*Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Belteshazzar]. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 16:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
*Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Belteshazzar]. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 16:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
**I already made clear I was dropping the stick. Also, you seem to have misrepresented what I said about Quackwatch. [[User:Belteshazzar|Belteshazzar]] ([[User talk:Belteshazzar|talk]]) 03:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.
If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
Something about an App which generates concentrations of quantum dots, which could possibly inspire and uplift users, but which mysteriously finds locations of disturbing events. Or something. Alexbrn (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They've built a lot of woo-woo from the fact that their app uses the freely available Quantum RNG service provided from Australian National University. (If you use that site to decide where to order lunch, you can have a Quantum Meal. Collapse the taco/sandwich wave function!)
The article lays it on so thick that it takes a careful reading to even figure that out that they appear to have just taken the existing idea of Geodashing/Geohashing and given it a trendy brand. ApLundell (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More eyes needed there. An editor keeps edit warring in unverifiable and POV content, [1] in violation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:CATEGRS. The editor also attacked me on my talk page. [2]Guy Macon, I'm making sure you see this, as you've commented before on the matter of undue weight on speculations of homosexuality. Crossroads-talk- 22:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few recent edits have sought to remove the well-sourced word "baseless" from the phrase "Bondi supported Trump's baseless claims that there was large-scale voter fraud...." These efforts have been rebuffed thus far, but more eyes might be a good idea. Neutralitytalk 15:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Due to persistent demonization and discrimination, many younger Serbs in Croatia have converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism in order to "become Croats", some changing their names to look more Croatian.
Information from aticle [3] and from this source [4], author is Thomas, Raju G.C. [5]
I have never heard or read in books or scientific papers in Croatian, Serbian or English this information (many younger Serbs in Croatia have converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism in order to "become Croats). In the footnote write this, (I obtained this information from some Serbs living in Zagreb who did not wish to reveal their identities.)
Is this fringe information? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as seen in this diff [6]. Calling these sociological events as "fringe" is outrageous and indecent. Sadkσ(talk is cheap) 21:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadko: You have link my edit and good will to keep this fringe information as part of the "Anti-Serb sentiment" article, although this information is not confirmed anywhere. Therefore show me books and scientific papers which confirm this fact. It does not exist. Mikola22 (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's fringe exactly; I just think it has to be used carefully. It is anecdotal evidence reported by one author (who seems to have limited expertise on Yugoslavia, although the book is a proper academic one) at one specfic point in time (2003) so we can't build too much on it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book only seem as properly equipped academic work, but it is actually utter fringe (most review described ti as "alternative view to the mainstream scholarship"), if nothing than for authors unlikely venture into subject he knows nothing or at best very little about (his insight into Balkan history is nonexistent, he reiterates only those arguments no serious researcher every takes into any consideration, such as longstanding hatred, inability to reconcile "European" Croats and "Asiatic" Serbs, and whats not) - author reiterates same old revisionist tropes about sequence of events that started the war, offering elaborate lies about supposed revival of Nazi-era symbols in Croatia, blaming in the process exclusively the republics that proclaimed independence from Yugoslavia, acquitting the Serbian leadership, the Yugoslav Army, and Milošević - all claims that have been meticulously deconstructed, analyzed and refuted by myriad of mainstream scholars on Yugoslav modern and contemporary history.--౪ Santa ౪99° 22:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Santasa99: And what do you suggest, that we delete this information or have it disguised in the article as I suggested(my edit). Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Santasa99: "supposed revival of Nazi-era symbols in Croatia" really? "Za dom spremni" is not a suppose revival, it is heavily disputed in Croatian political life, some even defending it as an "old Croatian salute" like former president Kitarovic. About the information it should stay in the article since those things happen and did happened a lot in the 90-is but the decision should be made by editors outside the Balkan areas and so far only editor @Bobfrombrockley: belongs to the description.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 13. December 2020
Any serious political figure who has tried to give some ludicrous explanation through a personal uninformed view of the “Za dom spremni” salute in any positive context has been strongly criticized by the entire (except the fringe) academic and most of the political establishment. The fact is, however, that salute has always been used by Croatian radical nationalists of fascist or Usatshe provenance, before, during and after 1990 independence - independence has not revived it, only these kinds of people has not being prosecuted for voicing it in public, which is normal thing for any normal country in democratic world.
In the meantime, some editors are trying to present the independence of Croatia, in particular (although views on Bosnian, Kosovan, Montenegrin independence, and break-up of Yugoslavia as a whole suffer from similar problems), as an attempt of re-nazification of the Croatian socio-political and constitutional-legal order. No, no symbols of Ustasha, nor state symbols of the NDH, were incorporated into the constitutional order or institutional-legal framework of the Republic of Croatia after the declaration of independence - everything else is just meaningless and malicious subterfuge.
