he is a conspiracy theorist". --Jayron32 16:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would prefer a better source than the New York Times, especially for the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- "He has promoted conspiracy theories" is the same thing as "he is a conspiracy theorist". Conspiracy theory runs the gamut from 'Covid deaths are under/over counted' to 'Covid is totally made' up to 'I dont like what this person says, even if true'. Looking at the body of the article, the only thing I see that could remotely count as a conspiracy theory is the belief that Vitamin D protects against the disease. If thats really all hes done in this regard we should just say that. 'describe specific issues he's advocating for, rather than blanket labels.' Yes, exactly. Bonewah (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think "promoted conspiracy theories" is equivalent to "is a conspiracy theorist". The latter implies it's what the person is best known for, and/or a particular step of the pipeline (creating new conspiracy theories, not just repeating them). For Sears, it's as much about the boundary between conspiracy and misinformation. What do we label anti-vaxx ideas? That COVID restrictions are "a pretext to limit human freedom"? The Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election? I'd consider those topics all closer on that continuum to conspiracy than Vitamin D, with it and PCR test claims more standard misinformation. But yes, describe those specific items, as the article does. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- "What do we label anti-vaxx ideas"? Don't label them at all. Describe them. Against all vaccines? Just Covid ones? MRNA vaccines? Vaccine mandates? Vaccines for children? There are some many things people are lumping together as 'anti-vaxx' that the label has almost no descriptive purpose. Bonewah (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I really don't believe they're the same thing, otherwise we'd be labeling John Kerry a conspiracy theorist. [23]
John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is an American politician and diplomat and conspiracy theorist who is currently the first United States special presidential envoy for climate.
Although that would be "true" if that's all it took to earn the label, it's really not true. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is an American politician and diplomat and promoter of conspiracy theories who is currently the first United States special presidential envoy for climate.
. Really that different? Bonewah (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)- To be clear, my concern here is not so much the differences between "has promoted conspiracy theories" vs. "is a conspiracy theorist", its using the the words conspiracy theory(ist) when we should simply be saying 'believes X'. Bonewah (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- And I don't think there's a right answer really, since it comes down to personal readings. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, because that's what he does, it's his mode and modus, his main kick. Personally, I see a difference between that and someone who just talks about conspiracies or believes some wacky things. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I dont really know anything about Alex Jones, but if conspiracy theory is what he does, and reliable sources commonly describe him that way, then WP:BLPSTYLE
Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources.
would be satisfied. I dont think that is the case with JP Sears, at least, based on a quick reading of things. Bonewah (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)- I agree with this statement. To put them both in the same boat is pretty absurd, although both seem to sell supplements ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I dont really know anything about Alex Jones, but if conspiracy theory is what he does, and reliable sources commonly describe him that way, then WP:BLPSTYLE
- And I don't think there's a right answer really, since it comes down to personal readings. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, because that's what he does, it's his mode and modus, his main kick. Personally, I see a difference between that and someone who just talks about conspiracies or believes some wacky things. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, my concern here is not so much the differences between "has promoted conspiracy theories" vs. "is a conspiracy theorist", its using the the words conspiracy theory(ist) when we should simply be saying 'believes X'. Bonewah (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think "promoted conspiracy theories" is equivalent to "is a conspiracy theorist". The latter implies it's what the person is best known for, and/or a particular step of the pipeline (creating new conspiracy theories, not just repeating them). For Sears, it's as much about the boundary between conspiracy and misinformation. What do we label anti-vaxx ideas? That COVID restrictions are "a pretext to limit human freedom"? The Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election? I'd consider those topics all closer on that continuum to conspiracy than Vitamin D, with it and PCR test claims more standard misinformation. But yes, describe those specific items, as the article does. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- "He has promoted conspiracy theories" is the same thing as "he is a conspiracy theorist". Conspiracy theory runs the gamut from 'Covid deaths are under/over counted' to 'Covid is totally made' up to 'I dont like what this person says, even if true'. Looking at the body of the article, the only thing I see that could remotely count as a conspiracy theory is the belief that Vitamin D protects against the disease. If thats really all hes done in this regard we should just say that. 'describe specific issues he's advocating for, rather than blanket labels.' Yes, exactly. Bonewah (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Atlantic voyage of the predecessor of Mansa Musa[edit]
Should we be using Ivan Van Sertima and the poet Diawara as sources here? Doug Weller talk 19:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- What's your particular issue with Van Sertima? His interpretations seem valid and sourced, and that section has good counterpoints. AtFirstLight (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Van Sertima is known, apparently, for spreading such stuff as "his Olmec alternative origin speculations", which has
been dismissed as Afrocentric pseudoarchaeology[2] and pseudohistory to the effect of "robbing native American cultures"
