Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:23, 28 September 2015

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, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Faith Healing

Join the discussion at Talk:Faith_healing#Pseudoscience_inclusion Raymond3023 (talk)

Undated section here, but I agree with the comment there by Doc James. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Earth system science

Earth system science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There may be some unduly weighted borderline material in this article which seems to spend quite a bit of time discussing the Gaia hypothesis which, depending on how deeply you dig, may or may not be a bit fringe-y itself (certainly some of Lynn Margulis's and James Lovelock's ideas after a time were way out on a limb).

Anyway, some experienced editors would be welcome at that page to see what, if anything, they can do to improve it.

jps (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Earth system science" is a real thing, and the first three sentences of the article make a fair description. But it goes downhill pretty fast from there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

A bit more more specificity as to the problem here would be helpful in assessing the situation. Specifically, problematic DIFF Links, questionable sources that could be removed, etc, please? Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Weird ideas become the BLP's main focus

Mathole Motshekga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was alerted to this WP:FRINGEBLP issue today. Is it really the case that this politician's peculiar ideas are what we need to spend most of the article discussing?

jps (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"Homo Naledi critisism and science denialism" The section name has sources. It should be moved. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It does rather look like WP:UNDUE given the length of the article. However, the comments are well sourced and the politician stuck to his guns, so the claims deserve a mention. QuackGuru's remark "It should be moved." begs the question: "where to?" Kleuske (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It might help if someone could expand the article. If this is the only thing that this politician is notable for then we might consider deleting the article. If the politician is notable for more, then spending most of the article on this incident makes the article read like some sort of hit piece. jps (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As an MP, he's notable under WP:POLITICIAN (and he would be for his position within the ANC or premiership alone as well). Kolbasz (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Larry Dossey

Larry Dossey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was brought to my attention by a fantastic new editor A little angry (talk · contribs). I see the issue: the WP:FRINGEBLP exists in a space where much of the sourcing is laudatory of his fringe claims. If people could help clean it up a bit (having a "reception" section in a BLP is a bit weird, for starters, but I'm not sure what more can be done).

jps (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this. I think Dossey is important because he is a well known pseudoscience proponent like Rupert Sheldrake. There is a big piece by Victor Stenger and a physician Jeffrey Bishop that heavily criticizes Dossey for abusing quantum physics, misrepresenting medical studies etc

Retroactive Prayer: Lots Of History, Not Much Mystery, And No Science, Jeffrey P. Bishop and Victor J. Stenger. British Medical Journal. Vol. 329, No. 7480 (Dec. 18 - 25, 2004), pp. 1444-1446. There are also three negative reviews for his books in the Skeptical Inquirer. So far I only added one. I can help on this article but there will be a lot of criticism in the article about Dossey's pseudoscientific ideas. The user who created the article may object to me doing this (so far he seems to want the article 'balanced' with positive things about Dossey from mainly newspapers), so I will hold for now. See what other users think. I don't want to write an entirely negative bio for this guy but practically all the scientific sources written by experts dismiss him as a quack. I found some positive things about his books in religious journals but these don't seem that reliable to me. A little angry (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think what's missing is a section describing what specific fringe concepts Dossey is advocating. A "reception" section can then be useful to show the response to these fringe concepts from science-based medicine using WP:FRIND sources such as the journal above. The newspaper stuff (which I see includes opinions from Oprah) can be contained in a Popular culture section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The British Medical Journal is a good source, but you have to be careful with the Skeptical Inquirer as it's not an academic journal. 95.89.18.195 (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I read a book by the guy once. It was inspirational but a bit full of fluff. I would recommend heavily relying upon secondary sources independent of the article's subject, and let that guide the content distribution. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Christian thinkers in science

