Talk:Shungite

Coronavirus-5G Conspiracy Theory

Some big names like Dr DisRespect have been promoting this as a defence against the purported harms of 5G in relation to Coronavirus, wondering if this is more a widespread belief that might warrant a section. Faissaloo (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Not now, it's far too early, and probably not in the future - we'll have to see. Mikenorton (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Shungite has been linked to 5G conspiracies in this The Atlantic article by Kaitlyn Tiffany: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/05/great-5g-conspiracy/611317/ 69.42.4.22 (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I added a brief mention under 'Uses', but I can only reference The Atlantic. I'm unable to find other reputable sources to back anything up. LonelyProgrammer (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed - would need much better sourcing for such conspiracy cruft. Vsmith (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The point isn't that shungite actually does anything to 'nullify' 5G, nor that any of the 5G conspiracy is true. It was added because it has become a noteworthy event surrounding shungite. While the claim itself is patently absurd, the reason it is present is because people are making the claim. LonelyProgrammer (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of publications from reliable sources that have reported on the efficacy of Shungite for use in EMF mitigation purposes.

If this displeases an editor, that's not grounds for biasing the article or making inclusions sourced from reliable sources invisible.

In October of 2022, the National Institutes of Health's Pubmed® Library of Medicine published an article, "Mobile phone induced EMF stress is reversed upon the use of protective devices: results from two experiments testing different boundary conditions". To paraphrase, it reported the results of two experiments:

" In both experiments, exposure to EMF decreased HRV and increased salivary cortisol. In the protective experimental condition, HRV increased above and cortisol decreased below the level of the baseline measures. All differences were large and specific and not modulated by non-specific effects like placebo effects."

In November of 2003, PubMed published an article, "Shielding effect of mineral schungite during electromagnetic irradiation of rats" In this report, researchers reported that:

"Shielding with schungite decreased the severity of damage produced by high-frequency electromagnetic radiation."

When an editor strikes a revision because his opinion is that the material is "psuedoscience", this is improper, as the references sourced are properly sourced from credible publications. PubMed is certainly a well-respected authority.

Secondly, an editor should not reject an entire revision based on false claims. To say that the revision brought nothing notable to the article is not an opinion that is expected to survive. These topics should first be discussed in "Talk". CrystalBethMoonbeam (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, Shungite has been a part of the healing crystal wellness scam for years now. They've made unfounded claims about curing cancer and I really think there should be some mention of that these claims are unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordoftheRaccoons (talk • contribs) 14:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vsmith:Just open an incognito tab and google shungite. First result is a card from Wikipedia, then 3 youtube videos about "healing crystals" then a bunch of Amazon links that claim to block EMF radiation in their description. This isn't a fringe thing. We need to have something about 5G or at the very least its connection to pseudoscience. LordoftheRaccoons (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've re-added LonelyProgrammer's edit with modifications as per this consensus that this should be mentioned in this article. 69.42.4.22 (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted that addition - I don't see any clear consensus for inclusion. This is adding undue weight to something of little notability. Mikenorton (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mikenorton: it sure is strange then that this random mineral is getting more traffic than any other article in its category, outperforming even Lignite(!) and the main article for Organic mineral, even months after this conspiracy turned meme first came up. It's literally the only reason people are searching for this. If that plus coverage on mainstream news sites doesn't indicate notability I don't know what to tell you (See: this for a graphic comparison). I realize internet culture isn't necessarily a focus for a geologist, but a wiki shouldn't be limited to purely academic information jonas (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mikenorton: (Note: I previously edited as 69.42.4.22 (talk).) UNDUE doesn't mean censoring the tiniest reference to a topic that has consistently come up in the news. There are multiple sources that report on shungite being part of conspiracy theories, and simply mentioning conspiracy theories existing does not violate UNDUE. UNDUE would be giving equal weight to these claims, but clearly linking them to crystal healing and 5G conspiracy theories is simply adding notable coverage to a rock that 99% of people would not know about otherwise. 9³ (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@93: See my comment below. Mikenorton (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Throwing in some more references for this bogus 5G scam;

• Fooling people with radiation protection - blog source, however
• $350 ‘5G Bioshield’ Radiation Protection Device Is A ... $6 USB Stick - Forbes
• COVID-19 deniers try to cash in on their ridiculous theories by selling crystals that 'protect' against 5G - as their sick theory about the families of virus victims is revealed - Daily Fail
• Conspiracy theorists forced to apologise for calling Victorian youth leader a Covid 'crisis actor' - mentioned in passing, along with other scams

- Alison ^❤ 03:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. I'm adding one article I mentioned as an IP previously from The Atlantic and two from The Guardian as definite reliable sources, along with the Forbes post and a Gizmodo article. Five sources establish notability of the fact that shungite is involved in conspiracy theories, its inclusion in the article does not present the information in an WP:UNDUE manner as made apparent by the derogatory adverbs I have put in the sentence to the point of redundancy. 9³ (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

With that level of sourcing, that seems a reasonable addition to the article. Mikenorton (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

While conspiracies around 5G deserve to be fought wherever possible, this article should not deny that shungite absorbs 5G radiation. In fact, I could confirm it is mildly conductive (like charcoal) and such materials partly absorb over a wide spectral range. it is very likely that e.g. digging a cave into a shungite deposit would shield off any radio signal. The statement __"..have falsely alleged the misinformational belief that shungite may absorb 5G radiation.."__ should be reformulated. It should state that while absorbing, it has no supernatural effects. FDominec (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

In 2020, not as much was known about the medical efficacy of Shungite. However, recently published scholarly articles, which are peer-reviewed cannot be dismissed because of bias.