. Or, in other words, his works are entirely unreliable for Wikipedia, which is a WP:MAINSTREAM work. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)- A quick check on Google Scholar shows the mainstream academic community are engaging with his work, albeit in a negative way, so it would surely be irresponsible and in violation of WP:NPOV not to mention him.. AtFirstLight (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- If they are engaging with this work in a negative way, then WP:NPOV tells us that is how we should be describing it as well. The current article falls a fair bit short of those requirements in that aspect... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, the Interpretations section could use a little balance, however removing Van Sertima and Diawara (who the BBC describe as 'Africa's greatest explorer') as citations seems a little extreme. AtFirstLight (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, "greatest explorer" seems to refer to Abubakari II, which makes some sense. Mr. Diawara gets only one hit on Google Scholar--"Revitalizing cultivation and strengthening the seed systems of fonio and Bambara groundnut in Mali through a community biodiversity management approach." He might be a reliable source for this sort of thing, but I am not yet convinced. His book, "The Saga of Abubakari II," seems to have only really gathered attention in pseudohistory circles, but again, it's entirely possible I am missing things. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Right you are @Dumuzid, my mistake! AtFirstLight (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be using them to describe their own claims if those descriptions are not also available in other sources (as if the theory is viewed negatively, then, it is likely the descriptions are not particularly accurate and should not be included separately from criticism - which would then be sourced to other places than the original disputed papers). As to Diawara, even if he were the one being referred to as a great explorer, that would not make him a great scholar. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, "greatest explorer" seems to refer to Abubakari II, which makes some sense. Mr. Diawara gets only one hit on Google Scholar--"Revitalizing cultivation and strengthening the seed systems of fonio and Bambara groundnut in Mali through a community biodiversity management approach." He might be a reliable source for this sort of thing, but I am not yet convinced. His book, "The Saga of Abubakari II," seems to have only really gathered attention in pseudohistory circles, but again, it's entirely possible I am missing things. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, the Interpretations section could use a little balance, however removing Van Sertima and Diawara (who the BBC describe as 'Africa's greatest explorer') as citations seems a little extreme. AtFirstLight (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- If they are engaging with this work in a negative way, then WP:NPOV tells us that is how we should be describing it as well. The current article falls a fair bit short of those requirements in that aspect... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- A quick check on Google Scholar shows the mainstream academic community are engaging with his work, albeit in a negative way, so it would surely be irresponsible and in violation of WP:NPOV not to mention him.. AtFirstLight (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Van Sertima is known, apparently, for spreading such stuff as "his Olmec alternative origin speculations", which has
- It might be that per WP:FRINGE, They Came before Columbus should be the topic of the article. Need to look at the references more carefully, and some only see a google snippet view. fiveby(zero) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see how you can not cite Van Sertima here, and i was wrong to suggest he might be the topic of the article. There are some very scathing reviews of his work, but all the criticism i see is direct at any conclusions he makes concerning the Americas. Authors that admit the possibility of a voyage and give some credence based on description of the Canary Current all cite Van Sertima. I don't see any discussion before They Came before Columbus. Cite to give credit and name him in the content, but factual assertions should come from Gomez and Thornton. Don't see any reason to use Diawara or the BBC article. fiveby(zero) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
New chronology (Fomenko)[edit]
Of the 74 sources, at least 21 are Fomenko himself. There are a few without any author name some of which might also be by him. There are 8 citation needed tags. The sections on specific claims and on his methods are particularly concerning. But IMHO it's a daunting job trying to fix it. Doug Weller talk 07:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Service: New chronology (Fomenko) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also: Talk:Anatoly_Fomenko#Proposed_merge_of_New_chronology_(Fomenko)_into_Anatoly_Fomenko. –Austronesier (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure what I have done to deserve this[edit]
Please be aware that this:
UFOs left 'radiation burns' and 'unaccounted for pregnancies,' new Pentagon report claims
exists, and govern yourselves accordingly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- What is this about? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- The poor kid, waiting for their deadbeat alien dad to return. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- There was a documentary I saw about that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I liked that movie. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- There was a documentary I saw about that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Livescience article attributes all this stuff as “according to The Sun”... - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament[edit]
This is about [24] because an IP stated
Please, document for me, that Ehrman is a part of the mainstream of biblical scholarship, that his theories are the most subscribed to. And also, document for me that James White is Ehrmans "nemesis" and that he is a biblical scholar. You must also document that there is no large minority that disagree, because large minorites are not a "fringe".Before you can document your opinions, this article should have a neutral point of view.
tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is a WP:NOTHERE case, I would argue. Best to take 77.18.59.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to WP:ANI, in my opinion. jps (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ජපස: I would avoid WP:ANI, unless strictly necessary. I was told to use WP:DRN rather than WP:ANI. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- For cases of NOTHERE, ANI is the proper venue. If it were blatantly obvious, then it would be AIV, and if it wasn't so obvious, then letting them dig their own hole before reporting would be more appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ජපස: I would avoid WP:ANI, unless strictly necessary. I was told to use WP:DRN rather than WP:ANI. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to say that the IP has a point. It's hugely WP:UNDUE to spend all of the lead on saying that of course nobody takes any of this seriously and nothing at all on the actual subject. And we rely far too much on Ehrman as an authority on the state of the field. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Mangoe: I found this at Google Books: Harrell, Charles R. (2011). “This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology. Greg Kofford Books. p. 153. Retrieved 2022-04-07. Harrell is probably not a mainstream Bible scholar, but he makes the problem acutely clear. But the point of not being a mainstream Bible scholar is moot, as he does not speak of his own views. I will come back with other sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- We don't
spend all of the lead on saying that of course nobody takes any of this seriously and nothing at all on the actual subject
in Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's weird to me that you think that's what is happening here. jps (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)- And a majority of scholars claim (WP:RS/AC): Rydelnik, Michael (2010). The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?. New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology Series. B&H Publishing Group. p. 22, 26. ISBN 978-1-4336-7297-2. Retrieved 2022-04-08.
non-critical scholars by their prooftexting actually discredit the claims of Jesus in the eyes of literary and historical critics [...] Old Testament scholarship is now divided: The majority takes a more historical approach to the Old Testament, resulting in a minimalist view of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible.