@Mikola22:, you should assess the situation and do what you normally do in those cases.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like I wrote before this decision should be made by a neutral editors outside Balkans, neglecting the fact that this things are happening is a POV pushing and I dont think that editors who have personal agenda regarding this matter should decide if this info should or not be removed, we have an opinion of one neutral editor here until then the info should not be removed or described as fringe ,because it is not User:Theonewithreason (talk) 13. December 2020
(Inserted post) • Yeah, sometimes the best option would be to have editor(s) from outside of the concerned area and scope to chip in their thoughts and view, however your suggestion is extreme and that certainly is not how this project works.--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
these kinds of people has not being prosecuted for voicing it in public, which is normal thing for any normal country in democratic world Then Germany, where the analogous Heil HitlerSieg Heil is forbidden, must be an abnormal country... --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have gave us neat upside-down analogy - it's not Ustashe who spawned Nazi party and its ideology, Nazi-Germany and Hitler, it's the other way around; and in a way you confirm my fears that this kind of analogous victimology in Serbia, comparing Serb victimhood to Jewish and "Serbophobia" to antisemitism, that is real in real life, do exists in the project as well.--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting too complex and multifaceted for me. I do not understand what you are trying to say here. In what way is what I said connected to the existence of Serbophobia (or its victimology, or whatever) in Wikipedia? You even seem to suggest that I somehow claimed that the Nazi movement originated in Croatia. I do not know where you are coming from, where you are standing, or where you are going, only that you seem to read far too much into what people write. But Hitler and Pavelic both, as well as other dictators of the time, were actually inspired by Mussolini, regarding the authoritarianism as well as the xenophobia, anti-Communism, and the close alliance with the Vatican. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy is flawed - Nazi-Germany can't be compared with NDH, nor post-war Germany with modern-day Croatia. NDH regime was spawned by Nazi-Germany in a nation under occupation by Nazi-Germany, just like Nedić's Serbia, or Ukraine, Poland, annexed Austria, Hungary, Vichy's France; Germany is really a special case regarding its handling of its past, exception rather than a rule for the rest, and even German laws are under constant criticism as an excessive (by the way salute alone is more in line with "Sieg Heil" than "Heil Hitler").--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - "Sieg Heil" is what I meant, obviously. And yes, of course those two can be compared, and the comparison shows close similarity. Dictatorships ruled by mass-murdering bastards both - and Ustaše existed even before Hitler came to power. But this is drifting further and further away from the purpose of this page, namely alerting users with fringe-theory experience of articles with fringe theories in it, and further and further into FORUM territory. So, I won't answer your next digression, which I am pretty sure will follow. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an extraordinary claim which needs WP:EXTRAORDINARY sources. If this truly happened, it would have been mentioned in the countless publications about the dissolution of Yugoslavia, but it's not reported anywhere else other than this one book.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The book is written by a University professor and it is published by an academic press.
(2) This doesn't exactly belong in the "fringe" category. Fringe would be if someone wrote that 10,000 or 700,000 people died at Jasenovac for example. This is anecdotal information based on the professor's own research/reporting. Therefore I think it is OK to use it and attribute it in-text to the author, which is what is done in cases where statements are problematic/challenged or biased.
By the way, I'm not necessarily against removing this information since there isn't confirmation elsewhere. I'd rather it was achieved through consensus though and not because a few editors on Balkan-related topics with the same POV decided it should be removed. Note that the lone non-Balkan editor here did not object to it being used. --Griboski (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look at the book, at its contributors and of some reviews of it. It is not my area at all, so don't feel comfortable being in any kind of aribeter role, but it seems to me that in relation to how the source should be used in the article: anecdotal evidence from one reasonably informed but not expert academic from one one moment two decades ago is not enough it itself to base a factual claim in our encyclopedic voice but rather would need attribution and qualification - and if nobody else has said this it might not be due anyway. In relation to whether the source is fringe: I don't think fringe is the right word. The editor and contributors are all academics and the book is published by a respectable academic press and must have gone through some kind of review process, but it is clear that it takes up a position which challenges much recieved wisdom and so is somewhat partisan: the overall argument is that the West is the main bad guy and on the ground all sides were as bad as each other. In scholarship, it is important that academic writing challenges orthodoxies, and this is different from being fringe as such. However, the contributors in most cases lack specific research expertise on Yugoslavia and seem to be writing about it in a quite dilettante-ish way, and many have reputations for being pretty partisan and controversial (e.g. the late media studies professor Edward S. Herman), so WP:DUE would generally require us to balance it with other perspectives. In short, this is more a due weight issue than a frigne theory issue, although it might not be worth the effort to balance and attribute something that is already pretty flimsy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Bob, this is a proper, informed, and, if I may conclude, accurate explanation and description - it's not my intention to sound too insolent, but, I guess, if my own take from the above post, which is simpler and more categorical, prompted this well written elaboration, then, ... I must say, it worked :-) !?--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this section cites a few single researchers as evidence that somehow schizoid PD is linked to sexual activity. One was a researcher in the 1930s or 40s (Ronald Fairbairn), another is Harry Guntrip (1960s - 1970s). The most modern researcher cited is Salman Akhtar (1980s). All who practiced psychodynamic therapy and used observational studies (non-experimental) for their research. Moreover, I noticed source material for this section includes a clinical dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction by a M.A. student at Pepperdine. This is not a peer-reviewed journal article. Additionally, source material from this piece goes back to the 1930s and 40s and doesn't seem update-to-date at all.
