Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86

Recent human evolution[edit]

The whole Recent human evolution article seems like its purpose is to exaggerate recent human evolutionary rates beyond the scholarly consensus. Some things that really stand out on a cursory reading are numerous references to the work of the science journalist Nicholas Wade, the author of the widely criticsed A Troublesome Inheritance which was criticsed by scientists in an open letter for its exaggeration of recent human evolutionary rates, as well as citations of things like this BBC article from 2007, which is based on the claims of anthropologist Henry Harpending, who believed that black people were naturally more aggressive due to their genetics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ffs, it cites phys.org too. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I saw a documentary called X-men, and it seems humans are evolving very quickly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is resistance to removing Wade, on the grounds that good science writers write much more clearly than all but a few scientists. See Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a solid reason to choose one citation over another for comprehension, but has limited applicability when it comes to weight and consensus. Clear writing leaves open the potential to get things wrong, which seems to be the typical concern with any science writer (and Wade in particular). Wade's writing might be helpful in explaining details, but any contentious claims should also be able to be cited to a more reliable peer-reviewed source to avoid taking Wade's view as the consensus view. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for The Templar Revelation[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Templar Revelation (2nd nomination) - it may end up being kept, but at the moment it has no inline citations, just a link to this which I'm pretty sure fails RS. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I swear that site ripped off the aesthetic from my website aggregating resources on Hittite history from 1995 or so. Dumuzid (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been kept. It's got a big pov summary with no sources. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So… complete re-write? Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on how to include allegations of Chinese government undercounting COVID-19 cases and deaths[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 § RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Kyiv[edit]

Can (or should) we repeat the claims of reliable sources, which state that there is no evidence for the existence of the Ghost of Kyiv?[1][2][3][4][5] Some additional opinions at Talk:Ghost_of_Kyiv#Reverted_edits would be appreciated. Endwise (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fish falling from the sky[edit]

Rain of animals. Extremely curious how the anti-fringe crowd is going to treat this one. It's one of those things that seems so goofy, implausible, and inconsequential that mainstream academic science doesn't even care. So instead Wikipedia have filled this article with absolute speculation, presumably as a false balance against the presumed message that fish falling from the sky means magic is real and science is a lie. This article is like 1/5th documenting the reports of the phenomenon, and 4/5ths wild speculation. Do we allow the wild speculation only because it's inside a specific point of view? MarshallKe (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little sad that it doesn't mention the Mad Fishmonger theory. Anyone happen to have a reliable source that describes it? MrOllie (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only fishmonger I could find was "Roscoe Chandler". JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

So, having quickly perused the article (and recalling my misspent youth reading "Fortean" type works), I was actually pleasantly surprised at the sourcing (Smithsonian Magazine, National Geographic, BBC, etc.). While I would agree that "wild speculation" is an accurate descriptor, I am not quite sure what you think would be an improvement? That seems to be the state of understanding of the phenomenon. Are you suggesting we edit out the speculation? Or the whole article? Any clarification would be appreciated. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I drew the same conclusion, its seems OK, not brilliant but OK. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in the absence of a higher confidence explanation, it's pretty reasonable to describe the various theories in proportion to their mainstream acceptance. The latter bit being the trick... On a somewhat unrelated note, I'm a bit surprised nobody has taken up such research to get themselves an Ig Nobel. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm making any specific suggestion on what to do with the article, as I actually like the article as it stands. I just see that we are allowing things like "yeah, I think it might be waterspouts, man" into the article just because they happened to get published in Smithsonian. Seems like the takeaway here, at least for me, is that if mainstream academic peer-reviewed work published in a journal isn't available on a topic, we can just use whatever happens to get published in any vaguely scientific secondary source. MarshallKe (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm wondering, what do we do with abstract cosmological and particle physics questions that are open questions without a lot of consensus or published research? Are these sources just easy collections of those views, rather than the journal papers that back up those views (and editors haven't found them yet)? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm interested, too, in seeing a list of ideas that science is studying but there is truly no reliable mainstream academic consensus yet, and seeing how Wikipedia has treated these articles. MarshallKe (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, MarshallKe, have the right (if somewhat unsatisfying) answer. Where there are no (at least none found) reliable academic sources, published studies, or the like, then yes, we are forced to rely on more "popular" reliable sources. To me, that's an easy call: better to have a "dumbed-down" description of some abstruse M-theory spinoff than not describe it at all. We all know science is imperfect, always progressing, and always growing. Sometimes we just have to wait for it to get where we would like it to be. As ever, just my opinion, and happy to defer to consensus if it should go some other way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of unsolved problems probably has a solid corpus of examples of this. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm wondering, what do we do with abstract cosmological and particle physics questions that are open questions without a lot of consensus or published research? If there's not a lot of published research, then we don't write about it. If there's merely a lack of consensus, we write about the different viewpoints that exist. A debate has to be documented before we can cover it here. If no scientific papers on a question have yet made it through peer review, then it's almost certainly too soon to write about it on Wikipedia. It is very, very rare for a topic to qualify based on pop-science coverage alone, and that is how it should be; very few pop-science publications are remotely reliable enough for our purposes, and we're not here to do the services of a PR department by recycling sensationalistic trash. XOR'easter (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ho, I did not watch that one yet! Thanks for bringing it up.

presumably as a false balance against the presumed message that fish falling from the sky means magic is real and science is a lie That childish "I-cannot-explain-this-and-I-am-so-smart-therefore-nobody-can-explain-this" position is not even mentioned in the article. And "false balance" is about avoiding the addition of stupid ideas to balance out the smart ones, not the other way around. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the "magic" explanation is not anywhere in the article is exactly my point. We've added a bunch of crap to balance out a statement that only exists in our minds, not in the article. And false balance is about adding stuff that isn't mainstream academic scientific consensus, not about adding what Hob Gadling determines is stupid or not. And you have to admit, the waterspout hypothesis is a stupid idea, for multiple reasons. MarshallKe (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the waterspout hypothesis 'stupid'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two obvious ones: 1) Waterspouts don't pick things up, move them miles, and drop them. They fling. 2) Unless there is such a thing as selective waterspouts that only pick up specific kinds of objects to the exclusion of everything else in a body of water, the waterspout hypothesis would result in a variety of organisms and nonliving objects being moved, which is in the minority of reports. MarshallKe (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, keep in mind this is not a forum and we're not here to speculate or do the job of scientists. MarshallKe (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waterspouts can and do move things miles. Scientists say so. [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I may have been mistaken on #1. MarshallKe (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that aerodynamic forces are responsible for moving stuff up, it is more or less inevitable that it is going to get sorted to some extent, by terminal velocity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did those selective waterspouts that only pick up specific kinds of objects to the exclusion of everything else come from? Do the reports say that the observers made a complete inventory of everything that fell from the sky in a large area? Both your "obvious ones" are wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the "magic" explanation is not anywhere in the article is exactly my point. It should not be anywhere. That's what WP:FALSEBALANCE is about. Of course, as soon as something is slightly difficult to explain, the web is full of simple people who fail to explain it after trying for a few seconds, then conclude, "it's a miracle! it's aliens! it's psi!" There is nothing noteworthy about that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails to mention Hyman’s Categorical Imperative [7]: before we try to explain something we should be sure that there is indeed something to explain. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be 100% fair, Radford there doesn't seem to question the general proposition of animal falls, just the idea of "single species falls." And wow, this is the most I have thought about this topic in several decades. Happy Wednesday, everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the variety of contentious topics in the zeitgeist, this one is quite the palate cleanser. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur MarshallKe (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I added basically that to the talk page ages ago, with no replies thus far, that one idea is that this is hundreds of cases of The Ubiquitous Unscrupulous Reporter (TUUR). MarshallKe (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gullible people do listen to each other and do propagate false rumours. Reporters do need to fill paper with something exciting. And if there are no details, details are invented. You should read research by Joe Nickell some time, tracing back stories of the unexplained to their origins. Names change over time, details change over time, sometimes the whole character of a tale changes over time. And those who spread fantastic tales of mysterious happenings are the worst at correctly reproducing their sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Smithsonian group, Center for Short-Lived Phenomena, used to report/log these events, but I don't know if there is an on-line copy or if they went into much explanation. StrayBolt (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magical extraterrestrial jelly[edit]

Did Aliens Build the Pyramids? And Other Racist Theories[edit]

An article on Sapiens.[9] Sapiens is part of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research for which we have no article, just a redirect to its founder. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denier vs skeptic[edit]

I noticed 2600:1011:B135:4BE3:21DE:6485:E887:A6C2 (talk · contribs) replacing "skeptic" with "denier" in the context of climate change. I'm under the impression that we favor "denier" only when properly referenced. The edit summaries from this ip suggest something different, Replaced deprecated term and brought vocabulary up to date --Hipal (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know. "Denier" would definitively be the appropriate term (since there's essentially no room for reasonable, rational disagreement, on this). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Skeptic" is a euphemism and should be avoided. A few years back, the climate change denial article was renamed from the earlier "climate change skepticism and denial" because the skepticism term was recognized as inappropriate since it gives deniers more credit than they deserve. They have nothing, like creationists.