Is this list questionable? It seems to have little encyclopedic value, given there's minimal evidence for the majority of them that Christianity had any connection with their work, or even that they had any significant writings on Christianity. Adam Cuerden 23:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it even specifically notable as per WP:NOTABILITY? John Carter (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably not. nominated. Adam Cuerden 00:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There are probably dozens of Things That Misplaced Pages Is Not that could be applied here. But the topic of the article has clearly received substantial coverage by reliable and independent sources. If it is not notable, then why is List of atheists in science and technology notable? Most of them didn't write anything substantial about that topic. The existence of the other lists necessitates this list, especially for the pre-modern era where all Europeans were Christian by default. (This is not WP:OTHERSTUFF; it means that without this list every scientist born before 1700 was Jewish or Muslim.) Roches (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Which of the people on here are actually notable Christian thinkers? I'll grant you Hildegard of Bergen and Isaac Newton. Name ten others from 1401 and later. Adam Cuerden 01:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There's some discussion on the talk page about whether the article is a list of scientists who were notable Christian thinkers or a list of scientists who were Christians. I think it is the latter. List of Christian scientists redirects to this article, but that phrase is associated with Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science. Changing the title, or changing the introductory content, could be done without deleting the article. Roches (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's an irredeemable mess. Newton is listed but he was a natural philosopher not a scientist, and he actually refused to take Holy Orders even though it was, at that time, mandatory for metriculation from Cambridge (he did not accept the doctrine of the Trinity). There's an interesting intersection between Christianity and science in the Jesuit community, the Pope has a science degree, but this is not an article about that, it's an article that seeks to show that there is no incompatibility between science and religious dogma based on fallacious appeals to authority, syllogistic fallacies and begging the question. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Really, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST:

• List of Buddhist thinkers in science
• List of Islamic thinkers in science
• List of Jewish thinkers in science
• List of Hindu thinkers in science
• List of Zoroastrian thinkers in science
• List of Sikh thinkers in science
• List of Shinto thinkers in science
• List of Deistic thinkers in science
• List of New Age thinkers in science

jps (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The article was kept on the basis of WP:ILIKEIT, removal of the philosophers and natural philosophers was reverted on the basis that people want to present all of scientific thought since forever as being science, a move to list of scientists with Christian faith was reverted for no reason at all. This article is a festering sore. The group of editors who own it seem to think there is no problem at all with calling Isaac Newton a Christian thinker despite his rejection of the Trinity, refusal to take holy orders, and the consensus of sources that he was deist not a Christian, oh and byb the way he was a mathematician and natural philosopher not a scientist. This article is WP:SYN from the title down. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of thinking that this is something which might have to be taken to DRN or ANI myself. I am the first to say that for all I know there might be notability for the topic, maybe, but I haven't seen anything which addresses the matter of of criteria for inclusion or exclusivon. That being the case, this looks to me like having some serious behavior issues involved which probably have to be addressed somewhere by some independent parties. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's an instance where AfD was probably not the best answer, though WP:TNT is tempting when an article is as BAD as this one. I started going through and removing unrelated commentary and poorly sourced material. There is a lot of it. Realize that to be included on the list the person has to be referenced in a third-party source as (1) being in science and technology and (2) having prominent Christian beliefs that third-party sources have identified as relevant to their notability. Otherwise, remove the people. Also, a lot of the commentary that is being included in the article is irrelevant. This is a list so WP:MOSLIST we should follow. jps (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Church incited martyrdom

User:BlackCab has used a WP:SYNTH from a variety of critical ex-Jehovah's Witnesses sources and secular sources to make a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that "The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses incited opposition to pursue a course of martyrdom under Rutherford's leadership during the 1930s, in a bid to attract dispossessed members of society, and to convince members that persecution from the outside world was evidence of the truth of their struggle to serve God". He has reverted my recent edit accusing me of an SPA (which has been notified to admin page) and belittling my concerns in the talk page. There is no evidence given in the sources how the leadership instructed JWs to pursue martyrdom. Its a blatant Synthesis. He combines source from three ex-JWs and two secular sources not peer reviewed to make a single false claim in the main article of JWs. I want to notify this here. ----Roller958 (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The single sentence to which he objects is properly sourced and I have provided quotes on the talk page. It is not synth and this is no fringe theory. It is a statement of belief by a range of respected authors (and William Schnell, a polemicist whose work is widely cited by other authors). Roller958 neglects to state that he is a JW who has claimed that this statement is untrue because Jehovah's Witnesses don't know about it. If he is relying on the Watch Tower Society as his sole source of information in life, he is in deep trouble. BlackCab (TALK) 05:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Roller958: Black Cab is right, you are wrong. The content is well sourced, you are a single purpose account. That's about all there is to say here other than that if you keep it up you'll likely be topic banned. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This belongs on the reliable sources noticeboard as there is no relevant fringe theory as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to add that a person's opinion on a subjective matter cannot be subject to peer review. Roches (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Gallbladder (Chinese medicine)

• Gallbladder (Chinese medicine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While looking for GA articles related about animal products used in alt med (to assist in a rewrite of Velvet antler), I found this stub article. "...This also leads to controversy about the validity of TCM, which comes from the difficulty of translating and lack of knowledge about TCM concepts and Chinese culture. So, to avoid conflict and to keep an open mind, one must realize that these notions evolved in a different culture and are a different way of viewing the human body."