No modern-day research on this has ever suggested that any sort of sexual behavior is at all linked to this condition. The current modern psychology handbook DSM-V makes no mention of sexual activity linked to this condition. The DSM-IV doesn't either. In fact, validity markers even identifying it as a disorder is so poor that there is serious debate among the psychology community about removing it in the next version of the DSM (see Hummelen, B., Pedersen, G., Wilberg, T., Karterud, S. (2015) "Poor Validity of the DSM-IV Schizoid Personality Disorder Construct as a Diagnostic Category"; J Pers Disord https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25248009/). For some reason, this information is not included on this page at all.
I'll note too that no Wikipedia article links sexual activity to any personality disorder. The reason they are called personality disorders are that they are linked to personality traits. Not sexual activity. There is a separate section in the DSM for sexual dysfunction or gender dysphoria.
Anyway, I've tried in vain to edit this section but it gets reinstated with a one-phrase rebuttal. No discussion is allowed. So trying to appeal to a third-party on this. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bol1966 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the section and responded on the article talk page. I agree with you that the section is very poor quality and the sources used are essentially useless. Most of them were written in the 50s or 60s, and the field has changed substantially since then. I think it'd be better to just remove the whole Sexuality section than to leave it in its current state. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A book isn't pseudoscientific in and of itself. What it is describing/writing about could be and in this case probably is. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very popular book, theosophy itself includes various pseudoscientific doctrines. There currently already are mentions via L. Sprague de Camp, maybe a one-line summary of those in the lead would be better than only a label... —PaleoNeonate – 03:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added, will see if it stands, —PaleoNeonate – 05:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almost the usual. Someone thinks ID is science, but also that people are dessert. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for calling attention to this. I've watchlisted it and fixed a couple dead links while I was there. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, guess what, I just looked at the links provided in the OP. -Roxy the inedible dog .wooF 19:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Compact between US government and "Galactic Federation"
Revealed today not by some random quack, but the highly accomplished co-founder of the Israeli Space Program. I detail this breaking story here: Talk:Israel_Space_Agency#What_is_going_on_with_Chaim_Eshed?(!) (with a courtesy note here). I acknowledge that this post is a bit FORUMy, since as far as the project goes, there is nothing to really do at this time. Still, I just wanted to bring this unusual story to the attention of FTN regulars. Happy Saturday! El_C 19:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, courtesy note already removed as FORUMy. I suppose that's fair enough. I've probably overstepped there... And here... Anyway, thanks again for indulging me. El_C 19:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say for now that it seems like a strategic time to sell conspiracy theory books, considering the current culture, radicalization and need to dismiss reality (and the claims in the post sound familiar). Page 35 of (Barkun, Michael (2003). A culture of conspiracy – Apocalyptic visions in contemporary America. University of California Press. ISBN0-520-23805-2.) hits the spot with the Dean quote... And well, let's wait for sources that'll appear if it gains some notability. If aliens read this: hello. —PaleoNeonate – 03:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, for sure: ~alien wave~ Indeed, well said. I, too, find it noteworthy how Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy has never been more relevant. Anyway, certainly, a financial motive was my first instinct. But Eshed is 80-years-old now, and from my own cursory understanding of the Israeli book market, domestic sales of the book are unlikely to turn into a windfall for him. But I suppose the end goal could be to become a multimillionaire off of the international conspiracy circuit, like say, David Icke. But is that something which is worth tarnishing one's legacy over? I doubt he is undergoing serious economic privations (though who knows), since his military rank alone (brigadier-general) bestows upon him a rather decent pension. Ditto, I'm sure, for being the former head of the Israel Space Agency. So, I am a bit puzzled by his motivation. I queried a Hebrew Wikipedia editor who is prominent in the Israeli space industry (I noticed in passing him saying that he has known Eshed for decades) if he could shed some light on the topic. Because, I have long known about Chaim Eshed's many accomplishments, so I was a bit floored today to learn that this constitutes his version of reality now. El_C 05:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aliens walk among us. Trump was on the verge of revealing this, but ended up thinking better of it. I was also on the verge of revealing this, along with Spain's treaty with the mountain trolls and the secret smurf population in Togo, but I also thought better of it.