The usual way we put it is "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change", which avoids the euphemism as well as the possibly unsourced word "denial". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is literal hate speech, please strike it Unblockabl (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: Reliable journalistic sources essentially stopped using the "skeptic" moniker at about the same time. It can only be found in sources older than that, or in denialist sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see plenty of recent sources using "climate skeptic" [10][11][12][13][14][15], although it's certainly fallen in use compared to denier. I think there's probably a place for the skeptic label versus the denier label, and we should follow sources. There seems to be, in the short amount of source surveying I've done, a difference between denier, someone who doesn't think humans are having an effect on the climate or thinks the climate isn't really changing, and a skeptic, someone who accepts our effect on the climate, but isn't certain of the scale and overall outcome.

Basically, though, we shouldn't be using a label that sources aren't using, and we should be using the label that the weight of high quality sources use. For the most part this will end up being denier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "stopped" was an exaggeration. Still, the sources that still use it tend to specialize less in science than in "markets", engineering and stuff like that.

a skeptic, someone who accepts our effect on the climate, but isn't certain of the scale and overall outcome I never heard that definition before. Are there sources for it? The definition in our own climate change denial article would call that denial too. It's #4 in Michael E. Mann's "stages of denial".

If we use "skeptic" because all the sources are from the time when the journalists were still on the false-balance trip, we are using an anachronistic euphemism. I'd say we should avoid both. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that while the Scientific American source uses 'skeptic' in the (likely editor written) headline, the text of the article by the author does not mince words, referring to his views (and those who promote him) as "denial" four times. The kicker: He evidently doesn't need to win a debate, he just needs to make it seem like there is one. I agree with the interpretation that 'skeptic', particularly as the primary description, is an anachronistic euphemism here. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly an uncommon distinction to make, and I've seen it made many time. Here's a few examples.

[16] While these scientists do not necessarily doubt all aspects of climate science, issues of reliability of methodology and validity of conclusions in some areas remain, for them, alive. Whether they are correct or not (and many have been responded to in the literature), they are at least working within the broad norms of academia. We might call these people “climate sceptics”.

[17] The use of the terms skeptic, denier, or contrarian is necessarily subject-, issue-, context-, and intervention-dependent. Blanket labeling of heterogeneous views under one of these headings has been shown to do little to further considerations of climate science and policy

[18] “I draw a distinction between sceptics and deniers. The sceptics are people I respect – they have raised legitimate issues and, from my experience, are open minded. The deniers are people who start with a conclusion and only pay attention to the data that support it. I do think that our results could change the minds of some sceptics about the reality of global warming.”

[19] Hence, I have some sympathy for people who make the "Denier-Skeptic" distinction. (I'll group "climate agnostics" with the Skeptics for this discussion.) They deserve a chance to show they are motivated more by curiosity than partisan fever. Among those who convincingly fit into the Climate Skeptic category, I include several engineers, fellow science fiction authors and the famed physicist Freeman Dyson. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference? Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The difference (to me, at least) is that "skeptic" suggests a reasonable, evidence-based position, whereas "denier" does not. Your idiolect may vary. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I was curious and found these source at least discussing the differences as seen by the authors [20][21][22]. All basically see this as a sliding scale and none see the terms as absolutely interchangeable. The AP has a style guide entry on the subject as well.[23] It generally says don't use either term. Don't use skeptic as, traditionally, skepticism followed by investigation is a core part of science. Thus "skeptic" is a good description for someone who is scientifically investigating and challenging current climate science views. Conversely, the AP sees "denier" as often a pejorative term. For these reasons the AP suggests "climate change doubter" or "someone who rejects mainstream science". Note that LABEL may apply to "denier" if it is seen as a pejorative term. Springee (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think an obvious MOS approach is to describe ideas and arguments rather than people. Thus "So-and-so has expressed support for the climate change denial argument thus-and-such." Rather than "So-and-so is a climate change denier." jps (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then we go with what RS say they are. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Descriptions are both far more informative and far less denigrating than labels. Per Hob Gadling's advice and AP's style guide linked by Springee, I think the best way to phrase that is So-and-so rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. (Maybe for some people, that can be downgraded to doubts the scientific consensus on climate change.) "Climate change denier" can also often be misleading, as some people don't deny the existence of climate change but claim it is natural rather than anthropogenic, but both claims would fall cleanly under "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change". BTW I don't think there's a MOS:LABEL issue with the term "climate change denier" though as I don't think "denier" is value-laden.

For numerous reasons listed above I also don't think it's appropriate to ever use the phrase "climate change skeptic" or "climate change skepticism" in Wikipedia's own voice, i.e. the term should appear in quotes or be attributed wherever used. Skepticism is a normal part of science, so a reasonable and skeptical scientist may well say that for instance "nobody knows whether clouds speed up or slow climate change as they are too hard to model" or the even more skeptical "nobody knows the effect releasing aerosols into the atmosphere has on climate change as aerosals act as condensation nuclei for clouds which we do not understand". Such scientists are skeptics about our current understanding of climate change, and are well within normal scientific debate, but those who deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change are anything but. Endwise (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in question:

• Lucia Liljegren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Rather stubby, contains almost nothing but the bones of an article, a bit of backslapping by someone who thinks like her, and a tidbit about fencing stolen e-mails. Should probably be deleted.
• Heartland Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Clearly a denialist organization. No BLP problem here.
• Sherwood B. Idso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Notorious part of the denial industry. See [24].

And of course, there is that lengthy Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#RfC:_MOS:LABEL discussion going on which is relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucia Liljegren. jps (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree that skeptic should not be used in this context. It's often a misleading term or a euphemism for climate denial. Often, these labels can be avoided altogether, per Endwise. Femke (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Christian nationalism[edit]

See [25] discussing this new book.[https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-flag-and-the-cross-9780197618684?cc=a2&lang=en& The Flag and the Cross:White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of posting this here? --Animalparty! (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let people know about it. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.[edit]