I think a complete rewrite is in order. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Zero sources cited whatsover. Not to mention lack of secondary sources. Suggest WP:AFD. — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MiHsC

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MiHsC

Thoughts and comments welcome.

jps (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Over two thirds of the sources cited are to the author of the term itself, thus the article functions primarily as self promotion. — Cirt (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fringe science organizations

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fringe science organizations

Another article that is a synthesis, in my opinion. Please comment.

jps (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I think VQuakr has the right idea here. Move to List of fringe science organizations, and remove any that fail WP:RS. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Water fluoridation controversy

Water fluoridation controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Look at this article. The lede includes nothing about the fact that water fluoridation is perhaps one of the most successful public health initiatives ever undertaken (where it hasn't been sabotaged by pseudoscientific conspiracy theorists). The entire thing treats the conspiracy theorists as though they have a valid point. Can we get some help here?

jps (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has established many articles that IMHO were created to appease a virulent anti-fluoridation crowd. Water fluoridation is a strong article that remains well curated because the antifluoridation advocates have not been able to find WP:MEDRS sources that would make fluoridation anything but a major medical breakthrough. The antifluoridation groups are (fortunately for those supporting fluoridation) scientifically illterate so they are having trouble articulating what they feel so strongly about/against. The trade-off is that since the antifluoridation advocates cannot make any headway on the main article, many subsidiary niggling articles have been created:

• Fluoride therapy
• Fluoride poisoning
• Fluorine deficiency
• Water fluoridation controversy
• Dental fluorosis
• Skeletal fluorosis
• History of water fluoridation
• Water fluoridation in the United States
• Water fluoridation in Australia
• Fluoridation by country

So that is my view. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do I feel like I just stepped into a scene from Dr. Strangelove? On a more serious note, this is clearly POV pushing on a large scale. A lot of these articles should be trimmed or simply merged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

They are unlikely to be merged, as they are mostly fringe gumf they wont be allowed into the main articles due to lack of reliable sourcing and scientific support. Or any science at all in some cases. It would be like trying to merge Homeopathy into cancer treatments... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought Dr. Strangelove should be mentioned earlier in the article, because the fluoridation conspiracy is presented in that film as patently insane. Now, the Soviet Union fluoridated its water, but I guess there's nothing stopping them from using a Commie mind control plot on their own people, provided that it turns people into Communists. That would also explain why they stopped fluoridating in 1990. No Communism, no fluoride. Or maybe it had something to do with the economic collapse of the USSR. When water fluoridation is discontinued, it's for economic reasons. The article doesn't say that at all, as far as I can tell. When the program was introduced, people drank more tap water than they do now, and had less access to 'targeted' fluoridation from toothpaste and dentist visits. The changes mean that people get enough fluoride from other sources, so it's no longer cost-effective to fluoridate all the tap water. Roches (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried to introduce Dr. Strangelove connections into that article years ago, if I recall correctly. It is super-suprising to me how much headway ideologues have made with respect to these nonsense claims. I would welcome and support a wholesale overhaul of these articles. jps (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Anthroposophic pharmacy

• Anthroposophic pharmacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure this is needed in addition to Anthroposophic medicine, but from the current article you'd hardly know that the underlying concepts were as absurd as they are, as reported in non-fringe RS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect this is one of those cases where no WP:MEDRS sources have covered the subject at all (because it's, well, patently ridiculous); a PubMed search for "anthroposophic pharmacy" gives just a single hit, and it's irrelevant (a literature review where anthroposophic drugs were excluded). A merge to anthroposophic medicine might be best, especially since it's the only article linking to it. Kolbasz (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that sticking a cow horn in the ground does not induce magical properties? Shame your your narrow-minded reductionist so-called "science". Guy (Help!) 14:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Maybe an WP:AFD is best to determine if a Merge is appropriate, or if problematic WP:SYNTH is involved or violation of WP:RS. IF reliable sources are in question, one can bring those to WP:RSN. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology

This AfD was closed "no consensus". I find the article Self-creation cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to still be very problematic. We need either a cleanup or a new AfD, in my opinion.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I offer this redirect as an option for how to handle the situation. jps (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Aaaaand nonsense pushback. jps (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That's way above my pay grade. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 00:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment: Talk:Self-creation cosmology#RfC: Redirect? jps (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Perhaps a WP:DRV might be the next step, if one respectfully disagrees with the WP:AFD outcome. — Cirt (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Vani Hari

Vani Hari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think this talk page could use some more eyes. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: A more specific description and background of the issues and possible conflicts at hand, including possible sources in dispute and DIFF Links, might help respondents on this board to understand and assess the situation more thoroughly. — Cirt (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad - discovered America in 889?