There is a "Galactic Federation." These aliens wish for their existence to remain secret, for now, because "humanity is not ready." So, Chaim Eshed thinks humanity is ready? Apparently, the aliens were wrong in thinking that Chaim Eshed was ready. Once again, conspiracies are shown not to work - there is always a blabbermouth. SCNR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If aliens want to keep their existence secret and Eshed threatens to reveal that, wouldn't the aliens just kill him? So many questions. --mfb (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, do you know if the Galactic Federation is interested in how Wikipedia writes about them? Is there any risk that they would block Wiki in their, well, territories, if we were to disoblige them? Some major entities are very sensitive, as we know (<cough>China<cough>), and this is beyond major. Maybe the WMF ought to try to set up a meeting with representatives? Bishonen | tålk 10:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
How quickly conspiracy Saturday turns into comic relief Sunday! Anyway, intergalactic liaison — I like that. A couple of notes. I made a mistake about Eshed being the head of the Israel Space Agency. He was actually the head of the Ministry of Defense entity (from 1983 to 2011) which is tasked with maintaining Israel's space industry, overall. Judging solely from the respective Wikipedia articles, its annual budget does, however, appear to greatly exceed that of the ISA (needless to say, this is not an area with which I am too familiar). At any rate, Eshed does seem to have been instrumental in the Israeli air and space field since the sixties. And his clearance level must have been off the charts, seeing as he was a brigadier-general in the super-hush-hush Unit 81 — so put on your tinfoil hats, everyone! Eshed has also been the recipient of three Israel Defense Prizes, all for ground-breaking work the nature of which remains classified to this day. Finally, a quick note on 7 Days. Despite (or perhaps because) of it being the most popular publication put to print in the country (I, myself, have read hundreds of em over the years, though not so much recently), it always seem to contrast somewhat awkwardly with the Yedioth Ahronoth/Ynet brand. Almost as if to say: serious journalism on the day-by-day, but letting loose with the more yellowish 7 Days on Saturdays. So, while 7 Days, to its credit, has had some major history-setting scoops over the years, it is also equally infamous for its many (at times, spectacular) blunders. Note that I have not read the full aforementioned Eshed interview (grr...paywall), so what I have described has been mostly gleaned from other sources which discuss the interview. Apparently, he also speaks about travelling to a black hole, and more — speaking of which, I've always dreamed of eating spaghetti while being spaghettified... Delicious!El_C 21:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't have the sources we don't have to worry about it. End of Wikipedia story. But do we really believe that of all the planets in the entire universe we are the only living beings....hmmmm. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we don't, Olive. Well, I know I don't. That's a whole nother story than believing "aliens walk among us". Bishonen | tålk 22:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Hah! Right! Thus opening statement, "If we don't have the sources we don't have to worry about it." Mind you, if they do walk among us we may have to worry about it, but that's another story altogether. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, not that much stranger than some of what has gone on this year! ==:oO Littleolive oil (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we collect some more sources here? The article I read (through some backchannels -- maybe try resource exchange, El_C (talk·contribs)) makes me think that there is possibly something close to a WP:FRINGEBLP here worth documenting. jps (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I note on the talk page of the ISA, the Hebrew Wikipedia editor I reached out to who is a prominent figure in the Israeli space industry and who has known Eshed for decades, has gotten back to me and he seems to be as puzzled as the rest of us. So, unfortunately, no answers from that avenue. El_C 01:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Galactic Federation is now the #7 trend on Twitter. So, expect more English-speaking media organizations to cover this story. For them, it's a nice break from stories on the election, COVID-19 and Christmas...you know, those last 5 minutes of the news cast where they report odd ball stories. LizRead!Talk! 04:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they’re in hiding. Remember what happened the last time Earth was asked to join a federation of planets? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an alien in hiding, I assure you there are no aliens in hiding. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Littleolive is right that other life somewhere in the universe is statistically probable. As Bishonen reminded us, it's really different here. These supposedly managed to detect us and travel light years with incredible technology (implausible in the context of the Fermi paradox), but cannot help with the pandemic, energy crisis or climate change and somehow apparently need our help to understand physics and the universe. There's also mixed claim of intervention (have prevented nuclear wars) and non-intervention (we're never ready, of course). When they tell Trump to not disclose them, he obliges, but they cannot educate him about how the planet is heating up. Moreover, all the articles who mention the book are basically WP:PRESSRELEASEs about that very book... —PaleoNeonate – 10:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's life, Jim, but not as we know it. With the technology those aliens have, humans would probably have destroyed each other in paranuclear wars - the aliens instead came to visit us! They are wusses. As Mfb said, they did not even kill Eshed, as we would expect from a powerful human in that situation. Maybe because they are illegal aliens and their kids are in detention. And Trump keeps mum because he sold them real estate that does not belong to him, probably Greenland, and does not want them to talk to anybody who could wise them up. It all makes sense if you force it to. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoNeonate, this is a bit off topic, but I think it's important to distinguish life from intelligent life. With earth as our only frame of reference, the latter seems to only constitute a tiny sliver of the overall duration of biological evolution as has been recorded thus far. Of course, there's no way to tell how rare either life or intelligent life are, as far as a galactic sample is concerned. But the point also is that sentience may not be a given in the course of biological evolutions (i.e. no sentient dinosaurs and so on). El_C 19:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... so I've been wondering, if it becomes mainstream enough, if the article should be on the book or the author. —PaleoNeonate – 00:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've discussed this with another editor but I'm not really comfortable dealing with this myself.