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

Circular and unfruitful discussion about whether someone who spreads propaganda is a propagandist. Let's add a few more people who repeat what has already been said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is in describing a person rather than what they are doing. At least that's my editorial bias in these sorts of matters. But if my WP:BOLD Gordion Knot cutting does not have consensus, that's fine too. jps (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden is someone who has told lies, so is he a liar? I say, in general, it's best to use whatever sources say, without applying labels not used in sources. I don't think there would be an issue in this case using "conspiracy theorist", but unless sources are specifically calling them a propagandist, I wouldn't use the label. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't like "conspiracy theorist" all that much either as I get rather fascinated by the difference between those who are documented to invent conspiracy theories (for example, David Icke) and those who take the conspiracy theories and then propagate them (for example, Alex Jones). What makes one a "conspiracy theorist", then, is a hair-splitting argument that really is not edifying. It's more precise and more informative to say what the person is actually doing vis-a-vis conspiracy theories instead of just giving them a title like "conspiracy theorist". jps (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is definitely a difference, but that's why I generally go with what the weight of sources say. It's like the climate skeptic/denier conversation above. They have different meanings to different people, so it's best just to look at the weight of sources, specifically the best quality sources, and see what they say. I also don't like how we tend to shove labels or mentions like that into the first sentence of the lead. Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer and author who is known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories. The huge, enormous, vast weight of sources do not claim he's a conspiracy theorist, or even promotes conspiracy theories. He isn't known for for his vaccine stances or 5G nuttery, he's been known forever. I prefer to have a bit more context when it comes to the negative claims. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking to sources is fine and admirable, of course, but I think generally editorial decisions about word choice come down to other judgement calls. While style guides might help and certainly explain why, for example, certain ways of saying this or that are more common in reliable sources than others, what we're really quibbling here over is wording that is essentially synonymous. The devil is in the details, so I do think arguments for precision are more convincing than pretending that a source that say "He spreads propaganda" is not really saying "He is a propagandist". And anyway, whether we've stuck slavishly to sources or not is an argument I think often is taken too far at this website -- occasionally with the result that prose becomes overly stilted fashion or, worse, plagiarism. jps (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't required to stick to the source in all cases for specific terms used to describe someone. For example, if most sources refer to Mr Doe as "that a-hole who spreads misinformation" we can skip the first part while saying he spreads misinformation. If an anti-vaxxer is viewed as not just risking the health of those who follow their preaching but, as was often seen during COVID, risking the health/well being of those who were vaccinated it's understandable many sources may pick language that is specifically meant to appeal to their reader's sense of outrage etc. This is often true when groups sensitive to LGBT issues write about someone who opposes something LBGT related. The person may be labeled as -phobic in general rather than more accurately describing the subject's specific views. From there we have people arguing that Mr Doe needs to be called -phobic in Wiki voice rather than providing the more nuanced version of his position. Yet another reason to generally avoid labels and stick more to descriptions of the underlying issues. Springee (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same issue with "has spread X propaganda" --> "is a propagandist" and "told X lie" --> "is a liar" exists with "has spread X conspiracy theory" --> "is a conspiracy theorist". I think in this case though, from a quick google search, "conspiracy theorist" is a label that reliable sources do actually use for him. Endwise (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Impartial tone applies. When I hear the term propagandist, I think of Joseph Goebbels. So it seems like an attempt to disparage Kennedy by comparing him with the Nazis, which is an all too frequent tactic used to discredit people with whom we disagree, and certainly not something articles should do.

It's a problematic term, since its definition is just writing or speech that promotes a cause. but we wouldn't use it for example to describe the Surgeon-General, who persuades people to lead healthy lifestyles. So it's judgmental.

TFD (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's okay to describe what people do (spread propaganda) without assigning them a character trait (propagandist). This is especially true WRT pejorative, contentious, or negative terms. Saying "he's an environmental lawyer who promotes a anti-vaccine propaganda" is sufficiently detailed and perfectly correct, without using labels. If you can state the same information without using emotionally charged labels applied to the person (i.e. describing someone who has done something rather than describing someone who is a thing) is almost always better. --Jayron32 16:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree that "he's an environmental lawyer who promotes a anti-vaccine propaganda" sounds good. Will have to keep an eye on the article as the new wording is being contested by many not aware of ongoing chat. Tried to bring attention to the ongoing talk but it was removed stating some sort of consensus during ongoing talk. Moxy- 03:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ganzfeld experiment[edit]

A user is repeatedly removing the term "fringe" from the ganzfeld experiment. It's obvious that the ganzfeld technique used to test for ESP is fringe science. This is really not controversial. The user is repeatedly adding a citation tag claiming fringe does not appear on the article. The same user [26], [27] has stated that parapsychology is a science and has been in many debates before about their defense of psychic powers. I am not sure why we need a citation tag to claim the ganzfeld experiment is "fringe" but I added a reference for this and was still reverted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, "fringe" is a bit of a Wikipedian-ism. Sometimes it is used in the literature, but often there are better and more precise ways to describe a situation considering "fringe" can mean such disparate things as "avant-garde" or even "flowery". Since we rely on WP:FRINGE to be an organizing principle, I think we can easily succumb to the misconception that the outside world uses "fringe" in the same way we do, but that is not the case. The Edinburgh Fringe Festival, for example, is hardly WP:FRINGE. :) jps (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we do (and almost certainly should) use the more descriptive term pseudoscience, which is covered by a subset of our FRINGE guideline. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the lead:

A ganzfeld experiment (from the German word for “entire field”) is an assessment used by parapsychologists that they contend can test for extrasensory perception (ESP) or telepathy. Consistent, independent replication of ganzfeld experiments has not been achieved, and there is no scientifically validated evidence for the existence of any parapsychological phenomena. Ongoing parapsychology research using ganzfeld experiments has been criticized by independent reviewers as having the hallmarks of pseudoscience."

Since it already says it is AN ASSESSMENT USED BY PARAPSYCHOLOGISTS, the numerous disclaimers and warnings are superfluous. What next? Are we going to write disclaimers for Ghostbusters and the Flintstones that they portray pseudoscience and should not be watched by children under 21?

Fringe in Wikipedia incidentally means has little or no support in mainstream sources. That could include an alternative theory that science may eventually accept.

Incidentally, the lead should explain what the experiment is and why it is notable. We should do that before adding more disclaimers.

TFD (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What next? Are we going to write disclaimers for Ghostbusters and the Flintstones that they portray pseudoscience and should not be watched by children under 21?

Wikipedia is headed there. We already now refuse to summarize any information about preliminary research because apparently we think readers are so dumb that we've given up on accurately portraying the information and now straight up just tailor the article to make them think what we think they should think. MarshallKe (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that ganzfeld experiments are "preliminary research". Odd that you would think they were. jps (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted text reads fine to me; the "disclaimers" summarize the main article below, which is what the introduction is supposed to do. XOR'easter (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think summarizing the experiment itself would be a great idea for the lede, but I note that the article as currently written doesn't do a fantastic job of it either. I've been working on that a bit. One thing I cannot determine is whether it was Charles Honorton who coined the term or whether it was used prior to his promulgation. Also, I believe that the 1980 cult classic Altered States may pay homage to this experiment, but I haven't found many sources to help with that. All this is to say it would be nice if people got out of the peanut gallery and tried to help write the article. If you want. jps (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realized on re-reading this that it may sound a bit "snarky". I was actually just trying to invite people to help edit the article. It could use some good editors. jps (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder (that is actually written in bold red text at the top of the page) that when referring to specific editors you should notify them.

Sadly you have not accurately represented here what happened. I shall leave it up to interested parties to review the edit history and the talk page to see what actually happened should they so desire. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trofim Lysenko[edit]

• Trofim Lysenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

When I last checked, last November, he was a pseudoscientist. Now, he turns out to be an "agronomist and biologist", and suddenly [some of Lysenko's work had scientific merit, which was recognized internationally, and some of his contributions in the fields of science, agronomy and biology have been highly praised by a number of world-famous scientists.

Could somebody have a look? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Ebal curse tablet[edit]

This is the best example I've seen of why we should never use the media as a source for archaeology, particularly sensational claims. The main discussion is at Talk:Mount Ebal‎. See [28] for a discussion of the problems by Christopher Rollston who himself says "that there was some sort of Exodus, and that there was also some sort of entrance into the land of Canaan for at least some of the Proto-Israelites, and that there were at least some battles as part of that" so he can't be accused of being a "Bible denier" as the Creationist who found it (out of context) has accused others of being. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to make sure this had been covered; I should have known Doug would be all over it. I am seeing all sorts of grandiose claims for this thing which should be interesting enough on its own philological grounds. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Israel Finkelstein’s FB page. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page author has started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo of Gaza in what seems to me like an action that goes right up to the line of WP:POINT. jps (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD process hasn't been properly followed either - there is no entry for the Apollo article in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log. Someone (preferably someone uninvolved) should probably sort that out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit (animating force)[edit]