This also passes the criterion of embarrassment: Rydelnik teaches at Moody Bible Institute, wherein "Bible is our middle name". tgeorgescu (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)- I have to admit that the criterion of embarrassment is itself pretty embarrassing. By such logic, every person who claims to have been anally probed by aliens is likely telling the truth. jps (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, but we aren't Bible scholars, what do we know? Rydelnik also stated "[...] much of contemporary critical scholarship on messianism, which argues that the messianic idea did not develop until the intertestamental period [...]".
- The argument is like this: a liar wants to be believed. So a liar tells lies which are believable. He/she does not tell unbelievable lies. So, being unbelievable is a token it is not a lie.
- This can be rephrased: a liar does not tell lies which go against their vested interests.
- That Jesus has fulfilled "They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments." is probably made up. But the fact he was crucified probably not. Probably—as usually that's most scholars can say about Ancient history, since real, direct evidence is so scarce. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I really don't understand why people think that liars will not tell lies which go against their vested interests. jps (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, torture or insanity could be reasons to lie against one's own interests.
- And this is an even better quote: "Michael Rydelnik's Messianic Hope is a well-crafted and timely refutation of the growing minimization of direct messianic prediction in evangelical scholarship. Using a cogent development of innerbiblical, canonical, and New Testament evidence, this study adduces text-critical evidence for reading the Hebrew Bible as messianic. Rydelnik persuasively argues that the centrality of the Messiah in the apologetic method of Jesus and the apostles is consistent with a canonical reading of the Hebrew Bible." So, it's not only minority view among critical scholars, but seems likely that it is a minority view among evangelical scholars.
- And "In a thoughtful essay, Gordon McConville has articulated the issue at hand. According to McConville, “Modern Old Testament scholarship has been largely informed by the belief that traditional Christian messianic interpretations of Old Testament passages have been exegetically indefensible.”"
- And "It would be supremely regrettable for evangelicals to abandon messianic prediction for the sake of respectability in the academy or acceptance among critical scholars. Of course, we want to interpret the Bible correctly, but it is not necessary to adopt the naturalistic presuppositions to which critical scholarship subscribes. The Bible is inspired, and the authors of the Scriptures could indeed write a supernatural prophetic message that pointed to a Messiah who would come many hundreds of years later. Abandoning this conviction will bring the loss of one of the most potent arrows in our apologetic quiver."
- Morals: mainstream Bible scholars do not buy into messianic prophecies about Jesus, and even evangelical scholars are running away from such concept. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, as soon as a criterion for determining the honesty of people becomes even slightly popular, liars will change their stories to fulfil the criterion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I really don't understand why people think that liars will not tell lies which go against their vested interests. jps (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have to admit that the criterion of embarrassment is itself pretty embarrassing. By such logic, every person who claims to have been anally probed by aliens is likely telling the truth. jps (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- And a majority of scholars claim (WP:RS/AC): Rydelnik, Michael (2010). The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?. New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology Series. B&H Publishing Group. p. 22, 26. ISBN 978-1-4336-7297-2. Retrieved 2022-04-08.
Big Pharma conspiracy theory[edit]
- Big Pharma conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It seems that skeptical sources are not good enough because they "do not publish their funding". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Could they be funded by ... Big Pharma? Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it has to be true, or they wouldn't be trying to cover up the pizza diet for heart disease treatment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Lipid hypothesis[edit]
This article and the saturated fat article seem to get targeted every-year by infrequent editors or throwaway accounts pushing a cholesterol denalist or saturated fat POV. A user is repeatedly adding material which is not reliable, see the talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Here is what the talk-page looked like last night [25]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Lipid hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Until COVID, diet articles were pretty much the craziest. Perhaps normal service is being resumed? Alexbrn (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Polygraph results in an alleged case of alien abduction[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Travis Walton UFO incident § Polygraph. Sundayclose (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. As with many of these UFO incidents, I am not sure whether it even deserves its own article. jps (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Rice water[edit]
Looking for a review of the material I just merged in to Rice water from Rice Water for Health & Beauty. Basically everything from the end of the first paragraph is new material. May be fringe. Looks more palatable than hot dog water. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeesh! I just tore that sucker down to the ground. The material you added was violative of everything from the Manual of Style to WP:NOT#HOWTO. If there is material from the other version worth salvaging, I would suggest introducing it slowly, with proper sourcing and language that does not seem to come from a New Age health and beauty blog. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not me. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
John Ioannidis[edit]
Regarding COVID-19, he was consistently wrong, starting with his prophecies of harmlessness in 2020 till now. Red herrings, grasping at straws with his Kardashian paper, generally destroying his reputation. He is one of the heroes of the covidiots. But the lede feels more and more whitewashed. Maybe it's just me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- In the lede probably all it's missing is an indication that he was, in fact, incorrect with those two predictions. The COVID section might be worth trimming to only the most notable items (first and third paragraphs, IMO), to keep it from being a WP:COATRACK. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think mentioning the result of those predictions as it stands today would be too much information for the lead: there has been around 980K deaths in the US as of April 2022, and the pandemic has lasted for many years and the development of COVID-19 vaccines was incredibly speedy compared to other vaccines, so vaccines have had the opportunity to significantly reduce mortality. That information should probably go in the COVID-19 section, but anything more than saying for example
in the early days inaccurately estimating...