The article I believe gives undue weight to conspiracy theories surrounding the bombing. The conspiracy being that Australian intelligence services were behind it.
The sources to support the theory are:
NSW Parliament hansard with comments from a politician arguing that a conspiracy exists. His claims are hard to verify. Some of the most outrageous include a claim that two Australian politicians told him that they had been told by scientists working for the the CSIRO that they had been asked to make fake bombs a few weeks prior. I have not found anything to substantiate those comments (such as statements from the people themselves) and I would think two senior politicians would have publicly repeated that if they were true.
The "Walsh Coronial Inquest into the Hilton Bombing", which as far as I can find was closed without a report produced due to the matter being declared criminal which meant the matter was handed to police. The article references this inquest at many points, but I have been unable to find a copy of the supposed report or a record of it so I can't verify any claims made.
Green Left Weekly, a far left newspaper of questionable reliability who don't get great reviews from Media Bias Fact-check. The story fits into their usual preconceived biases and nothing is verifiable.
I'm also not certain books should be used as sources here either. It's not exactly hard to write and publish a book. They don't require any review, let alone peer review, but the article leans on many books alleging conspiracy. I'm sure I can find books that say 9/11 was a conspiracy too.
The article is so heavily based on this that it probably needs a total rewrite. I would like some help with it as it's way outside my normal area.
Completely unfamiliar with the subject, but I agree that it is giving WP:UNDUE weight to the conspiracy version. The lede only mentions the possible security services' involvement and implies a coverup. It comes as a surprise then when you get to the first section of the article and find out someone confessed, was convicted and served time for it all. That being said, the whole article has WP:PROPORTION issues: the informant is given a biographical summary that is twice as long as the entire description of the bombing (which only appears in the lede). A rewrite would be a good thing just based on PROPORTION and coherent narrative alone, even were there not UNDUE/FRINGE problems. Agricolae (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree is problematic. Have moved the conspiracy section down so less dominant, and added templates to tag some of the issues. Needs a lot of work!BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.Z. Myers has posted this on his blog: [7], and Science-Based Medicine has this: [8]. It looks as if Paul Davies is meddling in a field where he is a layman, with the expected result. I am one too, so maybe some people who are not can have a look at Paul_Davies#Scientific_research, the second part of which is not about physics. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The law of attraction of fringe/pseudoscience. Davies was never so far out on the cosmology limb that he fell over into the dark side, but his Templeton Foundation funding and pussyfooting around the lack of empirical evidence for theology did win him monies. If he's willing to go out on a limb for physics, I have no doubt that he's willing to fall down a rabbit hole in oncology. jps (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did some trimming and updating, and I added the SBM link. XOR'easter (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can be seen as something, according to Goop. And it seems I am a "logical positivist swindler", whatever that is supposed to mean. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a hat note saying "not to be confused with Energy (physics) or Energy (psychological)??