This article was published on October 2, 2022:

Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk

To quote the abstract,

"In a pilot study, recordings were taken during a 15-min mobile phone call emitting a high burden of EMF (electric, magnetic, high frequency) after a baseline measurement at rest with very low EMF. In a second visit, this was repeated with participants using three protective devices (insoles, pendant, mobile phone chip). In the main study, four experimental arms were employed, two of which replicated the experimental setup of the pilot study, and two of which examined the effect of only one mobile phone chip in an open-hidden-paradigm. In both experiments, exposure to EMF decreased HRV and increased salivary cortisol. In the protective experimental condition, HRV increased above and cortisol decreased below the level of the baseline measures. All differences were large and specific and not modulated by non-specific effects like placebo effects.

This article is informative and instructive. It also survived Pubmed.gov's peer review, and therefore cannot be slammed as "Psuedoscience". CrystalBethMoonbeam (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Pseudoscience/Poorly cited crap info

This page seems to be full of outright nonsense like "mobile phone EMF damage," and the citations are literally links to other Wikipedia pages (which don't even provide the relevant info!) This page is unacceptable and needs major revisions. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted back to an earlier version - this was a recent addition and I agree the changes were not an improvement. Mikenorton (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This revision was long overdue as it had a number of errors that contradicted itself. For example, it says that, "Shungite has been reported to contain trace amounts of fullerenes (0.0001 < 0.001%). In the next sentence it describes Type 1 as being between 98-100% in carbon content. This had to be fixed.

Here is a reliable source regarding Shungite's Fullerene composition:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5574306/#:~:text=The%20mineral%20percent%20composition%20includes,iron%2C%20and%200.2%25%20copper.)

"Composition and visualization of shungite with mineral-less were analyzed by Energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy. The mineral percent composition includes 86.43% carbon, 0.18% sodium, 1.33% magnesium, 3.17% silicon, 1.09% sulfur, 0.22% chlorine, 0.95% potassium, 5.33% calcium, 1.06% iron, and 0.2% copper."

With regards to the other information - I reviewed it and did not see circular references in my edit, if they are there, they were prior to my revision. In all of my edits, I cited Pubmed exclusively, using the PubMed ID (PMID) number for reference. In fact, Wikipedia's editor, as of this writing, would not let me enter a circular Wikipedia reference.

Being that all of the edits cited reliable, encyclopedic sources, my edit is credible and all entries are notable, despite the claim that "none of that appears to be notable enough for inclusion in this article. CrystalBethMoonbeam (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Analysis of shungite gives a value of less than 0.001% by weight of fullerene (see here), so they cannot be treated as the same thing. I'm reverting your recent edits again until you establish consensus for their inclusion. Mikenorton (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you please show me where, "the citations are literally links to other Wikipedia pages (which don't even provide the relevant info!) "

I would like to fix them, as I am auditing the sources.

Also, you said, "This page seems to be full of outright nonsense like "mobile phone EMF damage," - can you please support this with more background information? CrystalBethMoonbeam (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

That was another editor. Shungite may contain up to 98% carbon, just not mostly in the form of fullerenes. Mikenorton (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You wrote, "Shungite may contain up to 98% carbon, just not mostly in the form of fullerenes". Can you show your source material for this? My references all show that the Carbon in Shungite is Fullerene-content. CrystalBethMoonbeam (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You cite one source showing that Shungite has trace amounts of fullerenes at mindat.org - however the vast amount of information about Shungite shows it at up to 98% Carbon Fullerene content. In fact, the article, as you reverted to contradicts itself. It literally says in the next sentence,

"Shungite-bearing rocks have also been classified purely on their carbon content, with shungite-1 having a carbon content in the range 98–100 weight per cent and shungite-2, -3, -4 and -5 having contents in the ranges 35–80 percent, 20–35 per cent, 10–20 per cent and less than 10 per cent, respectively."

I replaced it with a source article from PubMed.gov - in fact, all of my revisions were sourced directly from the Pubmed ID, which Wikipedia encourages and uses as a default for source material.

Please revert it back, or talk about revisions here before reverting an entire rewrite. Thank you! CrystalBethMoonbeam (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

IthinkIplaygames wrote: "This page seems to be full of outright nonsense like "mobile phone EMF damage," and the citations are literally links to other Wikipedia pages (which don't even provide the relevant info!) This page is unacceptable and needs major revisions. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2023 "

If it needed major revisions, then discuss them here, form a consensus and make the revisions. Reverting an entire rewrite that has been properly sourced is not appropriate here. Also, be mindful of WIkipedia's three revision rule.