Anyone want to rewrite this which presents a person in a story as real? was removed as a source for a critical comment, but the only fact is that Al-Masudi presents this as a story known by every Spaniard and that Al-Masudi casts doubt upon the possibility of crossing the Atlantic before mentioning this story. Doug Weller (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

See for a source of one of the quotes, which doesn't seem accurately reported. Doug Weller (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, maybe I'm missing something here. What exactly is the point of contention? From what I can see here he sailed "east" from Delhi to somewhere, maybe Oceania, Hawaii, the island from Lost, some damn place, anyway. Or is it, maybe, a question regarding notahility of the article itself, which, honestly, I'm not really sure is necessarily established? John Carter (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither notability nor is the question of whether this person ever lived is established, but the article is written as though there is no doubt that he existed. Doug Weller (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have seen on google some books discussing this subject, but only in the context of either the book which mentions it or the claim to having discovered America or something. The other relevant article on this topic seems to be Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories, but this individual doesn't seem to be mentioned in the "Claims of Arab contact" sect8ion, assuming Aswad was an Arab of course. Maybe add a sentence or two to that article regarding this claim and then nominate it for deletion as non-notable? John Carter (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And, I think, this issue has been resolved thanks to the welcome and appreciated efforts of User:WegianWarrior here. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Fringe edits on Lamarckism

A user called Thundergodz has just deleted a load of references from the Lamarckism article, claiming they are 'unreliable'. The sources include Jerry Coyne and David Gorski. Am I missing something here? Why have these been deleted? I am going to re-add these sources. If it is true and these are unreliable then feel free to revert me. A little angry (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Jerry Coyne and David Gorski seem like educated individuals and reliable. But what were the publications? Were they secondary sources? Peer reviewed? Can you show us DIFF Links of what was removed? A little more specificity would lend some clarity to providing insight here. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Center for Security Policy (sanitizing of article about Islamophobic hate group)

Center for Security Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't know if this falls within the purview of FT or not so am throwing this out there to get feedback and advise on resolution. The Center for Security Policy is a group self-identifying as a "think tank" that has been widely derided for propagating "conspiracy theories." Recently an IP editor has started aggressively rewriting the article to recraft those descriptions as follows: "The Center's hard line views—especially on radical Islam—have caused it and the Center's founder and President, Frank Gaffney, Jr., to be reviled by the left which has accused the Center of Islamophobia and propagating conspiracy theories." The IP editor has also liberally peppered the article with inline off-Wiki links to the CSP website, expunged traces of the withering criticism the CSP has come under, and inserted weasel words like "free speech advocate" as the descriptor for Lars Hedegaard (whom the New York Times describes as an "anti-Islam polemicist" ). LavaBaron (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting case. I think here we have someone who is alleging that there is a Muslim conspiracy, and would qualify as a conspiracy theory in the strict sense, but American political discourse over the last 20 years has descended into such bathos that it is hard to figure out what is supposed to be a strict claim of fact and what is a rhetorical device. Do we want to say that anti-corporatists are also conspiracy theorists? Hard to say. What seems clear to me is that the conspiracy theory judgment is definitely one that is being leveled in a political context and as such there are grains of salt that need to be given. It would be nice if a sufficiently non-partisan group provided the evidence that CfSP is firmly gripped by conspiracy theorist ideation; right now the sourcing in the article is C to B grade at best for that kind of contention. To be clear, I think the IP editor's recrafting is fine except for the weird parenthetical about "radical Islam". From the sources I'm reading about this group they seem to take a hard line view on all of Islam. As for the other points you make, "free speech advocate" is not a particularly neutral descriptor of Lars Hedegaard, but I might suggest taking up some of this with WP:NPOVN which may be better equipped to handle political questions. As far as fringe theories go, I think you'll need a bit stronger source to identify that they are truly out in the tinfoil hat-land, though, regrettably, it is often hard to tell the difference on the surface. Independent, third-party sources are what you need, and better ones than are currently being proffered in the article, if possible. jps (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Writing "an IP editor has started aggressively rewriting the article" and "The IP editor has also liberally peppered the article..." are erroneous statements and do not reflect the truth (i.e. the diffs). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So to clarify -

• You think peppering off-Wiki links to the CSP's website in the body text is "fine."
• You think using the phrase "Global Jihad Movement" in a Misplaced Pages article (not in quotes to indicate it is CSP craziness but out-of-quotes to imply it is a real thing known to academia) is "fine."
• You think purging criticism the CSP received from the Huffington Post, SPLC, six members of the U.S. Congress, et al., for accusing Huma Abedin of being a "Muslim" saboteur/spy is "fine."
• You think purging criticism the CSP received from the The Nation, Georgetown University, etc. for the CSP's position that the U.S. government has redesigned some of its logos to show that Barack Obama is secretly signalling he has subjugated America to Shariah Law is "fine."
• You think weasel-phrases like "have caused it to be reviled by the left" are encyclopedic, scholarly, and "fine."