would be too much for the lead. I'm not sure if it's necessary to point out but it seems reasonable. Endwise (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)- Yeah, that's what I was thinking, and added that wording for the avoidance of doubt. Definitely agree, the detailed section can contain the what and wherefores of that prediction. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think mentioning the result of those predictions as it stands today would be too much information for the lead: there has been around 980K deaths in the US as of April 2022, and the pandemic has lasted for many years and the development of COVID-19 vaccines was incredibly speedy compared to other vaccines, so vaccines have had the opportunity to significantly reduce mortality. That information should probably go in the COVID-19 section, but anything more than saying for example
- There were a lot of predictions thrown out in the early days of the pandemic. I don't think making a prediction that turns out later to be wrong makes you a crazy conspiracy theorist whose reputation we must ensure we tarnish on Wikipedia for all to see; a lot of reasonable people said a lot of things about the pandemic that turned out to be wrong. Endwise (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with Endwise. Being wrong is not the same as adhering/promoting a conspiracy theory. Bonewah (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the important question is primarily around what they predict, why they predict it, how notable their predictions were for public health, and how they respond if/when they're wrong. Marty Makary is an example where an inaccurate prediction in a widely read op-ed in WaPo wasn't by itself a problem, it was basing the prediction on weak data (and overstating its confidence to a broad audience), and a dogged refusal to admit to being wrong (in the case of Makary, while simultaneously criticizing politicians for not doing the same). In Ioannidis' case, being the co-author of the seriously flawed Santa Clara seroprevalence study (which didn't account for the false-positive rate of the tests used), and spreading the idea that
Some financial incentives may promote coding for COVID-19
(an idea picked up and run with by others), there's a reasonable argument that these are notable topics beyond simple scientific process and 20/20 hindsight. If there are sources suggesting Ioannidis is being unfairly criticized and has indeed been amenable about his past inaccuracies, they should be included. But from the current sources, it seems he has indeed engaged in weak science, rather than people playing 'gotcha' over otherwise good science being later refuted. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC) - When a prediction is wrong by several orders of magnitude, and the same person consistently downplays the dangers for several years without ever acknowledging that they are on the wrong path, then yes, it is relevant for the lede. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- God bless you, Hob. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, scientists don't make "predictions". That's for soothsayers. They might give risk assessments or balances of probability or likely ranges of things. The trouble in this case is that what should have been a skeptical assessment calcified into a belief, and then the woo-woo echo chamber did its work to amplify the harms to all. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- It was also a case of the guy campaigning against weak underpowered studies, rushing out his own weak underpowered study, seemingly to try and prove his a priori assumptions. It's not that his good science turned out to be wrong in retrospect, it's that his bad science was so bad it became notable in the public discourse. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics[edit]
- Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An extremely long (5,000 words) summation of the 1948 racist book lacks almost any analysis by RS. (It was described in the Los Angeles Review of Books as "America's Mein Kampf".) Llll5032 (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The UnXplained hosted by William Shatner[edit]
It's described as non-fiction which is a joke. It's a typical History Channel show, anything but history - vampires, Bigfoot, etc. I'm not sure what to do about this though without more sources. I did find "Controversial UAB professor gets in a Twitter spat with William Shatner" and this. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I did get a laugh from this (a blog), in which I learned that Shatner is "that actor from the Star Wars TV show back in the 60s." But does a minor report about a minor twitter spat in a minor publication convey notability upon this nothing-burger of a show? If that's it for reliable sources - and all I could find in my admittedly brief search was a clutch of re-hashed, promotional press releases - an AfD is likely in order. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah. That needs to be fixed. although if you aren't an SF fan I can understand the confusion. Anyway, I'm on it. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @JoJo Anthrax: looks like we've both been caught out not reading the whole page. "There is so much fascinating history behind the discovery and investigation of the Challenger Deep that it could easily have been the topic of the entire show. And, it would have demonstrated William Shatner to genuinely care about exploration in the way his Star Trek persona once did.
- Yes, I was pulling the reader’s leg and making a bit of fun with the “Star Wars actor” description at first paragraphs above. Those that comment to point out my “error” will also reveal they didn’t read to the end." Doug Weller talk 15:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Shatner spent less than 5 of its 40 or so minutes of content on it [the legitimate Challenger Deep material]!
pretty much tells us everything we need to know about "The Obi Wan Kirk Show," doesn't it? I'm on-again-off-again for most of the next few days, but I'll try to search for more RS that cover(ed) this show. Regarding the necessity of reading material to its conclusion, I am reminded of a scientific paper from way back in my relative youth. It was a long, technical slog the final sentence of which was something along the lines of "And you never know when a paper will suddenly end." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)- Wikipedia describing the show's topics as "subjects that have mystified mankind for centuries" is a bit rich. Needs some WP:INDY and WP:FRINDY sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Or at least put quotes around the phrase straight from the show's official description. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I tried, I really did. But with respect to independent reliable sources reporting on, or commenting about, this show, there is pretty much nothing available. Although I did get a chuckle from a blog site (The Cinemaholic) that described the show as an "educational series," I confess that the longer I searched for a valid review/analysis/anything the more I felt my mind dissolving in a sea of boring blogs and product promotion. I did edit the article a bit, and added a section for a less-than-satisfying review of the show, but I'm done. Perhaps one of you will have better luck, although "luck" might be wishful thinking for such a task. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia describing the show's topics as "subjects that have mystified mankind for centuries" is a bit rich. Needs some WP:INDY and WP:FRINDY sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah. That needs to be fixed. although if you aren't an SF fan I can understand the confusion. Anyway, I'm on it. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Aseem Malhotra[edit]
- Aseem Malhotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_63#Assem_Malhotra_/_Big_Sugar_/_Pioppi_Diet - Dec 2018
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Aseem_Malhotra - May 2021
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Saturated_fat - July 2021
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_81#Lipid_hypothesis - July 2021
Since Aug 2021 the article has been rewritten to the point it looks far too much like a puff piece.