Spirit (animating force) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What to do about the name of this article? The problem is, of course, that what is described is manifestly not a force in the way "force" is normally described. The article was renamed from simply spirit over concerns that it was describing something that is more narrowly defined than all the different things that "spirit" refers. This is perhaps a bit more problematic than energy (esotericism), but perhaps that is a solution here? I just think that keeping it at "animating force" is not a good idea. jps (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about it? Nothing at all, in my opinion. Instead credit readers with the ability to actually read the article, and figure out for themselves that it isn't describing something you'd learn about in a physics lecture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit (vitalism)? I note that force is used in the colloquial sense of 'power', not in its scientific sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalism, I think, is best left as a historical side project from the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Although some believers in spirits are self-described vitalists, many (perhaps even the majority) are not. Also, while I have heard it said that the colloquial sense of 'power', 'energy', and 'force' are not being used in the scientific sense, when you talk to actual believers in these subjects they will often contend that these things have measurable consequences. It isn't as easy as saying, "Oh, they're not talking about the measurable aspects of power, energy, and force." because, in many cases, they are making claims that such things really are occurring measurably. jps (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have less faith in potential readers than you do, Andy. Every semester, I have students that ask me if gods or spirits are just a kind of force in my classes because of this kind of misnomer. They literally mean a force that has physical influence. In any case, I think precision is important and here we lack it. jps (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect it to Soul. The article discusses the root words of spirit and soul being different, but does not elaborate on any functional difference in usage, and then goes on to provide a bunch of examples of it being used interchangeably with soul, or examples unrelated to the scope of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a possible plan to me, but it is not clear to me that the concept of soul captures absolutely everything that believers in "spirits" think exists. Many believers in souls argue fervently over whether animals have them, for example. Some of those believers who deny animals have souls also argue that those animals have spirits (pneuma). I don't pretend to understand the logic behind such nitpicking, but I know it happens. jps (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about something squirrelly like Spirit (animating concept)? Assuming of course that 'concept' is sufficiently neutral. Thinking about the do-animals-have-souls complication reminded me that "animal spirit(s)" can also refer to an economics concept, so we have that, too. And here I was thinking that Spirit (animating force) referred to the finer single malts. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of "(animating essence)" along the same lines, but they all feel kludgy to me. Also putting in a good word for the less fine single malts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the problem is that "force" is used in its common English sense, and not its strictly defined physics sense?

If so, it's not an isolated problem. We might speak of the "forces of nature", the "Force of a man's character", the "Forces of civilization", etc.

It seems that it's outside of Wikipedia's remit to encourage the English-speaking word to standardize language to match physics jargon. ApLundell (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there are plenty of other ways the word "force" is used. I find that "animating force" is hard to identify among the various definitions. Yes, we all know what it means. But it carries with it a mechanical misnomer that I find myself working against in many situations. And as a (parenthetical), I think that precision is ultimately best. Do we even need this parenthetical? After all, we don't exactly describe "animating force" in the article (for good reason). jps (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's actually that first definition. " 1a(1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power" The examples given are "the forces of nature, the motivating force in her life "

A spirit, in this sense, is the active power that animates living things. It is the active power that is the cause of a living thing's motion and vitality. ApLundell (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we're now onto Aristotleian causes now. Factually, spirit is not a material cause of living things' motion and vitality. It might be an efficient cause or a formal cause. The confusion lies, of course, in that many believers in spirit argue that it is a material cause. jps (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that the idea is true. I am talking about how the idea is commonly described, which is what dictates naming if I understand the guidelines.

ApLundell (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean by "precision", however. The fact that this spirit is not a material cause or a physical force per se is hardly a matter for discussion in the article. But since there are those (many, in fact), admittedly non-experts, who argue that it is a material cause or physical force mean that the parenthetical is automatically argumentative and adopting a particular perspective that is "believer based" at best and entirely misleading at worst. My concern is not that people as sophisticated as you or I will be misled. My concern is that people who are just starting to investigate such ideas and are presented with the parenthetical will take the label at face value. I know that there are people who will read "spirit (animating force)" and think, "Oh! A spirit is the the force that animates things!" This is, however, not strictly true! It is only a poor approximation of the meaning this label is going for. jps (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I overlooked the obvious solution? What about spirit (folk belief) since that is the identified category to which the concept belongs according to the first three words of the article? jps (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking spirit (folk lore). Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historically it wasn't just a 'folk' concept though. As the article notes, William Harvey and René Descartes both considered it something physical, something that science (as it was emerging) could comment on. 18:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely! Of course, they had no formal definition of "force" yet, but it is possible if they did they may have tried to apply it to such. jps (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But "spirit (folklore)" could also refer to things like the White Lady or Nearly Headless Nick. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to Find a better source for Descartes’s and Harvey’s view? The source used is well over a century old, and more importantly is somewhat ambiguous about Descartes. Although it says he believed in a “vital force which animated the whole bodily frame”, the previous paragraph says that he held the “soul” to be responsible only for consciousness, but “all other vital phenomena were due to properties of the material of which the body is composed”. Brunton (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a general interest summary of Descartes on this matter: [29]. jps (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the reader would be better served by an expanding and improving the Spirit, Breath of life, and Life force disambiguation pages rather than trying to find a correct name for the mishmash of concepts in the content? Based on the title I would expect to see pneuma and Galen from Vitalism#Ancient_times, spiraculum vitae along with et spiritus Dei from pneumatology, Energy (esotericism), etc. but without the ghosts, fairies and other spiritual beings from the redirect. Wouldn't improved disambiguation be better than confusing article content? fiveby(zero) 17:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this might be a great way forward. jps (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This solutions seems to be the most reader-oriented / informative approach on the table so far. Generalrelative (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should also clarify that Spirit gum is not in fact made from ghosts, so that dumb people are not mistaken. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The school spirit is a ghost, who will kill me if I don't obey. Ghosts are scary, guy!" -Cal Evans, Undergrads Bakkster Man (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issues with Gum Arabic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's already a huge disambig page, and y'all are just making it bigger with your spirit gums and school spirits. Looking at the titles with direct links to Spirit (animating force) i imagine many can be replaced with a more specific target, or cleaned up by altering the text or just removing the link. Guessing what's left over would be mostly artifacts of the recent move and others: immaterial beings that aren't properly ghosts. Probably wanted one of redirects: spiritual being or spiritual entity or some such. Will reduce the link count and then maybe it will be clearer what to do with Spirit (animating force) content, name and history. fiveby(zero) 15:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like Supernatural#Spirit as the eventual target here rather than Non-physical entity#Spirits. fiveby(zero) 15:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: do you have an objection to a link like this: [30], based on best left as a historical side project from the eighteenth and nineteenth century? fiveby(zero) 14:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know! Certainly vitalism *is* an example, but I don't know if this is the best pipe or not. jps (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Spirit (animating force) --> Spirit (vital principle). fiveby(zero) 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meat explosion at John Campbell[edit]