I see an opportunity here: Goopipedia, anyone? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we have us here on that page a gen-you-whine edit warrior, carrying on his little edit war with no air support. He has run out of ammunition and is now reduced to lobbing "I understand that Wikipedia should not be promoting fringe theories but this cult of skepticism is another thing entirely" grenades. Come on over to Talk:Energy (esotericism) and see the show! I will make popcorn. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone here willing to go to ANI and seek a pseudoscience topic ban? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's too soon for that. These new accounts sometimes just go away on their own. VERY occasionally, they actually turn around and become productive. jps (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I wish this were about aliens, but here we are: Jonestown
I'm editing a lot of bland, economics-related Guyana articles, but Jonestown conspiracy theories is tagged for EVERYTHING and it just... makes me exhausted. It's practically a fringe fork! Does anyone have some advice for a newb? I was thinking at least cutting the External Links section for redundancies about the actual People's Temple, since that's sort of kindling the OR. And while it's interesting to see a sentence or two about what kinds of conspiracies came from the soviet side, the section just vomits facts without any context, making it read like it's not actually a conspiracy. And a conspiracy about newspaper headlines all reporting different things... That means Wikipedia's own RS must be a conspiracy too! See? I can't. Advice? Estheim (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AfD? The piece looks cobbled together like a WP:POVFORK. The stuff in it that is verifiable could safely be re-merged into main articles if it's not there already. jps (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estheim. Just a cursory look unearthed two sections that were either WP:UNDUE or WP:OR. Dig in and cut. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My first time here, so hopefully this is the appropriate venue. Could we get some eyes on Titanic conspiracy theories? The article is currently assessed as B-class despite being tagged for presenting fringe theories with improper weight (a tag that, at a brief glance, looks extremely warranted). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory look shows the content is mostly “alternative cause of sinking theories” (bulkheads, joints, coal fire, etc), and only the “switched ships“ theory is a genuine conspiracy theory. Also entire sections are cited to single non notable books. If the books content is not discussed in sources independent of the book, and is cited only to the book, it’s WP:UNDUE.- LuckyLouie (talk)
Another traditional medicine article where there is confusion between intention and effective healing, in case anyone is interested to work on it. Examples: "to induce a profound state of healing", "or playing an instrument such as the didgeridoo or flute, and usually involve a mastery of advanced techniques to evoke the healing effects." There also is an explicit invitation to download a magazine article: "is available for free download from this link here", use of style-discouraged second person "you may find", etc. —PaleoNeonate – 15:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it used to be worse. I removed some of the vestigial POV pushing. jps (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What to do with skeptics that have been "skepticed"
I'm particularly talking about Mick West, who seems to be an expert on anything and is easily quoted on every fringe/paranormal article. For example in the Pentagon UFO videos article, he offers an explanation of the objects being birds, despite the instrumental showing dark for hot/white for cold, meaning the birds would be colder than the water . I'm well aware due to WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT we shouldn't give paranormal subjects undue weight, but how easily should skeptic voices be introduced in an article? This guy's explinations are often so basic. In the case of the famous GIMBAL video, in an article on VICE he's quoted as "He believes GIMBAL to be a plane as well, lit by the infrared flare of the engine and locked in place by a trick of the gimbal mounted camera viewing it." (basically saying due to rotation of the camera, what pilots are seeing are the flare effect of the exhaust of a plane). I'm finding it really hard to believe the two pilots would react that way as if they never saw this effect before (or they're maliciously acting), and the Pentagon would say these are "unidentified aerial phenomena" (whatever that means), just because, and this guy just knows, despite not being an expert in aviation (his Wiki article doesn't even list any education). What I'm getting at is, should any claim made by any skeptic be included, just because they're a skeptic? Loganmac (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PARITY is relevant. In the case of the Pentagon UFO videos, the sources which say, "THESE VIDEOS ARE UFOS" are properly countervailed by skeptics because, well, no one else gives a damn. Excluding the skeptic opinion in these situations under the argument that the authors lack credentials would only make sense if the sources upon which they were commenting were written by credentialed experts. The education of Tom DeLonge is a proper basis of comparison. jps (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a blogger named "SkepticEd", and there are sentences that end with "skeptic" and sentences that start with "Ed.", as in "edited". Other than that, Google will not tell me what "skepticed" means. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was a dumb term I made up to mean when skeptics themselves get contradicted by other sources, specially when the skeptic isn't academically educated in the specific field.--Loganmac (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
VistaSunset wants to misuse that article as Intelligent design propaganda. I do not want to revert again because that would look as if I am a one-man-show. Maybe somebody could make it clear what WP:FRINGE means and that the whole science community disagrees. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I posted some concerns on the talk page. I didn't restore the mention of pseudoscience, but at least it no longer uses "theory of intelligent design" at current time. —PaleoNeonate – 05:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it relevant that Richard Dawkins does not want to debate him? Dawkins does not want to debate lots of people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While he did participate to some public education projects that included interviews and public debate shows, he's also notable for saying that there is no point in giving an impression of legitimacy by accepting such...[1] —PaleoNeonate – 13:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The granularity with which Wikipedia is obsessed with minor back-and-forths on timescales of roughly ten years in the past is a real problem. Meanwhile, his disillusionment with Donald Trump gets nary a whisper: [23]. (Please do not go adding this, just interesting what Wikipedia articlespace is paying attention to, no?) We could do with an initiative to remove stale instances of WP:RECENTISM that are more obvious now that a decade has passed. jps (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a lot of cleaning up at the article, but a pro-fringe user with an apparent COI (likely Jubb himself) has been adding more to the article, and I'd appreciate getting some more eyes on it. In addition, I'm unsure the degree to which the information there is appropriate for Wikipedia, particularly the information cited to his website (which has been down since 2017 or so).