@Rathfelder:, you've worked on this article fairly heavily. Have you been reviewing the recent changes? It fell off my radar in May, so I'm rather surprised. --Hipal (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I've missed this. I'm away this week but if necessary I can have a go next week.Rathfelder (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Viv Hamilton wrote nearly all of the article, this user is a very good editor but unfortunately the lead is over the top and needs cutting down. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the lede is a mess, and I'm seeing NOT content such as such as Aseem_Malhotra#Interests --Hipal (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
S. Joshua Swamidass[edit]
S. Joshua Swamidass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note that his book from two years ago: The Geneological Adam and Eve seems to be somewhat kid-glovedly handled including a blogpost review that probably should be removed.
jps (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ugh! Based on a quick read: The review in USA Today seemingly makes the book noteworthy (but it shouldn't be given top-billing among his research). That said, this reviewer basically dismisses its scientific value, except to the degree that it might sway hard-core evangelicals from thinking evolution and the rest of science is inherently antithetical to their beliefs. We don't really convey this ambivalent review with the cherry-picked quote in the article, that only complements it on being 'bold'. Agricolae (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I tagged the article for violations of WP:PEACOCK and WP:NOTCV and was reverted: [27]. This may be a bit more work to handle. jps (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
John Ivan Prcela/Dražen Živić & Ina Vukić[edit]
I am compelled by my conscience to bring up here three unreliable and biased sources that should be permanently barred from being used as references in any way on Wikipedia -- John Ivan Prcela (who became a centenarian last month, apparently, which means nothing but does confirm my atheism) & Ina Vukić -- the former due to unhinged and paranoid revisionism and political rehabilitation of war criminals, and the latter as his catspaw. Prcela has authored at least one reference link which was shoe-horned into the Bleiburg repatriations article, but there may be others. (There was never a Croatian Holocaust (unless the national reference is to impute the origin of the genocide, not the victim(s)) but someone may use this drivel to create such an article. I wouldn't be surprised.)
• Prcela, John Ivan; Živić, Dražen (2001). Hrvatski holokaust [Croatian Holocaust] (in Croatian). Zagreb: Hrvatsko društvo političkih zatvorenika. ISBN 9789539776020.
Extended content
|
---|
SAMPLER FROM PRCELA/ZIVIĆ BOOK praising Ante Pavelić as reported by VUKIĆ ("Dr. Ante Pavelic, inspired by the Will of the Croatian people and by the innocent blood of the Croatian national martyrs") and Ustasha Movement ("the intrepid Ustashe"): [28] "My Fellow Americans in the U S State Department! The recent US State Department’s Report on Human Rights in Croatia reminds me of the Reports written in the gone-by fifties and sixties. Then, and also much later, the United States staunchly defended the Yugoslav territorial integrity. That is an equivalent of defending a Serbian heavy yoke on the shoulders of the Croatian People and also on those of other non-Serbian nationalities within the then existing Evil Empire of Yugoslavia. That Report, filled with lies about my Croatian generation, reminds me also of how, 60 years ago, the US State Department's and the American news media’s lies catapulted me into the Croatian Public Arena. Out of this engagement, in 1960 the seeds were sewn of my life's historical opus, Operation Slaughterhouse. I worked so assiduously on that book that in the first week of November 1963 I brought it to the attention of the US State Department. In the month of October and the first week of November 1963, the US State Department was feverishly preparing a red-carpet welcome for Marshal Tito in the White House, then occupied by President John F. Kennedy. The US State Department’s zeal for Tito's safety prompted it to send its two agents to Charles F. Brush High School in Lyndhurst, Ohio. "They pulled me out of teaching my French class and questioned me about “a Croatian plan to assassinate Tito during his visit to the United States.” I told them that I cannot assassinate Tito from my classroom, but I can and I will organize a special day of thanksgiving if someone kills that infamous Dictator of Yugoslavia. This highly heated questioning also inspired me to inform them of the above mentioned historical work – seven years ahead of its publication in 1970!" On November 5, 1963, the highlights of that book were distributed by the Croatian protesters in front of the White House – a deserved “welcome” to the murderer of many legions of the Croatian Freedom Fighters! My life’s work, Operation Slaughterhouse, is well known to the US State Department, because it was always kept on its Yugoslav Desk. The late Richard Holbrook once informed me that the book is highly regarded by him and the US State Department personnel. Unfortunately, the spirit of that historical work was ignored in Dayton, Ohio, the place of Dayton Agreements of 1995. Those Agreements, instead of condemning the murderous Bosnian Serbs, rewarded them by establishing Republika Srpska (The Serbian Republic) within the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The historical works, Operation Slaughterhouse of 1970 and 1995 and Hrvatski Holokaust (The Croatian Holocaust) of 2001 and 2009, although they were followed by an avalanche of works on the subject in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, are completely ignored by the US State Department’s Report of August 15, 2017, in which the US State Department sheds crocodile tears over the defunct Yugoslavia. That is why it is against the Republic of Croatia's declaring Blessed Cardinal Stepinac innocent of all charges piled up on this saintly man in the rigged trial of 1946. Furthermore, the US State Department shows its ire against the Croatian historians who published many well documented studies against the puffed up astronomical numbers of "victims" of the Ustasha Jasenovac Work Camp. Those historians, including the one who will soon publish his encyclopedic work on the subject, come out with revealing proofs that in the postwar years Jasenovac was Yugoslavia’s Death Camp! The US State Department is NOT interested in the historical facts, but it is interested of heaping insults on the Independent State of Croatia and its Freedom Fighters, especially the intrepid Ustashe. The US State Department, if interested in the modern history of Croatia, should know that the Ustasha Movement sprang up from the innocent blood of the Croatian Representatives murdered in 1928 by the Serbian assassins in the Belgrade Parliament itself! That innocent blood and the Croatian millennial aspirations to have a free and sovereign Croatia are the foundations of the Ustasha Movement. That is why it is