• John Campbell (YouTuber) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Youtuber John Campbell has mentioned his Wikipedia article to his ~2 million subscribers and the result is predictable. The fuss is entirely around fringe pandemic topics (ivermectin, vaccine safety, death counts, etc.). Eyes from fringe-savyy editors may help. Alexbrn (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I first thought there had been an accident in the soup factory... --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was getting ready to add Great Molasses Flood to the see also section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding whale would be another candidate for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about the London Beer Flood? Brunton (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think List of edible disasters is just begging to be a blue link. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a redirect to Wetherspoons maybe? Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was hoping for a sequel to the Kentucky meat shower--not exactly a disaster, but it certainly sounded on point. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, please don't eat the exploded whale. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get on my level. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have AFD'd it as they do have kind of a valid point about how its pretty negative, problem is is that this is why he is kind of notable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If there's going to be an article about John Campbell, it's going to be pretty negative because that's the locus of his fame in RS. (I actually think Wikipedia's notability guidelines need to be revised to that we only carry bios of living people who have had a book/journal article written about, or who have repeatedly appeared in headline news in major news sources. Yes, that would mean deleting a lot of Wikipedia. It would be great.) Alexbrn (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, notability and fame should not be synonymous, but that is how society works. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD seems like a jump. There's some cleanup to be done, but no indication that the article is beyond fixing. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's going to happen, most probably, is that Campbell will keep producing increasingly fringey videos and so fact-checkers etc. will keep issuing corrections. So the article will get "worse" as this accumulates. I live in hope a source will emerge with an overview of his Youtube career, which would allow us to wrap everything up into a more compact form. The closest so far is this, but trying to use it will probably provoke even more disquiet because it's not ideal. Alexbrn (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the missing elements of the article is that transition, from praise in 2020 for factual science communication, to censure over specific items of misinformation later. Another example of the reason not to apply labels, or perhaps more specifically here to make such references to misinformation very specific. It seems closer to something like Nobel disease, where it's a few instances of fringe ideas overshadow a body of otherwise good work. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're spot on. "Audience capture" it's sometimes called. We really need a source to chart this. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel disease assumes a certain brilliance to the individual in the first place, (think Montagnier or Josephson), and then a fall from still great heights into oddthink. This isn't that. this guy was never up there in the first place, gets a doctrate, starts pronouncing on things way way outside his area of expertise, and gets caught out. That's his notability in a nutshell. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't mean in the sense of Nobel-levels of brilliance to start. But there's multiple sources on the article early in the pandemic by major publications calling him a 'sensation' or having 'gone viral' with his COVID explanations, and UNICEF giving him as an example of "real experts" who should be amplified. He wasn't perceived as a crackpot then, it's that later fall (whether audience capture or something else) that led to the misinformation allegations. Which, I'll add, is why I don't think he's a WP:BLP1E, having had mainstream coverage prior to the misinformation events. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of like the test case deletion discussion. Wikipedia seems to have an over-coverage of biographies of YouTube stars. Most of the content that is worthy of inclusion here could be contained in other articles, in my opinion. jps (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this changes my mind. The two most notable issues seem to be about Ivermectin (got a whole article about that), and the death count stuff which was only notable because David Davis (British politician) cited it to Parliament (but not present on that article). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poles in Lithuania[edit]

Essentially, this is part two of my submission from December "Belarusians are really Lithuanians?". Cukrakalnis spreads the idea that Poles in Lithuania, are not Poles living in Lithuania, but actually "Slavicized Lithuanians". He bases this statement on the works of the controversial Lithuanian linguist Zigmas Zinkevičius. He was a politically engaged academic and Minister of Education who claimed that Poles in Lithuania are not Poles, but more or less "confused Lithuanians". He also claimed that the Polish language does not exist in Lithuania, and that the language spoken by Poles in Lithuania is a separate language, devoid of grammar and literature, and as such is doomed to extinction. And Poles in Lithuania should return to the bosom of the Lithuanian nation. To which he himself contributed significantly by leading the action of Lithuanianization, being the Minister of Education. I described his character in more detail here: Talk:Poles in Lithuania#(Un)reliability of Zigmas Zinkevičius. His view has deep roots in Lithuanian nationalism. You can read about it in Ethnographic Lithuania.

It is a historical fact that the Polish minority in Lithuania emerged as a result of a long-lasting process of adoption of the Polish language and culture by the inhabitants of Lithuanian territories. Migration from central Poland was of marginal importance. It is also a fact that the process of Polonisation among the lower classes took place mainly in the second half of the 19th century. I described it in the article Polonization, which I am currently working on. But this does not mean that Poles living in Lithuania today are only "Slavicized Lithuanians" or "Polonized Lithuanians". In the last year 183 thousand people marked Polish nationality in the census. And this is how they should be defined. Just because someone's great-great-grandfather or even grandfather spoke Lithuanian as his first language, it does not mean that person is "Slavicized" if he self-identify as simply "Polish". Marcelus (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns this phrase from Poles in Lithuania: They are either mostly descended from or are themselves Slavicized Lithuanians,^{[1][2][3][4][a]} and the American political scientist Walter Clemens mentions a Belarusian origin.^[6] This WP:NPOV phrase is directly supported by numerous sources and also supported by content in the article itself, which was added by Marcelus. Moreover, Marcelus initiated a WP:EDITWAR and continuously removed material that had multiple sources supporting it. Instead of initiating a conversation on the page's talk page, there were about ten major removals by Marcelus. As for me, I kept re-adding the sourced material and also improving other sections of the article.

Bibliography:

• Budreckis, Algirdas (1967). "Etnografinės Lietuvos Rytinės ir Pietinės Sienos". Karys.
• Clemens, Walter C. (1991). Baltic Independence and Russian Empire. 0-312-04806-8: St. Martin's Press. p. 150.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
• Šapoka, Adolfas (2013). Raštai (in Lithuanian). Vol. I - Vilniaus Istorija. Vilnius: Edukologija.
• Lipscomb, Glenard P.; Committee for a Free Lithuania (29 May 1958). "Extension of Remarks". Congressional Record. 104 - Appendix.
• Turska, Halina (1930). "Język polski na Wileńsczyzne". Wilno i Ziemia Wilenska (in Polish). Vol. I.
• Zinkevičius, Zigmas (31 January 2014). "Lenkiškai kalbantys lietuviai" [Polish-speaking Lithuanians]. alkas.lt (in Lithuanian).

Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that none of the sources you cited use the term "Slavicized Lithuanians" or "Polonized Lithuanians". Even Zinkevičius talks about "lenkiškai kalbantys lietuviai" - Polish-speaking Lithuanians (in a 2014 article, then by the way he claims that their speech has nothing to do with Polish). Let me repeat, it is true that the Polish minority in Lithuania arose as a result of Polonisation, which took place mainly in the second half of the 19th century (this is what Turska writes about), and not as a result of some great migration of Poles to Lithuania (such theories appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, today no one seriously claims so). This does not change the fact that Poles in Lithuania today are Poles, because Polishness is not a community of blood and soil, but a community of language and culture.Marcelus (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus' statement is flat out false - The American political scientist Walter Clemens uses the term "Polonized Lithuanians", as do the other sources (e.g. sulenkėję lietuviai and other similar terms). Marcelus making false statements is clear for all to see. This nomination should be removed, because Marcelus wants to remove content based on sources just because he dislikes what they say. He did not acquaint himself with what they said and instead just wants to remove them. He accused me of Either you don't read Polish or you are deliberately misleading, even if the source in question supported what I said (see the bottom of section Talk:Poles_in_Lithuania#(Un)reliability_of_Zigmas_Zinkevičius, where Marcelus smears the professor Zigmas Zinkevičius for saying what many others, even Poles, have said). Finally, the article's content supports the phrase Marcelus seeks to remove. Marcelus' actions are simply not according to Wiki guidelines. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to Coleman's book, but all it matters is context. It's one thing to call Lithuanians who adopted the Polish language and culture "Polonized Lithuanian", but the whole other thing is calling that established national minority in Lithuania, which members clearly self-declare as Poles. Can you cite the whole context Coleman is using that term? That's one thing. Other is that you still failed to pinpoint a source that uses the term "Slavicized Lithuanians". Also term Sulenkėję lietuviai, which I believe translates as something like "bent/broken/fallen Lithuanian" is something very different, more like a slur than anything worth using in the encyclopedia. Can you quote the part of Turska's article that supposedly supports what you are saying? Because I read it, and there is no nothing like what you are claiming. Hence my assumption you don't really read well in Polish. Zigmas Zinkevičius is very anti-Polish, his theories are just reflections of his nationalistic views. Of course content of the article doesn't support claim that Polish people in Lithuania are "Slavicized Lithuanians".Marcelus (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The work of the Lithuanian historian Adolfas Šapoka has the sentences Lithuanian areas in many instances were cut up or bisected by Slavicized "Locals", and appropriated by both the Whiteruthenians and Poles for their propaganda purposes. or Islands of Lithuanians are to be found guite far in the east, and Slavicized islands are encountered west of Vilnius. - pretty much obviously implying the term of Slavicized Lithuanians. The term Sulenkėję lietuviai translates to Polonized Lithuanians and not "bent/broken/fallen". The "translation" you provided comes from Google Translate or etc. and is obviously wrong - it confused lenkti (to bend) and lenkas (a Pole). Sulenkėję has the stem lenk, which is connected to Poland (Lith: Lenkija) and Poles (Lith: lenkai). I guarantee you this as a native speaker of Lithuanian. Moreover, Slavicized includes both Polonized and Byelorussified (both Poles and Byelorussians are Slavs) and both of these terms are used in the 1958 source.