Also, I'm waiting for your response how the latest PubMed.gov articles describing how EMF exposure from a 15 minute phone call on a mobile phone (as measured by instant changes in saliva cortisol (stress indicator of sympathetic nervous system response) and decreases in Heart Rate Variability (lower shows physical stress).

This is reliable, peer-reviewed information sourced directly from unarguably the most highly respected library of medical information, the National Institutes Of Health. If you have a background in medicine, you would probably avoid declaring medical reports as, "outright nonsense".

I would like your discussion before I hit revert. CrystalBethMoonbeam (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, please support how this discussion thread, "Pseudoscience/Poorly cited crap info"

Can you please explain:

1. How "pubmed.gov" articles are poorly cited, and

2. How the information published on Pubmed.gov is "psuedoscience"

Is this your opinion or do you have proof?

Also, I have asked for where the sources are circular references back to Wikipedia? This is my second ask.

Again, without your answers, I will revert, but would like you to answer my questions first. Thank you! CrystalBethMoonbeam (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(After multiple edit conflicts) As your version was factually incorrect I won't be doing that - to say it again, shungites contain up almost 100% carbon by weight but only a tiny fraction of that carbon is in the form of fullerenes, according to published sources. The carbon is mainly in the form of graphene, another carbon allotrope, see here. Mikenorton (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You won't be answering my questions regarding Pubmed.gov being poorly cited, or you won't be reverting?

You said my version was factually incorrect - can you be more specific as to which facts were incorrect, and if so, can you dispute my sources?

Again, I am waiting for your productive answers, not wishing to argue about whose facts are correct. On that note, I looked up your reference link to "sciencedirect" and could not find anywhere where the Carbon in Shungite is "mainly in the form of graphene".

Can you please show me where it says that? I honestly want to give you a fair chance to support your responses, but I (as would Wikipedia's editors) would appreciate specificity as to where you are finding support for your claims. Specifically, I am asking:

1. where in the article that you referenced, which is at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0254058419300379#bib20 does it say that Shungite's Carbon content is "mainly in the form of Graphene"?
2. when you said, "I won't agree to that" do you mean you do not agree to support your claims? Or did you mean you would not revert it to the previous article.
3. Also, you have not answered how the "trace amounts of fullerenes" claim reconciles with the sentence below it, where the article describes the fullerene content of different classifications of Shungite?

CrystalBethMoonbeam (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• To quote from the source that I linked to (in case you don't have access) " In general, shungite is a natural composite of carbon nanoparticles and disordered carbon with a variety of mineral inclusions (pyrite, quartz, sericite, chlorite). The shungite nanoscale structure contains deformed graphene planes folded into stacks [20]. These planes either close up, forming fullerene-like particles (globules) or are placed in the binding interglobular layers of disordered carbon." It refers back to an earlier paper here, which states "The HRTEM images and nanodiffraction patterns of shungites suggest that some 3-dimensional closed shells occur but, more commonly, there are fractions of such shells or regions of structure that are highly disordered into bent stacks of graphene layers.", so graphene not fullerene.
• You are correct in your assumption that I implied that I would not restore your version of the page as it was inaccurate.
• The sentence below describes the carbon content not the fullerene content. Mikenorton (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Your quote says nothing remotely close to, "Shungite's Carbon content is "mainly in the form of Graphene".

  The currently published article that you reverted contradicts itself, it says,

  Shungite can be low-carbon (5% C), medium-carbon (5-25% C) and high-carbon (25-80% C) percent by weight of carbon and the carbon base of shungite is a multilayered fullerene-like globule with a diameter of 10-30 nm.

  Graphene is Carbon in 2 dimensional form. It is monolayer carbon molecules in a flat, 2 dimensional sheet. This article describes "fullerene-like globules" which does not describe 2 dimensional monolayer Graphene. I will deeply source the fullerene content of Shungite in my revert/rewrite.

  Please answer how Shungite is "mainly in the form of Graphene", where you sourced that information, and specifically where it says that. You requoted something that is completely opposite of what you claim.

  In my reversion/rewrite, I assure you that I will deeply source the composition of Shungite and its fullerene-content with appropriate source references.

  In engaging in this conversation, and preparing for my next revision, you've inspired me to do a deeper dig. I found this article, also published in Pubmed (PMID 31553920) that states in its abstract:

  "With the rapid advances in technology, extensive use of mobile phones has increased the risk of health problems. This study was performed to find out the effect of mobile phone frequency on male Wistar rats. Animals were divided into two groups (n = 6 in each group). Group one was considered as control and group two (experimental group) was exposed to microwave radiation (2100 MHz) for 4 hours/day (5 days/week) for 3 months. Exposure of microwave radiation frequency showed significant alterations in cholinesterase activity, muscular strength, learning ability and anxiety."

  Is this psuedoscience? Please respond with yes/no, the reasons why, and refer to sources. Otherwise, I am including this in my reversion/revision.

  My goal is to keep Wikipedia's guidelines intact in this article. Reverting a well-sourced revision by calling it "Pseudoscience/Poorly cited crap info", should your position stand, would tarnish the credibility of this article.