Is seeing some recent activity. Probably could benefit from extra eyes, at least while the pandemic is ongoing ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Littleolive oil: I see you just removed[24] the criticism that the site peddles pseudoscience, but in the source this organization is criticized for being "pseudowissenschaftlich". What's going on ? Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I translated the article. I feel the language I used which came from that translation was much more emphatic than pseudoscience. While we use the word pseudoscience and know what we mean readers may not. I think we tend to use a single word to red flag something but that is our own Wikipedia culture and may leave context unsaid. This is the translation." However, experts criticize both the self-designation as a research group as well as its working method and interpretation of the term propaganda. The terms "research" and "research group" arouse the expectation of finding scientific information on the website. However, the content on the website does not meet this requirement." Feel free to revert me but I'd suggest that a longer explanation and more emphatic explanation is what our readers need. To be honest I am so fed up with all of the conspiracy theories being pushed these days that I may not be neutral on this. ( All just my opinion of course.) Littleolive oil (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please give this user discretionary sanctions notice? I have noticed a lot of apologias for conspiracy theories that may eventually require admin intervention.
There is a slow but on-going discussion at the talk page about whether the Bates Method can be described as "ineffective", whether the Bates method is intended to improve "Eyesight", or the "Refractive power of the eye", and what bearing that distinction has, if any, on how the word "ineffective" may be applied.
More eyes (ha ha! Eyes! Get it?) on this discussion might be helpful. ApLundell (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh FFS, is this still going on!? Alexbrn (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two important points which I fully realized only recently. From June 2019 to February 2020, four established users removed "ineffective". Secondly, there is a known mechanism by which such a method might result in real, lasting improvement, even though the eye's refractive power would likely not change. This is in fact discussed in the Presbyopia article. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could we ask for permanent page protection on that article, to prevent us from constantly having to check if editors have ballsed it up? -Roxy the inedible dog .wooF 20:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Belteshazzar has been trolling the talk-page for the Bates method article since March 2020 requesting "ineffective" to be removed or claiming there is evidence the bates method can cause improvements. I am going to file an WP:AE discussion about Belteshazzar but it will take about an hour to file because I need to get through all their disruptive edits since March. I will file that in the next few days. I believe this user should be banned. Two individual requests were already filed to ban this user on the admin noticeboard but those discussions were archived so the next place to go is an enforcement request. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant in the slow but on-going discussion, I supportPsychologist Guy's filing of an WP:AE discussion about Belteshazzar. He/she appears to me obsessed with effecting the removal of "ineffective" from the initial sentence of the article and impervious to all rational arguments to justify its retention. -- Jmc (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support a report at AE seeking a block from that one article. Question: should Belteshazzar be blocked from the article talk page as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support a Topic Ban on eyesight related subjects, broadly construed such that working on Aldous Huxley would be totally NOT OK. I've been playing along at home all the time. -Roxy the inedible dog .wooF 19:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support As it is written: "And I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, yet not dissolve doubts: now if thou canst not read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, then neither shalt thou be clothed with scarlet, and nor have a chain of gold about thy neck, and never shalt thou be the third ruler in the kingdom. Thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which know not, nor hear, nor see. For there have come forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of thy palace: and thou hast seen the part of the hand that wrote. And this is the writing that was written:
Now that someone who clearly understands this mechanism still supports "ineffective", I am dropping the stick. This is for the future if something changes and people want to make sure this doesn't happen again with some other subject. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed this on your talk page before but adding those in the guideline could conflict with established policies like WP:PSCI and WP:YESPOV. —PaleoNeonate – 02:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those might be amended also in such an eventuality. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikipedia is going to be amending core policy just because somebody wants to push some eye nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since they're important to maintain the encyclopedia's credibility, I guess that's an unrealistic hope... —PaleoNeonate – 09:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant if the Bates method becomes less fringe. Belteshazzar (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's comedy gold this conversation. How on earth could the bates lunacy become less fringe fgs. -Roxy the inedible dog .wooF 15:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I explained how. Perceptual learning, mainly. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, comedy gold indeed. Sad at the same time, since Belteshazzar obsessively continues his/her disruptive editing, so Psychologist Guy's filing of an WP:AE discussion is all the more necessary. -- Jmc (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about the edit you reverted here, you're wrong, as I explained here. I understand how someone could make that mistake, however, just as I understand how mistakes could have been made regarding this subject. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already made clear I was dropping the stick. Also, you seem to have misrepresented what I said about Quackwatch. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Historian of Chinese astronomy