Turska's article writes in the very first page of it: O języku polskim na Wileńszczyźnie pisano dotychczas bardzo mało, nie doczekał się on jeszcze gruntownego, monograficznego opracowania. A szkoda, posiada bowiem swoistą, bardzo charakterystyczną i niezmiernie ciekawą postać, odrębną od postaci innych nowych narzeczy polskich, wyrosłych bądź na gruncie ruskim, bądź też litewskim. Odrębność ta dotyczy nietylko właściwości językowych, ale także historji powstania i rozwoju polszczyzny wileńskiej: jak wiadomo, nie powstała ona ani przez jakąś godną uwagi polską kolonizację, ani drogą stopniowego wypierania języka obcego przez sąsiadujące dialekty polskie, nigdzie bowiem nie łączy się z obszarem czysto polskim, a stanowi wyspę, ze wszystkich stron otoczoną morzem białoruskiem i litewskiem. Od jak dawna wyspa ta istnieje, kiedy, w jakich warunkach i w jaki sposób powstała? Na te pytania można będzie z całą pewnością odpowiedzieć po gruntownem zbadaniu zarówno mowy współczesnej, jak też języka zabytków przeszłości. Dziś można powiedzieć jedno: polszczyzna na Wileńszczyźnie powstała na gruncie obcym w sposób swoisty, niespotykany poza tem, jako wynik działania siły atrakcyjnej kultury polskiej. The conclusion is obvious from this.

Zigmas Zinkevičius is very anti-Polish, his theories are just reflections of his nationalistic views. No, and you have not proven anything of what you are accusing Professor Zigmas Zinkevičius of being. Going out of your way to call them "theories" without proving that they are wrong is intellectually dishonest. He, as a professor, is much more knowledgeable than you about the subject - especially the one where he specializes in.

Of course content of the article doesn't support claim that Polish people in Lithuania are "Slavicized Lithuanians". The phrase in question is They are either mostly descended from or are themselves Slavicized Lithuanians, and the American political scientist Walter Clemens mentions a Belarusian origin. The article clearly supports the claim made in this sentence, and denying that is dishonest. And you are trying to remove this sentence, which is well supported and factually true. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the meaning of "Sulenkėja lietuviai", Google translate has misled me.

Adolf Šapoka died in 1961, so his words clearly cannot apply to the current situation in 2022. His work is obviously very biased, written in the spirit of the understanding of the nation as an "ethnographic-racial" community, characteristic primarily of pre-war Lithuania. On page 215 he writes: "Lastly, the language alone does not determine nationality. It is determined by ways of life, customs, folklore and other elements of national culture, and finally -racial peculiarities". As we can see, the nation is treated here as an objectively existing community of blood, independent of personal self-identification. So for people like him, Lithuanians who have adopted Polish national self-identification, and even their descendants cannot be Poles, they will always be Lithuanians. Because "Lithuanian blood" flows in their veins. This is obviously unacceptable. If someone was Polonised even in 1939, can their children and grandchildren be described as "Slavicised Lithuanians"? Obviously not.

Turska's article, the passage quoted contains nothing controversial for me, I fully agree with it. Let me translate: Very little has been written about the Polish language in the Vilnius region so far and it has not yet received a thorough monographic study. It is a pity, as it has a specific, very characteristic and extremely interesting character, distinct from the characters of other new Polish dialects, developed either on Ruthenian or Lithuanian grounds. This distinctiveness applies not only to its linguistic qualities but also to the history of its origin and development. As we know, it was not created by any noteworthy Polish colonisation or by the gradual suppression of a foreign language by neighbouring Polish dialects, for it is nowhere connected with a purely Polish area, but constitutes an island, surrounded on all sides by the Belarusian and Lithuanian seas. How long has this island existed, when, under what conditions and in what way did it come into being? These questions can certainly be answered after a thorough study of both the contemporary speech and the language of the monuments of the past. Today we can say one thing: the Polish language in the Vilnius region came into being on foreign soil in a peculiar way, unprecedented elsewhere, as a result of the power of the attractive Polish culture. Her conclusion is that the Polish language in Lithuania emerged as a result of the adoption of the Polish language by the local Lithuanian and Belarusian population, which resulted in a dialect different from the one spoken in central Poland. This is absolutely true. Turska in her article distinguishes between the tongue of the intelligentsia and the tongue of uneducated people, which has two varieties: one similar to Lithuanian and the other to Belarusian. This does not confirm Zinkevičius' "theory" that the Polish language in Lithuania is some kind of a completely separate language. And the fact that the Polish language island in Lithuania was created as a result of Polonisation, and not mass colonization, is of course true. Nobody denies that.

Zigmas Zinkevičius was a nationalist politician, and the fact that his "theories" about the Polish language and Poles in Lithuania are simply propaganda is an opinion shared by researchers. And it is, of course, understandable for anyone who has any idea about the subject.

The article concerns the Polish minority in Lithuania, i.e. the group of people who declared self-identification with the Polish national group. Thus, calling them "Slavicized Lithuanians" is false. The results of the Lithuanian census are indisputable.Marcelus (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of modern Paganism[edit]

I'm looking through the page Criticism of modern Paganism and I see that multiple references are made to known Russian state-sponsored fake news website Ukraina.ru in the section on Slavic neo-pagan violence. I've removed some sections solely sourced to known fake news websites, but I am not exactly familiar with the subject matter so my ability to do so is somewhat limited. Additional eyes on the page to preen out statements sourced solely to dubious sourcing from somebody with familiarity in the topic area would be helpful in improving the article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who added them and I support this. That section is translated from Russian Wikipedia. Can you check this source too? https://www.ng.ru/ng_religii/2015-04-01/4_donbass.html it looks legitimate to me, but also came from an author who wrote for Ukraina.ru MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This artile is an absolutely mess. A look at its sourcing, including the use of self-published sources, tells me that it needs to be scraped and rewritten from scratch. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even a legitimate subject anyway? 'Modern Paganism' is an umbrella term covering a multitude of diverse belief systems, in all sorts of cultural contexts - it isn't a single system at all, and accordingly any general 'criticism' beyond 'we don't like it because they don't follow our religion' is likely to be based on facile generalisations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating Article, though I thought people should be aware....[edit]

...as I would not be surprised for some related "King Arthur" content to appear. Either way, worth a perusal. Graves of dozens of kings from the time of King Arthur uncovered in Britain. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just drink water, bro[edit]

Fereydoon Batmanghelidj seems untouched by the latest anti-fringe editing style. Note the separate criticism section, and the non-disparaging lede. MarshallKe (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're all volunteers here, and open, clear communication helps us collaborate effectively. Have you said what you actually want to say, and if not, is this the best place to say it? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 17:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article obviously needs work. This is where you post "fringe" articles that need work. I am literally just doing that. MarshallKe (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you clarified. I had interpreted your comment as sarcastic criticism of this noticeboard and the people who address issues brought up here. I'm taking a look at the article now. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a "doctor" who thinks water cures all disease and his lede is practically promotional. Maybe actually look at the article before assuming I'm up to no good? MarshallKe (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on history, the assumption was appropriate. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the latest anti-fringe editing style? That's a pretty good indicator that you're only here to soapbox. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article obviously needs work. Can you clarify what work you think it "obviously" needs? jps (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to edit it myself. I'm not going to spoon-feed editors who should already know what is wrong with the article at a glance. MarshallKe (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing wrong with this article is that it doesn't redirect from "Dr. Batman". Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magical extraterrestrial jelly (again)[edit]

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

I already reported this article (just scroll up), but my communication style got me WP:ABF'ed. The article is packed with speculation and WP:NOTDATABASE. MarshallKe (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be mostly fully cited, and does not really take a credulous stand; it certainly doesn't present the topic like it's actual star jelly or whatever. It is a well documented phenomenon, and the Wikipedia article does distinguish between folklore and other more rigorous explanations. It could, of course, be cleaned up a bit, but so can't every article. --Jayron32 16:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Malone[edit]

Robert W. Malone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The New York Times profiled this individual today who has been the subject of past FTN threads. May be a good source for current wording or expansion of the article. [31]

jps (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• And now an interesting development, if true.[32] Alexbrn (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JP Sears described by New York Times as "conservative conspiracy theorist"[edit]