  In absence of your well-sourced replies, I will be reverting the article and doing revisions with deeper, more detailed sources that are more current. And, as always, using Wikipedia's guidelines for quoting reliable sources. CrystalBethMoonbeam (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  And this is my third request, noting that you have not answered these questions:

  Can you please explain:

  1. How "pubmed.gov" articles are poorly cited, and

  2. How the information published on Pubmed.gov is "psuedoscience"

  3. Where in my rewrite does it use a circular "Wikipedia source" as a reference? I would like to make sure I fix that.

  CrystalBethMoonbeam (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Again, you are confusing me with another editor, so I will not address these final three points as I did not raise them, I only said that your changes were not an improvement, which I stand by.
• The most recent paper that I've found discussing the fine structure of Shungite is here, which states "Shungite carbon has a complex quasi-dispersed structure from stacks of graphene layers, which are sometimes grouped into globules and ribbons.[18,19,23,24] The sizes of the stacks are in units of nanometers, and the globule and ribbon sizes reach several tens of nanometers. However, the relative content of globules and ribbons in the shungite structure is small compared to the members." Note that the model described in the rest of the paper suggests that "members" here means matrix, so only some of the shungite is graphene and the article doesn't mention fullerenes at all. All this information should certainly be used in updating the article, but I see no reason to include so much detail about rats, which could be summarised in a sentence probably. You are right about the lead section of the article, I will think about how to rewrite that. Mikenorton (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Classification again

Due to the section above, I have once again been digging into the voluminous literature on Shungite. I don't have access to Borisov (1956), which almost all workers base their classifications on. Unfortunately, although they're all based on the same source they differ, even in one case between publications with the same lead author. Some, such as Melezhik et al. (2004), have a gap in the percentage range - Type 1 98-100% Type II 35-80%, matched more or less by Ivankin 1987 Type I >98% Type II 35-75%, although Melezhik et al. (1999) gives Type I >98% Type II 35-98%. Buseck et al. (1997) gives Type I >75-98% Type II 35-75%, Smirnova (2019) gives Type 1 80-100% Type II 35-80%. I shall attempt to come up with some sort of wording (suitably cited) that addresses all this inconsistency. Mikenorton (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I've had a go at this, although I'm a little unconvinced about the result. Mikenorton (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Fullerenes and graphene

I now have a much better handle on the small-scale structure found within Shungite. To summarise, fullerenes have been detected at very low concentrations. Fullerene-like globular structures have been observed directly using various electron microscope techniques, still at low concentrations. Within the relatively amorphous matrix, stacks of graphene sheets have been observed by several groups, so we can say that Shungite contains significant amounts of graphene, some of which is organised into globular features that resemble fullerenes, although genuine fullerenes have also been detected. The publications mentioning fullerene-like globules seem to have triggered some outside the material sciences to say that Shungite is fullerene-like, which is certainly not how I read those results. Another paper even argues that shungite should be recognised as a new allotrope of carbon. It seems that some of these details should be included in the article, although I think that the description of the microstructures should come from the original materials science literature rather than some of the biomedical science literature that is exploring uses of shungite. Mikenorton (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Contradiction in the lead section

Before my recent edit, the lead section stated "Shungite can be low-carbon (5% C), medium-carbon (5-25% C) and high-carbon (25-80% C) percent by weight of carbon and the carbon base of shungite is a multilayered fullerene-like globule with a diameter of 10-30 nm." There were two problems with this, the first being that this represents yet another classification, which isn't much used, but could be included in the "Terminology" section I guess, the other being that the wording seemed to suggest that the carbon in shungite was made entirely of fullerene-like globules, rather than just a trace. I suspect that this is a language issue in the original source as it accurately matches a later source that cites the first - "The basis of shungite carbon compose the hollow carbon fullerene-like multilayer spherical globules with a diameter of 10–30 nm", although the same source goes on to state " The limiting factor, however, remains extremely low percentage of fullerenes in shungite (up to 0.001% (w/w))". So, it doesn't mean what it appears (at least to me) to mean. For the above reasons, I've removed that sentence. Mikenorton (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to PMC5574306: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5574306/

This is a pubmed article. The article is called, "Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Shungite against Ultraviolet B Irradiation-Induced Skin Damage in Hairless Mice". The second sentence says, "...shungite is regarded as a natural source of fullerene..."

At paragraph 3 of the introduction section, it goes on to say, "Shungite rocks are divided into five types based on the carbon percentage (1–98 wt.%) [22]. Type I is the rocks that occur in shungite deposits containing the highest amount of carbon (96–98 wt.%) with traces of other elements (0.1–0.5% H, 0.6–1.5% O, 0.7–1.0% N, and 0.2–0.4% S) [23]. On the other hand, type III is the most common one with 30 wt.% of carbon"

It goes on to say, "By the end of the twentieth century, scientists had partially explained the reasons for the beneficial effect of shungite. As it turned out, this mineral is mainly composed of carbon, much of which is represented by the spherical molecules of fullerenes. Eventually, the revelation of fullerene in shungite rocks provided a new impetus to the exploration of shungite "

Please refer to: Fullerene under "Further developments" - it says, "In 1992, fullerenes were found in a family of mineraloids known as shungites in Karelia, Russia."