Just want to clarify that when you said "I think the IP editor's recrafting is fine" that's what you meant you were signing-on to. Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you be any more tiresome? It's clear that jps was referring to the one sentence you said the IP recrafted. This isn't relevant to FTN anyway, so take it to NPOVN or put up an Rfc on the article's talk page if need be. - Location (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Location, above, is right. I was commenting on only two specific points: the single sentence and the argument that Hedegaard is a "free speech advocate". I did not comment on anything else. In any case, did you really want any feedback or not? We're equipped to handle one thing here: how Misplaced Pages should handle fringe theories. The only fringe theories that I see that are relevant here are those associated with certain Islamophobic conspiracy theories. The rest of your complaint is best left for a different venue. jps (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The actual "recrafting" by an IP (this one) did not make edits to the article to include the aforementioned (as outlined on the SPI of Zeke1999). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No indictment was intended, jps. From the tone of your comment it sounded to me like you had looked at the article and diffs. That's why I was asking for clarification (see: Just want to clarify that when you said... etc.) as opposed to making an accusation. LavaBaron (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked briefly at the article, but not the history, and tried to identify the thing that we are supposed to help with here. I assumed that what you were concerned about was the sentence and phrase you quoted. The rest of your concern was too vague for me to identify and was largely unrelated to fringe theories as far as I could tell. Then your follow-up came across to me as combative with all that "fine." But it could all just be a misinterpretation. I'm not sure why you think "have caused it to be reviled by the left" is a problematic phrase. Are you saying that it is not reviled by the left? Or are you saying that it is reviled by more than just the left? jps (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither, I'm saying it's OR and POVy. The sources cited to support the phrase "have caused it to be reviled by the left" are simply several RS sources (Georgetown University, The Nation, etc.) stating CSP engages in conspiracy theorizing, they don't say "we are the left and we revile CSP" or anything like that. The IP editor is (a) using OR to assume Georgetown University and The Nation constitute "the left," or "leftists" and (b) using OR to reframe their conclusion that CSP is a conspiracy theorist as indication of their "revulsion" of it. I'm a little surprised I need to explain why editor's critiquing sources in an article, instead of synthesizing their content, is problematic.

I posted it here, rather than the NPOVN, because it involves a group that propagates conspiracy theories (as stated by the sources before the IP editor rewrote the entire article). LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, misrepresenting sources is no good, but it seems to me that the sentence itself probably could be sourced. jps (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The "IP editor is (a)..." neither doing nor has done any such thing, the IP editor did not rewrite the article. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's customary on WP to write articles based on sources we think probably exist somewhere, but just can't find. LavaBaron (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the article and recent editing history, I think it's a tough calll on whether this is WP:PROFRINGE. It might be. But I would definitely call it aggressive POV editing. In either case it's a no no. That said we need to tread carefully. There are a lot of editors, myself included, who have seen what we believe to be left leaning bias intruding into articles on controversial subjects. And there are a lot of editors who interpret anything that doesn't tow the PC line as fringe. That said, I do think this is a pretty glaring case of POV pushing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the POV-pusher is Zeke1999 as I find something about LavaBaron's comments quite disingenuous. The statement in the article that reads "...criticized by the left..." is cited to Georgetown's Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding, Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America, and The Nation, yet LavaBaron says 1) that these are "simply reliable sources" stating something as fact, and 2) that characterizing these organizations as "the left" is original research. Now the ACMCU may not be "left", but there exists an apparent bias that requires in-text attribution for their views. The later three are clearly described in reliable sources — and even by themselves — as either left, liberal, or progressive. Again, use in-text attribution and this isn't an issue. - Location (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm grateful for this discussion. I don't deny that Gaffney and his think tank are controversial. I don't oppose including criticism of them. My problem with Lavabaron's changes is that they were exclusively drawn from liberal sources, some of which did not even verify his statements. The so-called Georgetown source noted above is a particularly biased source. He or she also repeatedly removed new material that was sourced and corrections. I also think some of the discussion above on what constitutes a conspiracy theorist is important. If Gaffney is a bona fide conspiracy theorist, why is he so close to congressional Republicans? Why does he make so many media appearances where this is not mentioned? Contrast this with notorious conspiracy theorists like neo-Nazis ands Holocaust deniers. Is Gaffney really in this category or is he a polemicist? I should add that Hillary Clinton's campaign allegedly came up with the Obama-birther conspiracy (which, by the way, I agree is silly). Clinton has also referred to the "great right wing conspiracy." Is she a conspiracy theorist too? Of course not.