despicable to call those Croatian revolutionaries Nazi-type Fascist Ustashe! Dr. Ante Pavelic, inspired by the Will of the Croatian people and by the innocent blood of the Croatian national martyrs, in January 1929 was forced to go into exile in Italy. The Revolutionary Ustasha Movement was founded then and the official name, The Independent State of Croatia, was adopted for the future sovereign Croatia. Exactly under that name, the Croatian People broke their ties with the murderous Kingdom of Yugoslavia on April 10, 1941, and dealt a mortal blow to the Serbian Yugoslav dynasty forever! "The most glorious chapter of the Independent State of Croatia is its Armed Forces. They were the only ones who defended the Will of the Croatian people. Yugoslav Partisans and Serbian Chetniks fought against that Will. They were abundantly helped by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany and, of course, by the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, the United States and France. All of them were for the preservation of Yugoslavia and against the Will of the Croatian People." Even in the year 2017, the US State Department is opposed to the Will of the Croatian people, wanting Wiesenthal Center, the Yugoslav Partisans and Serbian Chetniks to define the Croatian history. They accuse the Croatian Ustashe of killing in Jasenovac 720,000 Serbs and Jews. These accusations are the most despicable lies and travesty of history! On May 15, 1945, the Croatian Ustashe and other defenders of Croatia surrendered to the British Forces at Bleiburg, Austria. Then, those POWs and 500,000 Croatian civilians were driven in Death Marches or transported by train – NOT to Italy, as they had been deceived, but to Tito's Yugoslavia. Here, first in Slovenia and then in Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a multitude of civilians and POWs were summarily murdered and thrown into a long chain of underground pits. I call that tragedy "Operation Slaughterhouse" and even "The Croatian Holocaust." Nikola Knez, a film producer in Corpus Christi, Texas, calls those POSTWAR massacres – "Tito's License for Genocide!" I highly recommend to you that 36-minute historical documentary. Soon you will see other documentaries of historical importance. Exactly this way, I informed the US State Department's agents in November 1963 and, years later, two FBI agents that sooner or later the Croatian People will break their ties with the murderous Yugoslavia forever. The Croatian flag, which is adorning the US State Department Building, is a visible proof that I was right in my predictions. In conclusion, I ask you that the US State Department’s next Report about Blessed Aloysius Victor Stepinac's and my native Croatia be a truthful Report. Only truth will set us free! John Prcela Survivor of the Croatian Holocaust”] Yours, 65.88.88.200 (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
- I like chips in brown gravy. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- More of a malt vinegar guy, myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Suggest you try vinegar decanted from a jar of pickled onions for that. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Naw, Barbecue flavor is the clear victor, here. And yes, I'm American, but I knew what you meant. I don't care. If they're not crunchy, they're not chips. Besides, fries in BBQ sauce is awesome. Happy (Slap me) 21:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- My wife preserves pickled onions and sweet peppers in balsamic and apple cider vinegar, that brine is pretty top notch with chips, or as a sandwich dressing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Suggest she uses the same brine for pickled eggs, they taste fantastic as you would expect, and look like thousand year old eggs. (Sorry to any tone policers lurking) -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- She's actually pickling several dozen quail eggs today. I think she's using an apple cider vinegar brine though. She normally does a few batches of quail eggs throughout the year, since we get a lot between starting the incubation of replacement chicks and slaughtering the existing ones and putting the chicks out in the hutch. Last year she did siracha eggs, pepper sauce eggs, balsamic eggs and some soy eggs. The balsamic were definitely the best. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Suggest she uses the same brine for pickled eggs, they taste fantastic as you would expect, and look like thousand year old eggs. (Sorry to any tone policers lurking) -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Suggest you try vinegar decanted from a jar of pickled onions for that. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- More of a malt vinegar guy, myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Elias Davidsson[edit]
Rubikon (website) and other unreliable sources are saying that he is dead. That may well be true, but we should still not use truther sites and articles written by truthers, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I was looking at the obit written by an unreliable author in apolut and it seems like they're just letting him write the obit, rather than giving him a platform for opinion. I don't know if apolut is reliable, but if it is, I would accept it despite the author of the obit, since I would assume they would make sure the subject is actually dead before publishing an obit. Since apolut looks like an independent media outlet, who knows, though. I'd rather wait to see if any other sourcing comes up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Apolut has cranky links on its site, for example to Die Basis. I'd say let's call it reliable when we have evidence for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that Markus Fiedler was a regular columnist there too. Hopefully some real sources pop up soon. I don't really doubt that he passed, but I'd much rather have an RS than use poor quality sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Apolut has cranky links on its site, for example to Die Basis. I'd say let's call it reliable when we have evidence for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
A reliable source has been found. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Margaret Thatcher[edit]
Global warming conspiracy theorist Christopher Booker claimed that Thatcher, who took action against climate change when in office, became "the fist climate change sceptic" when retired. There is no other source for the claim. Now the article says she "became sceptical about her policy, rejecting "climate alarmism"". Attempts at attributing the fringe vocabulary, ore removing it, or the whole quote, have been reverted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Here is the background to Booker's claim [29]. I would have thought that the article could quote directly from Thatcher's own words rather than having them second hand, but her denunciation of lefty climate science in retirement would have to be balanced with her acceptance of the science when she was in office. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
16th century alleged UFO sightings[edit]