Here is one from "WebMD" at https://www.webmd.com/balance/health-benefits-of-shungite-stones "Shungite stones are made mostly of carbon. Specifically, the stones are made up of clusters of carbon atoms called "fullerenes."

I think it's pretty safe to say that your edit is incorrect in citing one article when PubMed, WebMD and other articles all cite Shungite as consisting of fullerene Carbon. MelroseReporter (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any reply to the specificity of their critique and references? You seem to only be comfortable speaking in the broadest generalities and pushing cherrypicked words to an interpretation like "Shungite [consists] of fullerene Carbon" while ignoring much more specific, valuable data. This is not an adequate understanding of any of the research cited, whether by them or by yourself. Remsense留 14:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It also seems to ignore e.g. "Currently, there is no exact definition of shungite and, in the literature, it is variously formulated as ... a natural metastable non-graphitized carbon with a low content of multilayered fullerene-like globules, with a diameter of 10–30 nm (<0.001% w/w [5])." in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9919474/ --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to:

https://www.edelschungit.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/10.1.1.1067.8974.pdf

Page 10 - middle of page, "A wide range of properties of shungite and the unique structure of this natural fullerene containing mineral"

"The carbonaceous material of shungite is the product of a high degree of carbonization of hydrocarbons. Its elemental composition (%, w/w): C – 98.6–99.6; H – 0.15–0.5; (H + O) – 0.15–0.9."

Quoting Page 14 (bottom of page)

"The basis of shungite carbon compose the hollow carbon fullerene-like multilayer spherical globules with a diameter of 10–30 nm" MelroseReporter (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

From the same paper, top of page 1: (fullerene content 0.01–0.0001% (w/w) --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If the citation source contradicts itself, that contradiction should be pointed out, perhaps in a phrase like, "while there is some confusion as to the fullerene content of Shungite, cited sources quote anywhere between "trace" amounts of fullerenes to 97-100% fullerene content. I think that would be appropriate to say here, and I can write that. MelroseReporter (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you can write that, but it would be bollocks. The C – 98.6–99.6 you highlight above is not carbon as fullerines. I get that you want Shingite to be high 90s % fullerines, but the simple fact is that it is not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

References

"Crystal healing pseudoscience"

The article currently says,

"Crystal healing pseudoscience proponents and 5G conspiracy theorists have falsely alleged the misinformational belief that shungite may remove 5G radiation from their vicinity more efficiently than any material of similar electrical conductivity would do."

I looked at the four citations, they include, "The Guardian", "Forbes" and "Gizmodo". These are reliable news sources, but not encyclopedic fact sources. Additionally, I scanned all of the articles, and could not find anything that resembled what is mentioned in the article.

Alternatively, PubMed.gov is about the most highly regarded medical journals, and according to Pubmed's 2022 article, (PubMed ID 36189775) it was reported that Shungite protection produced differences that were large and specific and not modulated by non-specific effects like placebo effects" specifically, in the conclusion, the authors wrote:,

"These physiological stress responses can be offset with specially designed protected devices. The technology tested (shungite) produces a ‘super-optimization’ of HRV and cortisol inhibition exceeding normoregulation in non-stressful conditions." MelroseReporter (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@MelroseReporter the last revision has a revert with "please discuss in talk page before contributing. There are no notes here. I believe every change was proper and required for accuracy. Please discuss your position. Do not revert back without any discussion. The article as it is cites news references, (not factual references, mine all do) contradicts itself and badly needs an entire rewrite. As it stands, it is poorly written and not well sourced. 50.98.159.215 (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The previous comment was made on my phone as I was not logged in. I don't wish to get into a revert war here. To revert it and then say, "please discuss on talk page before reverting" is a good practice, which I did extensively before each edit. I corrected poorly sourced and poorly written material with more accurate material that didn't contradict itself, using PubMed articles. MelroseReporter (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The last revert simply had the explanation, "please discuss on talk page before making changes" yet the revision editor had no comments at all regarding what was wrong with my edits. All edits used encyclopedic sources, exclusively PubMed. As is, the article is poorly sourced, contradicts itself, uses a misrepresentative image and uses citations from news sources rather than fact sources. MelroseReporter (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Reverting back

I spent hours on my last edit, researching and citing properly sourced articles and exclusively relied on pubmed.gov for my changes.

The article as it stands is contradicts itself. I replaced the image as it was misrepresentative of the topic (it had a large, grey rock behind a tiny "shungite" rock that represents what shungite looks like).

All my work was undone, with a simple edit note of "please discuss on talk page before contributing" - which I actually did, as you can see above. The revert editor said nothing on the talk page - which I feel is improper, so I am bringing in assistance. This would be, I believe his third revert.