Wikipedia's article on JP Sears, a YouTuber, comedian, and, as the New York Times recently put it, "conservative conspiracy theorist". Sears has become a regular in anti-vaxx circles, which has become pretty widely reported in the media. It appears to have become his bread and butter: Pretty much all coverage he receives from media sources now comes from his attendance at vaccine conspiracy events. However, we see repeated attempts at scrubbing this page, and the talk page appears to be pretty stacked with Sears-aligned editors. I've recently added a bunch of new sources to the article's talk page and the New York Times description to the lead. The article needs a lot more attention. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears only the NYT source actually calls him a conspiracy theorist. The other two sources don't use that label. It would probably be better to have an explanation in the lead, rather than using the label. Similar to my view above in the discussion on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the recent New York Times source, the McGill source refers to him as "pushing COVID-19 conspiracy theories" and the Rolling Stone article, which is called "‘I’m a Full Anti-Vaxxer Now’: How the Conspiracists Are Winning Over Fresh Converts", refers to him as "a comedian known for spreading conspiracy theories through sarcastic comedy". It would seem to me by far the easiest way to put this information is conspiracy theorist. What do you suggest? :bloodofox: (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 at WP:RSP, so that should be removed anyway. I would first look at a broad selection of recent sources to make sure it's due for the lead. Then I would select a group of them and summarize, likely with something like "He has spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19." That's an example, as I haven't done any of that leg work, and I'm not familiar with yet another YouTuber. The whole lead should be expanded, then there's space for a sentence or two about COVID-19 or whatever, with context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the noticed about that RfC, I was not aware of that. I've collected a bunch of recent coverage about the subject at Talk:JP_Sears. They add up to say pretty much the same thing: A few years ago, Sears pivoted from standup and YouTube to being an active and visible anti-vaxx influencer. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't doubt that. I just think it reads better, and the reader is better served, when we explain what someone has done, rather than just applying a label. "Sears is a YouTuber and comedian that uses satirical humor. They initially rose to notability in whatever year with their gluten intolerance video. During the COVID-19 pandemic he used his platform to spread conspiracy theories about the disease and the United States government's response to it." I think something like that better communicates who they are, why they're notable, and explains the COVID stuff with some context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sears is clearly not known as a conservative conspiracy theorist, that is absurd. Sears has had an article here for a long time and mostly is known as a satirist on a number of subjects, yoga, etc. Maybe NYT doesnt like him ridiculing them and wants to cancel. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wording now, During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Sears shifted his focus to conservative politics and to promoting of conspiracy theories through anti-vaccine activism seems okay -- there is a big section on his article about that -- but there definitely should be more attention paid to his work as a satirist in the lead, as that is still most of the article and primarily why he is notable. Endwise (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is that he became famous as a satirist but after fame happened it became increasingly clear that his beliefs were not WP:MAINSTREAM and that has become the sort of sensational story ever since. It's not like independent sources are being produced today that don't address that fact any longer. I've seen this sort of thing before. Dr. Oz, for example, comes to mind. He was initially famous for just being a TV doctor and only later did his weird predilections for alternative medicine and (lately) conservative politics come to the fore. jps (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As is typical each time this kind of question comes up, best course of action is to describe specific issues he's advocating for, rather than blanket labels. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bakkster Man, describe his actions, don't assign labels. Say "He has promoted conspiracy theories" not "he is a conspiracy theorist". --Jayron32 16:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Say it loud. Say it clear. Maybe even make a supplement to WP:LABEL so that it is easier for people to refer to in the future. Wikipedia:Describe actions instead of ascribing labels. jps (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSTYLE in the Tone section does cover this: Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. Perhaps either a shortcut link for WP:BLPTONE or including this specific idea among the WP:LABEL section. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the idea of avoiding "contentious labels" is overplayed in that and in WP:LABEL as well. The reason labels are bad is not on the occasion that they are contentious. They are bad because they often don't provide enough context. jps (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that contentious labels often provide enough context, or just that the reason they are bad is because of context and the not the contentiousness? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The latter not the former. jps (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least BLP mentions 'terms that lack precision', which a non-contentious label often is. Similar with WP:LABEL, referring to 'value-laden'. Not all labels fit those criteria, though. Credentials often come with labels and titles, and most professions have a descriptive title. Focus on contentiousness, imprecise, and value judgments seems key. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contentiousness is itself a value judgement. Focusing on whether the label makes a value-judgement (any value judgement) or is imprecise seems a much better editorial approach as to what to consider when avoiding labels. jps (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On my reading of WP:LABEL, that does seem to be what it suggests: avoid value-based labels, but only if there's potential contention. Pseudoscience assigns value, but if universally rejected by mainstream science is an acceptable label. Cult is similarly recommended against unless widely used, which is why Heaven's Gate (religious group) doesn't use it in the title, but does in the lede. I don't agree that literally any value judgment is inappropriate, just with applying additional scrutiny to ensure it's an accurate label. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It really is the only if there's potential contention clause that I object to. Value-based labels should be eschewed regardless of the potential for contention because they are value-based. Sometimes this is not possible. But where it is, it should be encouraged. jps (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a better source than the New York Times, especially for the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He has promoted conspiracy theories" is the same thing as "he is a conspiracy theorist". Conspiracy theory runs the gamut from 'Covid deaths are under/over counted' to 'Covid is totally made' up to 'I dont like what this person says, even if true'. Looking at the body of the article, the only thing I see that could remotely count as a conspiracy theory is the belief that Vitamin D protects against the disease. If thats really all hes done in this regard we should just say that. 'describe specific issues he's advocating for, rather than blanket labels.' Yes, exactly. Bonewah (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "promoted conspiracy theories" is equivalent to "is a conspiracy theorist". The latter implies it's what the person is best known for, and/or a particular step of the pipeline (creating new conspiracy theories, not just repeating them). For Sears, it's as much about the boundary between conspiracy and misinformation. What do we label anti-vaxx ideas? That COVID restrictions are "a pretext to limit human freedom"? The Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election? I'd consider those topics all closer on that continuum to conspiracy than Vitamin D, with it and PCR test claims more standard misinformation. But yes, describe those specific items, as the article does. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"What do we label anti-vaxx ideas"? Don't label them at all. Describe them. Against all vaccines? Just Covid ones? MRNA vaccines? Vaccine mandates? Vaccines for children? There are some many things people are lumping together as 'anti-vaxx' that the label has almost no descriptive purpose. Bonewah (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't believe they're the same thing, otherwise we'd be labeling John Kerry a conspiracy theorist. [33]

John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is an American politician and diplomat and conspiracy theorist who is currently the first United States special presidential envoy for climate. Although that would be "true" if that's all it took to earn the label, it's really not true. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is an American politician and diplomat and promoter of conspiracy theories who is currently the first United States special presidential envoy for climate.. Really that different? Bonewah (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my concern here is not so much the differences between "has promoted conspiracy theories" vs. "is a conspiracy theorist", its using the the words conspiracy theory(ist) when we should simply be saying 'believes X'. Bonewah (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think there's a right answer really, since it comes down to personal readings. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, because that's what he does, it's his mode and modus, his main kick. Personally, I see a difference between that and someone who just talks about conspiracies or believes some wacky things. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really know anything about Alex Jones, but if conspiracy theory is what he does, and reliable sources commonly describe him that way, then WP:BLPSTYLE Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. would be satisfied. I dont think that is the case with JP Sears, at least, based on a quick reading of things. Bonewah (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic voyage of the predecessor of Mansa Musa[edit]