Xi Zezong(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was a historian of science who opined that an ancient Chinese astronomer discovered and described Ganymede using his bare eyes, without bothering to wait around until telescopes had been invented to make it perceptible from the Earth. This idea is mentioned at Jupiter and possibly elsewhere. 1.) is the article about him worth having? 2.) if so, shouldn't it treat his claims rather more sceptically? and 3.) if not, or even if so, should the claim be included in the Jupiter article? GPinkerton (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I learned a new word! Thank you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
China is responsible for many inventions we use today. Perhaps a legitimate question could be answered with out disparaging the country. Such comments smack of a Western centrism. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Littleolive oil, No they don't. Claims Ganymede is visible to naked eye is decidedly fringe; this isn't the ancient Chinese inventing the wheelbarrow or discovering the circulatory system, this is potentially closer the Hindu nationalists that have their schoolbooks claim the (flying) car was invented 6,000 years ago in "Vedic" India. GPinkerton (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. I could care less for myself about answering the question asked here or about a fringe topic. Let me be clear. A question can be asked and answered whether fringe or not, with out disparaging an entire country. That's what is happening here. Just deal with the issue. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Littleolive oil, how? It's not disparaging an entire country to suggest one of its 20th century academics might have been wrong about something in its ancient past or may not constitute due weight in an astronomy article. GPinkerton (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is disparaging. " "my-country-invented-everything"-ism?" I apologize for taking this on, actually. There is much in Chinese history in every area, that is/was enlightened. If I've misunderstood the comment here I apologize. Sometimes I think we in the West can be a little or a lot arrogant about our place in the world and some days I find that frustrating. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Littleolive oil, in any case I have rectified the articles involved. Xi's actual presentation was less fringe than was apparent and his claims much much less forthright. GPinkerton (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Littleolive oil, please learn how to handle the logic of quantifiers. "The Chinese did not invent everything" is different from "The Chinese did not invent anything". The first may be hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, but it is obviously true. The second is obviously false, and it is a strawman. Chinese culture gave us a lot, but nationalist minds are vulnerable to the temptation of grabbing other people's merits and sticking them to people who happened to have been born at the same place as themselves. That is not specific to any nation, and I did not claim it was. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Littleolive oil I might agree with you if anyone above said, or implied, anything in particular about China or the Chinese people. Read through it again - I think that people are poking fun at this type of nationalism in general terms. Goodness knows it is prevalent in many places - I've seen tea towels on display in Edinburgh gift shops that would have you believe that Scots invented everything from fresh air to clean living. That these claims pertain to China is not central to anything people have been saying, nobody is disparaging the nation or its people. GirthSummit (blether) 08:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed two other articles, Galilean moons#Discovery and Ganymede (moon)#History that also mention the Chinese claim. The latter article cites a US source (an abstract by K. Brecher in the Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society that can be read on google scholar [26]). I have no idea whether Brecher is reliable or perhaps returned from Beijing with stars in his/her eyes after an exciting trip to what at the time (1981) was still somewhat of a "forbidden city" for Americans. If current RS say that such a naked-eye sighting of Ganymede was impossible (in other words, that Brecher was being gullible), then those two articles need to be changed to reflect that. NightHeron (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NightHeron, Littleolive oil, it turns out the Wikipedia articles were rather overstating the case. I have rewritten and slightly expanded both Xi and Gan's (the ancient astronomer) articles to take account of the sources, which relate that 1.) Xi did experiments to demonstrate at least two of the moons should be visible to the naked eye of someone with perfect vision at least sometimes and 2.) other people (admittedly after Gallileo) report seeing the Galilean moons without telescopes, again with ideal conditions and extraordinary eyesight. 3.) Xi did not claim "Gan saw Ganymede" as our text suggested, but rather that it is possible he saw a moon and that of the four Galilean moons Ganymede and Callisto were most visible and Ganymede the most likely candidate for Gan to have seen. GPinkerton (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NightHeron, 1981 was when Xi published. A report the following year in Nature, another paper the next year I can't access (Zhengzong, Y., Shiyang, J., & Xiangliang, H. "Experimental test for Jupiter’s satellites to the naked eye." Kexue Tongbao, vol. 28, No. 7, 1983, pp. 927–929).... and then nothing but a summary of these three papers' core conclusions in the Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures. I would say this needs to be attributed and we should be careful to phrase it as "may have observed" and "might be Ganymede, or could be Callisto". Furthermore, the original text is lost and the evidence comes from a 8th century AD text reporting on the now-lost 4th century BC text. GPinkerton (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xi comes under People notable for only one event and therefore should not have an article. It should be a redirect to Gan De, the ancient astronomer who may or may not have seen the moons of Jupiter. TFD (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of many COVID-19 related articles which are a target for disinformation spreaders. ADE is one of the reasons falsely cited by the antivax crown why the vaccines are unsafe.[27] Eyes on this during the pandemic would probably be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
aka the BioNTech/Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. This article is another of many COVID-19 related articles which are a target for disinformation spreaders. The attack vector is seemingly to suppress safety information.[28] Eyes on this during the pandemic would probably be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BGR-34
And the woo continues, this time at the BGR-34 page. Please watchlist it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