Here is what I said on "talk" before contributing. I don't think the revision author looked, because it's here, but I will post it anyway so that it's really visible: Talk:Shungite#Contradiction in the lead section. MelroseReporter (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing this confusing copy/paste of previous comments; I'm not sure why you think it's helpful to reproduce a recent talk page section from above; it just makes reading this page very confusing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reädded MelroseReporter's signature. Skynxnex (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie totally new here. still learning. 50.98.159.215 (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

A major problem with your approach of using "exclusively PubMed" sources is that they do not contain the materials science research that has identified the structure of the carbon in shungite. For that I have used exclusively materials science sources, which I think is appropriate. For medical claims for shungite then we should follow WP:MEDRS, where PubMed is said to be "an excellent starting point for locating peer-reviewed medical literature reviews on humans from the last five years", although you should read all of that guideline, because there's a lot more to it than that. Mikenorton (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Pubmed is highly regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Please click the following link, as well as consult the article. It says:

"By the end of the twentieth century, scientists had partially explained the reasons for the beneficial effect of shungite. As it turned out, this mineral is mainly composed of carbon, much of which is represented by the spherical molecules of fullerenes."

https://www.google.com/search?q=does+shungite+have+fullerenes%3F+pubmed&sca_esv=590804984&ei=CJh6ZYX4I96ikPIPwbGt6A0&ved=0ahUKEwiFnOSSno6DAxVeEUQIHcFYC90Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=does+shungite+have+fullerenes%3F+pubmed&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJWRvZXMgc2h1bmdpdGUgaGF2ZSBmdWxsZXJlbmVzPyBwdWJtZWQyCBAAGIAEGKIESMMUUJoKWI8TcAF4AZABAJgBb6ABugWqAQM1LjK4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIFECEYoAHCAgUQIRirAuIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

It sounds like a new article needs to be written regarding the medical literature involving Shungite and Fullerene C60 formulations. Perhaps keep this one to the geological sources, and another article on the medical research? MelroseReporter (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

PUBMED is not a source, but a search engine. The source being referred-to here appears to be:

• Sajo ME, Kim CS, Kim SK, Shim KY, Kang TY, Lee KJ (2017). "Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Shungite against Ultraviolet B Irradiation-Induced Skin Damage in Hairless Mice". Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2017: 7340143. doi:10.1155/2017/7340143. PMID 28894510.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

which is primary research (a mouse study) and so unreliable for WP:Biomedical information here. Bon courage (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

We are not discussing a mouse study, we are deliberating whether there are reliable sources that cite that Shungite contains fullerenes, because as the article now stands, it states that Shungite only has "trace" fullerenes. This is not about a mouse study, it is about the citation that I quoted. MelroseReporter (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The paper you quoted two threads up answers that question - https://www.edelschungit.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/10.1.1.1067.8974.pdf = fullerene content 0.01–0.0001% (w/w) --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

In this same paper, it says:

"The carbonaceous material of shungite is the product of a high degree of carbonization of hydrocarbons. Its elemental composition (%, w/w): C – 98.6–99.6; H – 0.15–0.5; (H + O) – 0.15–0.9." is far less ambiguous than:

"The composition and structural properties of amorphous, uncrystallized, fulleren analogous (fullerene content 0.01–0.0001% (w/w)) carbon containing natural mineral – shungite,"

Without reading anything into the italicized sentence above, note that the article heading describes "amorphous, uncrystallized, fulleren (sic) analogous carbon containing natural mineral - shungite."

I go with the first sentence as less ambiguous. It directly addresses shungite, and defines it as mostly Carbon. The italicized sentence refers to something analogous to fullerene?

Also, why are we focused on this article, when I cited others? MelroseReporter (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You are misreading "Its elemental composition (%, w/w): C – 98.6–99.6" as meaning fullerines, when it means carbon of any form. If you can find an article which says that it is composed of high 90s fullerines, bring it here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's an article: https://www.webmd.com/balance/health-benefits-of-shungite-stones

"....Shungite stones are made mostly of carbon. Specifically, the stones are made up of clusters of carbon atoms called "fullerenes..." MelroseReporter (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

WebMD is not a good source either. Bon courage (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I see it all the time used as a citation. Can I get some clarity from you? Are you saying that WebMD cannot be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia? MelroseReporter (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The advice at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is Medical information resources such as WebMD and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources for uncontroversial information; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly. So here 1) we're not dealing with uncontroversial information: you're trying to push fringe science and 2) WebMD is not a good source for material science claims, as Mikenorton has elsewhere eexplained. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but anything about "beneficial effects" needs very strong sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I maintain that Pubmed.gov is strong sourcing for medical literature (I can't believe I had to explain that). And that being the case, here is your strong sourcing about 'beneficial effects'. The article states, "The use of mobile phones induces physiological stress on a neurocardiac and neuroendocrine level after a short exposure time of 15 minutes. These physiological stress responses can be offset with specially designed protected devices. The technology tested (EssenceX shungite) produces a ‘super-optimization’ of HRV and cortisol inhibition exceeding normoregulation in non-stressful conditions." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36189775/ MelroseReporter (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