Should we be using Ivan Van Sertima and the poet Diawara as sources here? Doug Weller talk 19:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's your particular issue with Van Sertima? His interpretations seem valid and sourced, and that section has good counterpoints. AtFirstLight (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van Sertima is known, apparently, for spreading such stuff as "his Olmec alternative origin speculations", which has been dismissed as Afrocentric pseudoarchaeology[2] and pseudohistory to the effect of "robbing native American cultures". Or, in other words, his works are entirely unreliable for Wikipedia, which is a WP:MAINSTREAM work. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check on Google Scholar shows the mainstream academic community are engaging with his work, albeit in a negative way, so it would surely be irresponsible and in violation of WP:NPOV not to mention him.. AtFirstLight (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they are engaging with this work in a negative way, then WP:NPOV tells us that is how we should be describing it as well. The current article falls a fair bit short of those requirements in that aspect... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Interpretations section could use a little balance, however removing Van Sertima and Diawara (who the BBC describe as 'Africa's greatest explorer') as citations seems a little extreme. AtFirstLight (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "greatest explorer" seems to refer to Abubakari II, which makes some sense. Mr. Diawara gets only one hit on Google Scholar--"Revitalizing cultivation and strengthening the seed systems of fonio and Bambara groundnut in Mali through a community biodiversity management approach." He might be a reliable source for this sort of thing, but I am not yet convinced. His book, "The Saga of Abubakari II," seems to have only really gathered attention in pseudohistory circles, but again, it's entirely possible I am missing things. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are @Dumuzid, my mistake! AtFirstLight (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be using them to describe their own claims if those descriptions are not also available in other sources (as if the theory is viewed negatively, then, it is likely the descriptions are not particularly accurate and should not be included separately from criticism - which would then be sourced to other places than the original disputed papers). As to Diawara, even if he were the one being referred to as a great explorer, that would not make him a great scholar. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be that per WP:FRINGE, They Came before Columbus should be the topic of the article. Need to look at the references more carefully, and some only see a google snippet view. fiveby(zero) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can not cite Van Sertima here, and i was wrong to suggest he might be the topic of the article. There are some very scathing reviews of his work, but all the criticism i see is direct at any conclusions he makes concerning the Americas. Authors that admit the possibility of a voyage and give some credence based on description of the Canary Current all cite Van Sertima. I don't see any discussion before They Came before Columbus. Cite to give credit and name him in the content, but factual assertions should come from Gomez and Thornton. Don't see any reason to use Diawara or the BBC article. fiveby(zero) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New chronology (Fomenko)[edit]

Of the 74 sources, at least 21 are Fomenko himself. There are a few without any author name some of which might also be by him. There are 8 citation needed tags. The sections on specific claims and on his methods are particularly concerning. But IMHO it's a daunting job trying to fix it. Doug Weller talk 07:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Service: New chronology (Fomenko) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what I have done to deserve this[edit]

Please be aware that this:

UFOs left 'radiation burns' and 'unaccounted for pregnancies,' new Pentagon report claims

exists, and govern yourselves accordingly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is this about? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general warning that this sort of dodgy document appeared on what is generally a fairly reliable website. It might be of interest to those who frequent this noticeboard. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The poor kid, waiting for their deadbeat alien dad to return. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a documentary I saw about that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I liked that movie. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Livescience article attributes all this stuff as “according to The Sun”... - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as I said, "dodgy." A bit disappointed Livescience seems to have just transcribed all of this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament[edit]

This is about [34] because an IP stated

tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:NOTHERE case, I would argue. Best to take 77.18.59.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to WP:ANI, in my opinion. jps (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: I would avoid WP:ANI, unless strictly necessary. I was told to use WP:DRN rather than WP:ANI. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For cases of NOTHERE, ANI is the proper venue. If it were blatantly obvious, then it would be AIV, and if it wasn't so obvious, then letting them dig their own hole before reporting would be more appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to say that the IP has a point. It's hugely WP:UNDUE to spend all of the lead on saying that of course nobody takes any of this seriously and nothing at all on the actual subject. And we rely far too much on Ehrman as an authority on the state of the field. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: I found this at Google Books: Harrell, Charles R. (2011). “This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology. Greg Kofford Books. p. 153. Retrieved 2022-04-07. Harrell is probably not a mainstream Bible scholar, but he makes the problem acutely clear. But the point of not being a mainstream Bible scholar is moot, as he does not speak of his own views. I will come back with other sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't spend all of the lead on saying that of course nobody takes any of this seriously and nothing at all on the actual subject in Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's weird to me that you think that's what is happening here. jps (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And a majority of scholars claim (WP:RS/AC): Rydelnik, Michael (2010). The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?. New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology Series. B&H Publishing Group. p. 22, 26. ISBN 978-1-4336-7297-2. Retrieved 2022-04-08. non-critical scholars by their prooftexting actually discredit the claims of Jesus in the eyes of literary and historical critics [...] Old Testament scholarship is now divided: The majority takes a more historical approach to the Old Testament, resulting in a minimalist view of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. This also passes the criterion of embarrassment: Rydelnik teaches at Moody Bible Institute, wherein "Bible is our middle name". tgeorgescu (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that the criterion of embarrassment is itself pretty embarrassing. By such logic, every person who claims to have been anally probed by aliens is likely telling the truth. jps (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, but we aren't Bible scholars, what do we know? Rydelnik also stated "[...] much of contemporary critical scholarship on messianism, which argues that the messianic idea did not develop until the intertestamental period [...]".

The argument is like this: a liar wants to be believed. So a liar tells lies which are believable. He/she does not tell unbelievable lies. So, being unbelievable is a token it is not a lie.

This can be rephrased: a liar does not tell lies which go against their vested interests.

That Jesus has fulfilled "They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments." is probably made up. But the fact he was crucified probably not. Probably—as usually that's most scholars can say about Ancient history, since real, direct evidence is so scarce. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why people think that liars will not tell lies which go against their vested interests. jps (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, torture or insanity could be reasons to lie against one's own interests.

And this is an even better quote: "Michael Rydelnik's Messianic Hope is a well-crafted and timely refutation of the growing minimization of direct messianic prediction in evangelical scholarship. Using a cogent development of innerbiblical, canonical, and New Testament evidence, this study adduces text-critical evidence for reading the Hebrew Bible as messianic. Rydelnik persuasively argues that the centrality of the Messiah in the apologetic method of Jesus and the apostles is consistent with a canonical reading of the Hebrew Bible." So, it's not only minority view among critical scholars, but seems likely that it is a minority view among evangelical scholars.

And "In a thoughtful essay, Gordon McConville has articulated the issue at hand. According to McConville, “Modern Old Testament scholarship has been largely informed by the belief that traditional Christian messianic interpretations of Old Testament passages have been exegetically indefensible.”"

And "It would be supremely regrettable for evangelicals to abandon messianic prediction for the sake of respectability in the academy or acceptance among critical scholars. Of course, we want to interpret the Bible correctly, but it is not necessary to adopt the naturalistic presuppositions to which critical scholarship subscribes. The Bible is inspired, and the authors of the Scriptures could indeed write a supernatural prophetic message that pointed to a Messiah who would come many hundreds of years later. Abandoning this conviction will bring the loss of one of the most potent arrows in our apologetic quiver."

Morals: mainstream Bible scholars do not buy into messianic prophecies about Jesus, and even evangelical scholars are running away from such concept. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, as soon as a criterion for determining the honesty of people becomes even slightly popular, liars will change their stories to fulfil the criterion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big Pharma conspiracy theory[edit]

• Big Pharma conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It seems that skeptical sources are not good enough because they "do not publish their funding". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could they be funded by ... Big Pharma? Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has to be true, or they wouldn't be trying to cover up the pizza diet for heart disease treatment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lipid hypothesis[edit]

This article and the saturated fat article seem to get targeted every-year by infrequent editors or throwaway accounts pushing a cholesterol denalist or saturated fat POV. A user is repeatedly adding material which is not reliable, see the talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the talk-page looked like last night [35]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lipid hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until COVID, diet articles were pretty much the craziest. Perhaps normal service is being resumed? Alexbrn (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polygraph results in an alleged case of alien abduction[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Travis Walton UFO incident § Polygraph. Sundayclose (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rice water[edit]

Looking for a review of the material I just merged in to Rice water from Rice Water for Health & Beauty. Basically everything from the end of the first paragraph is new material. May be fringe. Looks more palatable than hot dog water. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh! I just tore that sucker down to the ground. The material you added was violative of everything from the Manual of Style to WP:NOT#HOWTO. If there is material from the other version worth salvaging, I would suggest introducing it slowly, with proper sourcing and language that does not seem to come from a New Age health and beauty blog. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]