1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg and 1566 celestial phenomenon over Basel. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- A statement in the former article about a ufology perspective was removed as undue and improperly cited. The latter is poorly sourced and gives no modern perspective on the topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
New film by Brian Dunning (author)[edit]
The description is "Did you know that when scientists go on TV as talking head experts, they are sometimes deceptively edited to make it sound like they're saying the opposite of what they actually said? It really happens, and Science Friction tells many such stories." As it's new there aren't enough sources for an article so far as I can see, but hopefully there will be.[30] Doug Weller talk 08:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Iranian traditional medicine[edit]
Four years ago, a WP:SPA who has not been active before or since made these five consecutive diff edits, presented as one in that diff. I plead guilty to not seeing them until now, does anybody care to have a look, or lend me a chainsaw? Am I being harsh? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also meant to note that this paper, an opinion piece from the "Archives of Iranian Medicine", is summarised in the lead of the article as "... there is also a pseudoscientific stream in the modern academia." -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- The horror... Chainsaw is the right toolm here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Gettr § Whitewashing by Copernicus43728[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gettr § Whitewashing by Copernicus43728. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 19:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Now at Talk:Gettr#April 2022 changes. --mfb (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Billy Meier[edit]
Recent stubbornness by SPA. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Made a second request for semi-protection, if it gets done we can clean up. --mfb (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sockpuppets are blocked, article has semi-protection (for 3 years!), an admin reverted to a stable version. --mfb (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
6th century BCE Carbon nanotubes[edit]
Keezhadi#Carbon Nanomaterials in Keeladi Pottery looks like a fringe scientific claim. The bit about the Keezhadi site at Chronology of Tamil history#Pre-Sangam period is similarly problematic. These claims rely on the media and the state archaeological department, and sadly both in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu and at the Republic level history and archaeology are driven by politics. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually found in four different Wikipedia articles: [31]. jps (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think this report, while obscure, is possibly on the up-and-up. The claim is not that the ancient craftspeople had access to the nanotechnology that produces such nanotubes today. The claim is instead that certain processes were employed in making a persistent glaze that formed nanotubes without the producers knowing that is what they were doing (obviously). The paper cites the extremely well-cited and well-attested to instance of discovering nanoparticles in Damascus steel as a motivating explanation. I note that this review uncritically cites the claim as well: "At the same time, the Christian crusade warriors could probably not conceive that the superior properties of the Moorish Damascus steel were due to embedded carbon nanotubes,[58,59] although this type of nanotechnology was already known and used almost a millennium earlier in India.[60]" [32] While this work is only cited seven times in the literature, it does not look like it has been siloed like other dubious claims from Scientific Reports. This is, however, well outside of my field of expertise, so we should find some who are more familiar with material science and archaeology to contextualize the impact of this claim. YMMV. jps (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with what jps wrote. I can't speak to this particular source, but Damascus steel is another article that documents carbon nanotubes in very old artifacts. It doesn't take modern technology to make them, just to recognize them. Happy (Slap me) 14:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was unsure which is why I asked. But is "They observed the inner diameter of the single walled nanotubes is very close to the theoretically possible lowest diameter." useful? It may be true but it looks as though it's making a point. I'm guessing the editor thought these were deliberately created, but that's just a guess. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how necessary it is for the article, but if it's supported by the source, that's a very interesting fact. Seems like a detail that would be more appropriate to mention in Carbon nanotubes than in this particular article, though. Happy (Slap me) 14:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Good point about mentioning it in the nanotubes article. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- @HappyMcSlappy and ජපස: History of nanotechnology says "The earliest evidence of nanotechnology and its application is traced back to 600 BC at Keeladi, India." Which I guess reflects the source which says "Synthesis and usage of nanomaterials are not the outcome of modern development in science and technology. There are reports documented the usage of nanomaterials in the ancient arts and tools indicating that ancient days humans were aware of the uniqueness of these materials and the methods of synthesizing it. But they might not know the scientific principles at the nano scale and its unusual properties." It concludes that "The finding of these two carbon forms in the Keeladi coating raises the following questions. (i) Ancient Keeladi settlement know the importance of these properties and adapted it intentionally? (ii) Given the black coating is observed in the inner portion of the shard, if these potteries were used for edible preparation or preservation then ancient civilization might be aware of the cytotoxic nature of CNT and Graphene/graphene oxide sheets! In spite of other unanswered questions, it is interesting to observe the strong footprints of 1D and 2D carbon-based nanomaterials used about 600 BC ago with diameter closer to theoretical limit and retained its stability for around 2600 years." Stating that they actually created the nanotubes seems an extreme claim. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Good point about mentioning it in the nanotubes article. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how necessary it is for the article, but if it's supported by the source, that's a very interesting fact. Seems like a detail that would be more appropriate to mention in Carbon nanotubes than in this particular article, though. Happy (Slap me) 14:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was unsure which is why I asked. But is "They observed the inner diameter of the single walled nanotubes is very close to the theoretically possible lowest diameter." useful? It may be true but it looks as though it's making a point. I'm guessing the editor thought these were deliberately created, but that's just a guess. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The paper is not well written, that is for sure. Still, I think the charitable interpretation is that authors are arguing that the producers of the material may have had awareness of the unique properties of it -- some of which are now attributed to nanotubes -- while not "know[ing] the scientific principles at the nano scale". It's similar to a situation where ancient craftspeople were using magnets without knowing how they worked. jps (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ජපස: but Synthesis of carbon nanotubes? They do explain it: " So the more scientific possibility would be the plant-based material should have been carbonized, forming different carbon allotropes at high temperature achieved during the firing process of pottery. The presence of iron in the plant source and also the soil might have catalysed the carbon to form SWCNT and MWCNT". Doug Weller talk 16:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Producing ice is now "manipulating water at the molecular level"? Burning wood is "using quantum chemistry"? The pottery might have had CNTs, but that's not "using nanotechnology". It's not even clear if the CNTs have an actual function, or of they were just a side-product of the production process. The (technically correct) statement that a specific group had no concept of CNTs suggests the (incorrect) implication that others would have known about them. --mfb (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. On the other hand, the paper is poorly written, so it's hard to know how much of the absurd implications are there because of the authorial intent and how much of it is because of the perennial problem at Scientific Reports of a lack of editorial oversight. With two or three tweaks of the sentences they would become more grammatically mainstream as well as without the eye-rolling implications. Does this invalidate the empirical results of the paper? Are carbon nanotubes really not part of this glaze? Or, are carbon nanotubes perhaps more ubiquitous in materials than generally appreciated? (I'm reminded of the strong evidence for interstellar buckyballs which are produced entirely naturally.) The correct level of discourse, I think, is to point out when such things are discovered and, more importantly, verified. It would be nice, for example, if other groups could verify this rather strong claim which, I am willing to bet, was initially rejected from publication in the flagship journal (unlike the similar Damascus steel claim), and was referred to this accept-all-comers junk pile. WP:WEIGHT and WP:TOOSOON may very well be decent principles to apply in this case. jps (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I did a quick rewrite of a paragraph in History of nanotechnology, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that the more recent claim could be omitted on WP:UNDUE/WP:TOOSOON grounds. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- This isn't my forte and I'm too lazy to dig up references at the moment, so I'm reluctant to make specific claims about the materials involved or their processes. If there are some doubts about the source, which seems to be the case, then I'd exclude mention under the principle of it being too soon and those questions raised about the source per jps and the quotes provided by Doug, and then wait to see if this is confirmed by other scientists. I mean, the article isn't really harmed by this not being included, but if it is included and it's false, the sheer number of outlets that cite WP (with or without credit) means we'd end up in a weird cite-osis situation: where the only real evidence is one shoddy paper, but there's tons of pop-science sources out there pointing to WP or just claiming (based on what the author read on WP) that it's true. Happy (Slap me) 22:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think that, aside from the reliability of the source, any writing in Wikipedia even remotely implying that pre-20th-century societies "used nanotechnology" is a major WP:SYNTH at best, and a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation at worst. I know a little about the chemistry involved here; carbon nanotubes are part of a class of carbon allotropes that include fullerenes, and these molecules are readily detected in nature; indeed they exist in ordinary flame soot. If you burn a candle, there's likely a detectable amount of complex carbon molecules in the soot that could be classified as "nanotubes", and yet I'm not using nanotechnology when I burn a candle. That carbon nanotubes have been discovered in ancient artifacts doesn't mean that the people who created the artifacts used nanotechnology; it means they heated up carbon. You know, like when you burn coal, or make steel, or any number of other very old technologies. --Jayron32 16:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Paul Solomon[edit]
Seems rather credulous and fringy, with lots of fantastic claims sourced to a book by somebody named W. Alexander Wheeler. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Horrible. Are there any good sources on this fellow? Because the current list is atrocious. jps (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have come to the conclusion that this is likely a classic case of WP:PROFRINGE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Solomon. jps (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Strauss–Howe generational theory[edit]
Huge article about a fringe theory. Ran into it through this [33]. I don't really expect anyone to have the stomach for it (and you might lose yours if you look at the Tucker Carlson video linked in Jason Colavito's article), but good luck to anyone who does. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure what you want done. It's clearly marked as fringe in the opening paragraphs. Being correct is not a pre-requisite for a Wikipedia articles. Bullshit can still be notable bullshit. --Jayron32 16:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just thought it needs trimming really. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Silent Talker Lie Detector[edit]
A promotional article on technology which seems to be controversial, if not outright techno-woo. As has been noted on the talk page, there are multiple credible secondary sources questioning the validity of this 'detector', but instead we present readers with unverified claims, citing 'sources' which long pre-date the 'detector', and thus cannot possibly be discussing it. As is also noted on the talk page, the article seems to have been created by someone with a clear CoI.
I suspect that given the (negative) secondary coverage, the 'detector' may meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, ruling out deletion. It probably needs someone with a bit of knowledge of the broader subject to rewrite it from scratch. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)