I think the real POV issue here concerns Lavabaron who clearly has a strong dislike for Gaffney and CSP. I want to note that before Lavabaron raised fringe, POV and COI complaints, he or she lodged a groundless sock puppet complaint that a Misplaced Pages administrator rejected. I don't know enough about Misplaced Pages to defend my edits against this person who appears to be pursuing his or her own fringe agenda.Zeke1999 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of the statements made by LavaBaron are incorrect (e.g. concerning "the IP editor", i.e. false claims), and may also be disingenous as well. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the suggestion that the Clinton campaign started the birther movement, it's now clear to me from this edit that LavaBaron isn't interested in working with others and is merely looking for validation of his/her own POV. I suggest this be closed and moved to NPOVN. - Location (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge you are upset by the use of "liberal sources" like The Nation, Reason Magazine (?!), and Georgetown University in the article about your group, the Center for Security Policy. I also acknowledge that, as of yesterday, more than 80% of your 32 lifetime edits over 7 years on WP were to the CSP article, or those of two bios of your CSP staff members, which has included removal of critical material sourced to the Washington Post (apparently also a "liberal" source that can't be trusted?). I also acknowledge that the majority of your edits were done on these lightly trafficked articles within 24 hours of an IP editor making substantially identical edits. I also acknowledge, aside from the highly questionable nature of your edits to obfuscate criticism, you have also crossed several WP:PROMOTIONAL bright lines, such as inserting in-text links to your CSP website in violation of WP:EXT. I also acknowledge you seem to have a free hand to continue your disruption and I'm tired of mounting a one-man defense so resign. If anyone else wants to take this up, be my guest, otherwise laissez les bons temps rouler. LavaBaron (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with liberal sources. I just object to people posting biased hit pieces. You claimed my edits were to sanitize, used an SPA, accused me of using a sock puppet and accused me of COI after I made changes to two items that did not remove your critical but poorly sourced material. You did reverted all edits to two articles made by numerous editors. Wow! There must be something Misplaced Pages can do about your abusive and biased editing.Zeke1999 (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron stating "...an IP editor making substantially identical edits" is not correct. While such tools (on wmflabs.org) designed to determine editor interaction can be useful, those do not necessarily show the actual truth and most certainly do not show "making substantially identical edits" (nor do the diffs, except if perhaps selecting only an undo of RBK - to try to make a point(?), which could well be disingenous or whatever else explains). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem you're having on WP is you believe anything that is critical of your organization is a "liberal source" that is "hit piece." You have, astonishingly, even criticized the respected libertarian pub Reason Magazine of being a "liberal source." You'll find that this type of paranoia doesn't usually go over all that well and you may feel better at home on Conservapedia. The reason I accused you of COI was because, specifically: as of yesterday, more than 80% of your 32 lifetime mainspace edits over 7 years on WP were to the CSP article, or those of two bios of your CSP staff members, which has included removal of critical material sourced to the Washington Post , the majority of your edits were done on these lightly trafficked articles within 24 hours of an IP editor making substantially identical edits, you have also crossed several WP:PROMOTIONAL bright lines, such as inserting in-text links to your CSP website in violation of WP:EXT. . On WP this is known as the WP:DUCKTEST. Hope that clarifies. Please let me know if you have any other questions. LavaBaron (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, the mention of "...within 24 hours of an IP editor making substantially identical edits" is erroneous. Also, the diff provided to illustrate "inserting in-text links" is merely where Zeke1999 undid the undo that LavaBaron had done on my undo of his mass RBK of the article to where LavaBaron's last edit was made, which removed material added by several editors - the IP most certainly not related to Zeke1999, nor any other editors). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with these comments by LavaBaron, above: DIFF 1, and DIFF 2. Reason Magazine is certainly a good source, but it can hardly be characterized as a "liberal source". And anyone that does try to characterize it as a "liberal source", is letting their POV show through quite tellingly. — Cirt (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Presumably, Cirt, the agreement (with above diffs) does not include the "IP" this and "IP" that claims. (While having nothing to do with my edits) I agree Reason Magazine is a good source and might well be showing POV if categorizing as a "liberal source" - except, from what I had read on the "discussions" (or whatever it's called), I do not recall reading where anyone stated such a thing about that particular reference either. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • LavaBaron is also correct that The Washington Post DIFF, is a reliable source. And that Reason Magazine is most certainly not a "liberal source". These problematic issues raised above are indeed WP:REDFLAGs. — Cirt (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Cirt, I don't see from those diffs that Zeke1999 and/or 99.170.117.163 ever claimed that The Washington Post or Reason were unreliable or that Reason was a "liberal source". As far as The Nation, it self-describes itself in the following statement: "For 150 years, The Nation has uniquely chronicled the breadth of American political and cultural life and is often considered the “flagship” of the political Left." - Location (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant to link Reason Magazine, which is not thought of as liberal. I'd like to hear more from LavaBaron. Perhaps an WP:SPI investigation would help with this issue. — Cirt (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999. - Location (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like lots of commentary from the involved parties may have sidetracked that SPI. I wish the best of luck to Bbb23 and anyone else involved in investigating that SPI in seeing the forest for the trees. — Cirt (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From what I saw on the Fleitz article (when glancing at diff you provided), it looks as if The Washington Post was retained as a source (x2) and the diff does not seem to show "removal of critical material sourced to" the reference at all (as LavaBaron had claimed), rather it shows re-arranging while retaining the "critical material" far as I can tell. When looking at the prior version compared to the edit made by Zeke1999 (same two as in diff), it looks like nothing significant (if anything) was removed insofar as content (verbiage), and instead the article was reformatted, sections created, material from old version moved under appropriate headings, updated, etc. - an improvement (imo). Even if only comparing the diffs, it does not seem as if anything was "sanitized" nor any "removal of critical material sourced". Although, it can perhaps be (or is) confusing to look at diffs (link provided by LavaBaron and later by you, Cirt) on such a major edit and think something was removed when trying to follow all the changes made(?) (by that is meant what appears to be mainly reorganizing, rearranging). The old version had eight references, the edit by Zeke1999 has 39! (and, lo and behold, Washington Post references are still there) What was the issue again? 99.170.117.163 (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Mohamed clock incident

Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A substantial number of sources have described some rumors and speculation as conspiracy theories and allegations of hoax, but two editors DHeyward and Cla68 are of the opinion that these are just contrary opinions, and have replaced the "Conspiracy theories and hoax allegations" heading with "Contrary opinions" and added an opening sentence to the section. "A number of those observing and analyzing the incident have questioned or criticized the original narrative" (which I believe is a good example of WP:OR). They also added scare quotes ("conspiracy theories") when describing them in the article.

There are no sources that describe these comments as "contrary opinions". Any disinterested observer would clearly see that these are indeed fringe and conspiracy theories, and we should follow the sources and call them for what they are.

If these are conspiracy theories as described in reliable sources, Misplaced Pages should not attempt to present these any any other ways than fringe theories. I'd appreciate comments from uninvolved editors- Cwobeel (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to get into this but I have my hands full with the Center for Security Policy (above), at the moment. Suffice to say, WP is on LoonWatch Level 5 right now. LavaBaron (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to start taking more care with the use of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist". I've noticed that the term is clearly being used more frequently on both sides of the political spectrum — see the previous FTN discussion — due to the negative connotation it implies. "Hoax allegations" seems appropriate for the section title. In-text attribution for who believes others are pushing a "conspiracy theory" is warranted. - Location (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. "Hoax allegations" may work to some extent, but there are some theories that are not about a hoax. But most definitively better than "Contrary views". - Cwobeel (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory describes exactly that, a theory about an alleged conspiracy (that is, a group of people working in secret to accomplish some shadowy goal). The term has picked up a negative connotation due to all the bonkers groups out there getting media attention every time they run their mouths (birthers, truthers, etc.). But it's still an accurate label, especially since people like Dawkins think the motive here was to neuter criticism of Muslims in order to allow extremism to flourish. It's not just that they think Mohamed pulled a prank, but that they think he did it for some ulterior and nefarious motive: getting access to the president, loosening security restrictions in schools, etc. etc. clpo13_(talk) 05:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is that Breitbart, WashingtonPost, Foxnews, Dawkins and Bill Maher all got together to make something up. Please. There are many that question motives. --DHeyward (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Bill Maher is not included in that section, neither is WaPo (pleas take some time to read the material and the sources above). So why are you not addressing the issue at hand? These are indeed fringe theories and should be described as such. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This source discusses the problem the best -- additional secondary sources listed above confirm the same:
  • Selk, Avi (September 23, 2015). "Craze over teen clockmaker from Irving shifts from celebrity to conspiracy". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on September 23, 2015. Retrieved September 24, 2015. Conspiracy theories about Ahmed Mohamed are spreading nearly as fast as the boy's celebrity.
• The solution is to prune the article of sources that fail WP:RS and espouse WP:FRINGE views. If such fringe views are indeed identified as "conspiracy theores" by multiple secondary sources that meet WP:RS, then they should be identified as such, in the article. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Anything that doesn't tow the PC line is fringe. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Bit of a WP:REDFLAG comment there if I've ever heard one. LOL. — Cirt (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• The term "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation suggesting lack of credibility. We might want to make the distinction between what are called conspiracy theories and reasonable questions of Ahmed Mohamed's version of the story. I don't think we should imply that all questions of his version are conspiracy theories. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm just taking a wild stab in the dark here, but is Glenn Beck the one promoting conspiracist bullshit? Guy (Help!) 12:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