PubMed is just a search engine. It indexes material of variable quality (including some utter junk). Most of what it indexes in unreliable in Wikipedia's terms. Please see WP:MEDRS for the relevant sourcing guidelines. Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, PubMed is a search engine, but Wikipedia accepts PubMed ID numbers as citation sources. Can someone here confirm that PubMed articles are not reliable wikipedia sources? MelroseReporter (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That's like asking if "Google sources" are reliable. To evaluate a source look at the source (which may be found with a search engine like PubMed). Bon courage (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I just did some research as to your claim that Pubmed.gov is not a strong source. According to Wikipedia, "PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer-reviewed medical literature reviews on humans from the last five years. It offers a free search engine for accessing the MEDLINE database of biomedical research articles offered by the National Library of Medicine at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. " MelroseReporter (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"starting point". --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Going back to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36189775/ it has 1 citation. Its author is unaffiliated. The "research" which concluded that The technology tested (EssenceX shungite) produces blah blah blah was commissioned by ... EssenceX. Surprise. It's junk science. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Your reply "blah blah blah" needs a better explanation. Categorically, are you saying that Wikipedia editors shall not use PUBMED ID's when citing articles? Please be specific and concise. MelroseReporter (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh p-lease. You need to evaluate the quality of the paper. If it is a paper of sufficient quality, it's fine to use the PUBMED ID. The PUBMED ID is just an ID. It does not of itself vouchsafe quality. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

PubMed has peer-reviewed screening specifically for the purpose of having an expert screen it for you. Peer-reviewed publications are designed to "evaluate the quality of the paper" for you. So, my question for you is - is it a requirement or a recommendation that wikipedia editors "evaluate the quality" of a scientific paper before quoting it? MelroseReporter (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The source in question is:

• Schneider R (October 2022). "Mobile phone induced EMF stress is reversed upon the use of protective devices: results from two experiments testing different boundary conditions". Electromagn Biol Med. 41 (4): 429–438. doi:10.1080/15368378.2022.2129380. PMID 36189775.

Another primary source, so not useful for any health claims here. (As to the general question: if a reliable source has a PMID, it is usual to include it.) Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I always auto-generate from PubMed ID's. It's a great tool of Wikipedia's, which is why I'm surprised that there's so much discussion about the validity of PubMed as a source, when Wikipedia builds in functionality to auto-generate the article from the ID#? MelroseReporter (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

To repeat: PubMed is not a source. It's like saying Google or Bing is a 'source', Bon courage (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

And you mean auto-generate the citation from the ID. WP has tools to auto-generate citations from websites of all and no qualities. Please stop this nonsense line of argumentation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm still getting a lot of inconclusive pushback for citing wikipedia sources, so I have enlisted help to assist. Until then, can someone explain to me why, in this article, it says:

"Crystal healing pseudoscience proponents and 5G conspiracy theorists have falsely alleged the misinformational belief that shungite may remove 5G radiation from their vicinity more efficiently than any material of similar electrical conductivity would do."

And the citations are: "The Guardian", "Forbes" and "Gizmodo". These are reliable encyclopedic fact sources? Additionally, I scanned all of the articles, and could not find anything that resembled what is mentioned in the article. That requires removal from the article.

So - unless there are solid objections, I'm going to delete that line. If your objection is "Gizmodo" is a reliable source, and PubMed is not, then there should have a really good explanation as to why is a double standard within the same article. MelroseReporter (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

We have explained about 1,000,000 times that pubmed is a search engine not a source. "The Guardian", "Forbes" and "Gizmodo" are classed as reliable sources because they are mainstream, edited, independent news sources. If you start edit warring you will be taken to ANI and blocked. You do not have consensus to make your proposed change. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is time to bring in ANI, I'm on it. Also - you didn't address my question as to the cited references not matching the what the article said. I looked at the references and could not see why they were even used.

Though you say that "Gizmodo" is classed as a reliable source, Wikipedia would beg to differ with you: (source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources)

"There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.

I agree that ANI should be brought in to see the conduct going on here. MelroseReporter (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing ANI likes better than a forum shopper. On you go. The sentences which deride woo beliefs are a fair summation of the cited articles. The references contain supporting quotes. I'm frankly surprised Shungute doesn't protect from this sort of ridicule, but there you go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

ANI MelroseReporter

I've opened a thread at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MelroseReporter about a user's interactions with this article. I invite users concerned about the nature of the user's interactions to contribute there. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

MelroseReporter has now been indeffed [1]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Article rewrite

I've spent some time and gone through this article to rewrite as much as I can following a WP:FTN post. There was some confusion as to shungite being a single thing, when the term is used distinctly yet consistently by both academic and popular sources, and both definitions are correct (i.e. a shungite-bearing rock is popularly known as a shungite). Most of the structural information was deep into the weeds of material science and isn't the sort of information we present on much more well-known mineral articles. I didn't touch much of the information on the formation and deposit sections, as those seem accurate enough, if not perhaps a little jargon-y. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Warrenmck: tbh I'm not really thrilled with your rewrite, Warrenmck, not least since 80% of the lead now deal with the pseudoscientific crap. I'm not a geologist nor materials scientist, so I'll leave other aspects of the article to those who are. I think your handling of the woo stuff is WP:UNDUE. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth (which is very little) I'm actually both, but I think that's actually a fair bit of feedback and I've moved the comment on heavy metals out of the introduction and I agree it's a little better.

The issue with WP:UNDUE here is that geologists don't consider shungite to be a single thing in quite the way that non-geologists do, it's either pyrobitumen or metamorphosed oil shale, so unless geologists are specifically looking at what is referred to as shungite due to its type locality (which we often do, to be fair), these things are handled separately (i.e. for the pure hydrocarbon component you'd want to look up papers on pyrobitumen, for the host rock type you'd be looking up the metamorphosed rock). Therefore a lot of the focus on shungite as a thing does come from the more pseudoscience side of things, though very certainly not all. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Warrenmck: Perhaps unsurprisingly I'm also not thrilled about the rewrite. It may have become known recently for all the pseudoscientific stuff but it was perfectly notable long before the covid/5G bizarreness appeared. As one of its claims to fame is the presence of fullerenes, at least in small amounts, that needs to be there I think. The classification is a bit of a mess but again it's included in many of the sources. As a geologist with a materials science background I think that a lot of useful information has been removed without any real discussion. I think that there is plenty of room for expansion of the topic. I'm going to go away and think about this before trying to suggest ways that the article might be improved. Mikenorton (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"Solid-bitumen shungite is predomenantly amorphous, though as with many carbon deposits it contains trace amounts of carbon allotropes such as graphene sheets and fullerenes."

and

"The presence of fullerenes has resulted in shungite being of interest to researchers as a natural reservoir."

Are mentioned and cited in the article, but fullerenes aren't a unique property of shungite, more carbon deposits in general. They've been noted in everything from bitumen to coal to to soot. It seems there's a pretty huge gulf in papers between the 90s and 2000s in terms of understanding of fullerenes in natural deposits, so it depends on when you were last up to date on the literature, I imagine (and from what you've got on your bio I imagine you're far more educated in carbon deposits than I am).

Doing a bit more of a lit dive to reply here, while it does seem that shungites are historically important a place where natural fullerenes were discovered, p. 216, Table 1. of Natural Fullerenes and Related Structures of Elemental Carbon puts the abundance of fullerenes in shungite below the concentrations observed in other sources of bitumen and vastly below the amount observed in tuffs. That to me would make a discussion of fullerenes, perhaps beyond a mention of the historical importance, WP:TMI.

Most mineral pages don't contain lengthy sections on secondary phases in the PPM range and it felt like a WP:TMI section, to me at least. Compare the structural information presented in the article on another mineraloid, opal, to what was here. There it's covering more high-level structural information for a much more distinct topic, as opposed to shungite, which has several more detailed sub-articles it can point to for its constituent components. To me, at least (and this is Wikipedia, so if you disagree, edit away of course!) the discussion of fullerenes belongs more generally in the article on bitumen than here specifically. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Pseudoscience categories

I believe that the article should be placed in a pseudoscience category on the basis that there is sourced discussion about the use of shungite in pseudoscientific claims. The article specifically mentions alternative medicine and 5G misinformation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The article is not about pseudoscientific beliefs attaching to the rock; it's simply about the rock. The article on London has sourced discussions on transport, demography &c, but is not found in category:Transport nor category:Demography. Shungite is covered in Crystal healing which is in Category:Pseudoscience ... that's an appropriate back-path from Category:Pseudoscience to Shungite. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I still disagree that pseudoscience is not a defining characteristic of the topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If there were a subcat of Pseudoscience along the lines of 'objects to which pseudoscientific claims are attached', that would be an appropriate category for this article. None of the three categories you have so far suggested are defining; they're all more oblique and WP lacks WP:OBLCAT. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That's because "obliqueness" is not a criterion to define the scope of categories. If definingeness were defined as narrowly as you claim it to be, most topic categories could not exist. I should note that a large share of search results about shiungite are related to pseudoscience, so it is definitely defining. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Defining is thought of in terms of reliable sources, not woo crystal vendors. If this was an article on the woo belief; or if there were the category alluded to above, then there would be something to do here. But neither is the case. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I need to seek future. After wading through the pseudoscience junk results, I am still neither convinced for or against your judgment, and am now awaiting input from a third party. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I have posted a request at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization to settle this dispute, since we are unable to agree. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

t/y. I am rubbing my shungite for the correct outcome even as we wait. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

(refactored from Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Content dispute at Talk:Shungite)

Per WP:CATSPECIFIC,

While it should typically be clear from the name of an existing category which pages it should contain, the text of the category page may sometimes provide additional information on potential category contents.

Also, per WP:TOPICCAT,

• Topic categories are named after a topic (usually sharing a name with the Wikipedia article on that topic). For example, Category:France contains articles relating to the topic France.

• Set categories are named after a class (usually in the plural). For example, Category:Cities in France contains articles whose subjects are cities in France.

Regards,

Thinker78 (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78: But what is your opinion on the question? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the guidance I shared may illuminate this issue. But I often have a peculiar and non-mainstream way of interpreting things, therefore, if my interpretation has any resonance with you and Tagishsimon or in the dispute in general, it may be helpful. If it is not clear without I explaining my interpretation then it may not be that helpful. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)