JzG, Glen Beck, Infowars, Ben Shapiro at Breitbart, Andrew Napolitano, Mark Styen, and others. See above collapsed section "Theories". - Cwobeel (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Who could possibly have predicted that? And in what universe is it remotely controversial to call these nutters conspiracy theorists? Guy (Help!) 14:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We are following the sources, and sources call them conspiracy theories. But there are some editors that are forwarding the notion that this incident was distorted by the media, believe these "alternative narratives" have more weight than the one covered by a preponderance of sources, and object to being labelled conspiracy theories. If they have issues with how these narratives are being depicted, they should complain to the media. WP is not the place to correct perceived wrongs. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A good example of that posture, is Raquel Baranow's above: Anything that doesn't tow the PC line is fringe. I am glad I brought this issue to this noticeboard. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

These responses contain straw man fallacies that imply, for example, that I am disputing that Glen Beck's comments are conspiracy theories, which I'm not. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right, sorry. I think a good compromise would be using "Conspiracy theories and alternate narratives" as the sub-head for that section, and use inline attribution as suggested earlier above. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"Alternate narratives"? Srsly? The "alternate narratives" are all speculative and all driven by motivated reasoning. "Right-wing speculation" would be better but is also not good really. "Racist bullshit" is what I would say if this were not Misplaced Pages... Guy (Help!) 15:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We could use "Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories", which would be accurate for all the included content in that section. BTW, the section being discussed is this: - Cwobeel (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice. I think that is perfect. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed about Richard Dawkins. Older British scientists have a stereotypical tendency to dismiss anything done by someone who is not of the appropriate class or who has not spent an appropriate amount of time doing menial tasks. They tend to furiously discourage young people from pursuing STEM work. They should know better, but it does happen. (This is forum-y, but I really wanted to say it.)

Overall, I think the article currently has an appropriate amount of content on the conspiracy theories. They all fail to consider that Ahmed might not have seen any movies that show bombs that look like that. It's not at all a design for a real bomb, and I think anyone who says it is is probably motivated to arrive at the conclusion that it's a viable bomb. I would like to see more about Islam in Ahmed's life. Fundamentally, this is racist rather than Islamophobic because it appears we are assuming that Ahmed Mohammed is a radical Muslim because of his name and ethnic origin; he may not be a Muslim at all. Also, what are the "reasonable questions" about his version? Roches (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Mohamed is indeed Muslim, according to many reports. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This issue seems frustrating because the news doesn't seem to say basic obvious things. I mean, why would he put a disassembled clock in a pencil case? Maybe so he has more control over when the internal wiring is exposed. Why would he take apart a clock and think it was special? Maybe he wanted to see what happens when you short this pin to ground, that pin to positive voltage. But the mainstream news doesn't explain the obvious, while the fringe news says the loony, and so the loonies get a sort of majority. Best in this case to listen if someone calls something 'conspiracy', but it's less than satisfactory. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We can speculate all we want, but that is not our role as editors, which is to report significant viewpoints based on reliable sources. (I will not engage in a discussion about what was or was not "obvious" per WP:NOTFORUM. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen Dean Burnett's Dawkins decision tree? And that about sums it up. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC on "Conspiracy Theorist"

An RfC here asks whether Frank Gaffney can be identified as a "conspiracy theorist" in his BLP or not. LavaBaron (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution