Misplaced Pages

:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:21, 25 March 2018 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,480 edits →Reality Sandwich: new sectionTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Revision as of 21:59, 25 March 2018 edit undoTheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,372 edits →NYCJosh on CIA activities in Iraq: new sectionNext edit →
Line 153: Line 153:


] (]) 19:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC) ] (]) 19:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

== NYCJosh on CIA activities in Iraq ==

Shortly before the ], numerous newspapers and websites (some more serious than others) published opinion pieces claiming (based largely on the journalist ]'s 2000 book ''Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge'') that the CIA had aided the ] that overthrew ] and first brought ]'s Ba'ath Party to power. Chief among these was which appeared—clearly labelled "opinion"—in ''The New York Times'' on March 14, 2003 (only days before the invasion). These claims have been largely ignored since that time, but several academics have scrutinized them and concluded that they are unsupported by evidence. These include the following:
*{{cite book|last=Hahn|first=Peter|title=Missions Accomplished?: The United States and Iraq Since World War I|publisher=]|year=2011|isbn=9780195333381|p=48|quote=Declassified U.S. government documents offer no evidence to support these suggestions.}}
*{{cite book|last=Gibson|first=Bryan R.|title=Sold Out? US Foreign Policy, Iraq, the Kurds, and the Cold War|publisher=]|year=2015|isbn=978-1-137-48711-7|pp=xvii, 58, 200|quote=However, a careful examination of a wide range of documents and interviews raises important questions about the veracity of these claims as to whether the CIA was behind the 1963 B'athist coup.&nbsp;... In sum, barring the release of new information, the preponderance of evidence substantiates the conclusion that the CIA was not behind the February 1963 B'athist coup.}} ( cites Gibson as {{tq|"the most detailed and comprehensive study to date of U.S.–Iraqi relations from the late 1950s to the 1970s"}}.)
*{{cite book|last=Citino|first=Nathan J.|title=Envisioning the Arab Future: Modernization in US-Arab Relations, 1945–1967|chapter=The People's Court|publisher=]|year=2017|isbn=9781108107556|p=222|quote=Although the United States <b>did not initiate</b> the 14 Ramadan coup, at best it condoned and at worst it contributed to the violence that followed.}} (''emphasis added'')
Aburish was not a historian, but a journalist that relied on anonymous "contacts in the Arab world." This has led scholars to avoid relying on his work. For example, cautions: {{tq|"The most sensational claims have been based largely on the work of journalist Said Aburish. In his book, ''Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge'' Aburish claims that the 1963 coup 'represented one of the most elaborate CIA operations in the history of the Middle East' (55–56). His account furnishes a great deal of detail, but very little documentation as it based largely on interviews with former Ba'thists."}} Aburish's ''Nasser: The Last Arab'' (2004) was similarly in the '']'': {{tq|"Methodologically, the most serious flaw in the book is the (mis)use of sources. Aburish has ignored new sources on Nasser and Nasserism based on declassified archival material that has been published in revent years&nbsp;... Instead, Aburish has relied on old, well-known biographies and outdated studies as well as several biased interviews, which he accepts at a face value."}}

Yet {{U|NYCJosh}} is now spamming into several articles: ], ], and ]. He appears to be completely unaware of the academic debate on this topic over the past decade. One of his sources— making the related claim that the famous 1959 assassination attempt on Qasim involving Saddam—which was endlessly restaged on Iraqi television for decades under Saddam's rule—was somehow supported by the CIA was never corroborated, was ignored by every other media outlet, and has been universally dismissed by all other sources—including Aburish! (The claim is based entirely on the fact that Egypt provided sanctuary to Saddam after the attempt failed, which could indicate the culpability of Egyptian intelligence in the attack, and warming relations between the U.S. and Egypt at the time—which ''of course'' must mean that the U.S. was involved, too—along with Sale's "anonymous sources", speaking in ''2003''.) Wolfe-Hunnicutt 2011 dismisses Sale in a footnote on p. 42, but it is again Gibson 2015 (pp. 25–26) that provides the most thorough debunking: {{tq|"The body of evidence available does not suggest that the United States was directly complicit in the attempted assassination&nbsp;... Indeed, documents from the period leading up to the attempt all suggest that, while the United States was aware of several plots against Qasim, it had still adhered to its nonintervention policy."}}

NYCJosh appears to believe that Misplaced Pages's only sourcing policy is ]. He does not seem to understand that ] in Misplaced Pages's voice. There is not a single reliable source for these claims in any of his edits, whereas he has previously been cautioned by other editors (e.g., {{U|Snooganssnoogans}} ) for ''actively removing'' academic sources that contradict his views (also in the area of U.S.–Iraq relations). Are not academic historians more reliable than opinion columnists? Given the available scholarship, could NYCJosh's additions be any more ]?

It seems to me that it would reflect very badly on Misplaced Pages if the lack of expertise among Misplaced Pages editors allows FRINGE garbage like this to proliferate.] (]) 21:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:59, 25 March 2018

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    ShortcutsBefore posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

    We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

    If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

    Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.

    Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:


    Archiving icon
    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.


    Is faith healing a form of pseudo-science (round 2)

    Here we go again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

    Already notified above. Commented. Must say I was slightly surprised that RS seems to put this stuff so squarely as pseudoscience. Raimo Tuomela gives a painstaking exposition in:
    See particularly pages 94-96. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

    Alt-med? Seriously?

    Matters have now turned to trying to characterize it as "alternative medicine" in the first sentence. That would be news to the vast majority of Christendom. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

    Seems anachronistic to say the least. Kinda like calling astrology a UFO religion. jps (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    So the issue here is that some editors seem to prefer to cite a religious web site over a scholarly work when defining faith healing. My attempt to firm-up the sourcing has been reverted. I'm not sure the OUP source cited is the last word
    But it surely beats a web site as a source? I think - as we have seen in the RfC - there is a general attempt to downplay the WP:FRINDepenent view of faith healing which we are obliged to reflect, and which the OUP source gives. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    We can say, plainly, that faith healing is not based on any evidence. What is the website that users are citing? jps (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    Found it! thearda.com should not be used so prominently. No way. jps (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    Yup it's the Association of Religion Data Archives - check out the opening of the article; it in turn is meant to be citing a 1995 religious encyclopedia, but that isn't verified. Anyway, the definition in the OUP source is this:

    A form of alternative or unvonventional medicine that functions on the belief that illness can be arrested and even cured by faith alone, such as by prayer or the intercession of a supernatural power.

    Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    I think the compound adjective belies the "alternative medicine" topic which is something that is taken up by a somewhat different group of ne'er-do-well-ers. "Unconventional medicine" seems like the crack to which I'm looking. We should discuss the lack of evidence and lack of efficacy (which was known to Mark Twain, ferchrissakes). jps (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    I can understand the "alternative" designation because in some forms (e.g. Christian Science) the supernatural healing is supposed to be used instead of conventional medicine. Time to look at more sources methinks. Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    There are a lot of issues here, but the main one is the persistent attempt to recast a wide range of religions views and practices into one narrow perspective which certainly misrepresents the majority view of mainline/orthodox Christianity for starters. And no, a dictionary of medicine is not as good a reference on religion as a work on religion is, never mind whether it has to be that website that is cited. It seems to me that it is reasonable to say that some approaches to the matter fall into something like alt med, and that it cannot be verified scientifically, but calling it alt med in the first sentence is hardly neutral. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think neutrality is the issue here. Specificity and definition is the issue. "Faith healing" is a very particular kind of practice which declaims health outcomes on the basis of religious practice. This is not the same thing as intercessory prayer, of course. jps (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

    Yeah, but I think that in most forms of contemporary practice it is done as a religious practice. You no longer go down to your local Christian Science Reading Room and ask them to take care of your miasmas, as was the case in Twain's time. jps (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

    You'd be surprised. Actually, you probably wouldn't ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    I think Ernst's title phrasing, while understandable, is not actually indicating that Kenneth Copeland has opened a kind of for-pay faith healing clinic similar to that which the followers of Mary Baker Eddy used to run. Vaccine refusal is a tried and true 'Muricanist religious right (as opposed to rite, I guess)! jps (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    I thought the anti-vaccine movement was mostly on the far left? GMG 18:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    It's one of the issues that joins far left and far right in unholy union. Kinda like chemtrails. jps (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I think the root of the problem is that the article is focusing on three different topics:
    1) Biblical narratives about healing miracles (which have been interpreted in different ways)
    2) The rather mainstream theological position that it's fine to ask God to ensure that science-based medicine will be successful, even if studies and even Jesus's own teachings give the impression that while God answer all prayers, many are answered "no."
    3) The belief (ultimately rooted in or at least popularized by New Thought) that physical healing comes solely from spiritual faith and that physical science is either unnecessary or antagonistic
    It's 1 and 2 that are getting people touchy. No upstanding editor would insist that 3 isn't pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    Agree it's a messy division (and the article is poor too). We've also got the concept of spiritual healing which is currently just redirected to energy medicine (?). Ideally we could sort out some better division of this topic space. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    Agree. (Whoah... Deja vu.) If we categorize the various subjects all crammed into that page better, many of the people opposing labeling it a pseudoscience would, according to their own admission, change their !votes wrt the third topic above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • ”Alt-med” stands for “alternative medicine”... which implies some sort of “medicine” is involved. The problem is that faith healing omits the “medicine” part entirely. Perhaps a better term for it would be “non-med”. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

    As I've been reading a lot on this subject over the last two days, I've come to realize that there are aspects of "faith healing" which land firmly in the alternative medicine camp . I guess this shouldn't have surprised me. Is it lede-worthy? Hard to say. Ugh. jps (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

    Stephen G. Bassett, world's first ET disclosure lobbyist in the US

    From the lead: "Stephen G. Bassett is the first extraterrestrial life (ET), disclosure (ufology) lobbyist in the United States, executive director and treasurer of the political action committee Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee and executive director of Paradigm Research Group (PRG) that says it wants end to end the governments imposed truth embargo regarding the facts of extraterrestrials engaging the human race." Doug Weller talk 19:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

    Fringe issues aside, the structure of that sentence could use some work.Agricolae (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

    James Mellart, Eberhard Zangger, and Çatalhöyük

    Not sure what to make of THIS, and this yet, but it appears the person accusing him of fraud Eberhard Zangger has some issues of his own. But if accurate will have to be addressed at the Çatalhöyük and James Mellaart articles at some point. And this article from a few years ago seems to support something, although I am not sure what. Heiro 07:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

    CPOT

    At Talk:Andrew Wakefield. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

    Race and intelligence

    This article seems to be grossly imbalanced; it lends far more credence to the fringe theory that there's a concrete correlation between race and intelligence than RSes do. I'm not the only one to notice this: The SPLC explicitly calls it out in a new article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

    Heads up

    I found this over at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Skepticism. YouTube will be inserting links to WP into conspiracy theory videos in an effort to debunk them. So prepare for a flood of True Believers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

    I suspect we may see more use of WP:ECP if this goes as expected ... Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

    Without Women or Evolution: 'Ultra-Orthodox Misplaced Pages' Is Literally Rewriting History (Haaretz)

    I had to "sign up" (6 free articles per month, they say) to read this article, but it was worth it. .

    "And it’s not just science and evolution that have been made kosher. Even generic, otherwise uncontroversial articles are required to become “modest” – an ultra-Orthodox euphemism for a prohibition on any images of women. Thus, for example, the entry about the current Israeli government, which includes ultra-Orthodox parties, has all the female ministers cropped out – a warped perspective eerily evident in the doctored image." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

    Is it a Misplaced Pages site (see List of Wikipedias), or is it a website somewhere which happens to be a wiki, like Conservapedia? Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
    The later: http://www.hamichlol.org.il/ There's still a lot about WP in the article, they used a lot of hebrew-WP content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
    There's been a brouhaha in the Hebrew Misplaced Pages on them copying the entire site and whether they attributed it correctly (it seems they did - but it was a very long conversation). If you think hamichlol is bonkers - they do the same thing in their newspapers - including cropping out photos of women (to avoid possible male arousal from the images). But to be honest - all of the various language Misplaced Pages's have their own POV - neutrality varies quite a bit by project..Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

    Clairvoyance edits

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

    Recent work by GoatGod in the Clairvoyance article has used a Huffington post editorial - that includes the question Why is the existing literature on psi phenomena routinely dismissed by the scientific community and virtually ignored within the broader academic community? - to completely overturn the sense of the article so that clairvoyance now has scientific support. A skeptical reference has been discarded (though not all uses of it were removed) as biased. Anyone want to engage on this? — jmcgnh 21:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

    The source given is an 8 year-old HuffPo blog post by a fringe proponent. Probably wouldn't even rate an attributed mention, never mind an extraordinary claim in the article lead written in WPs voice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
    Update: the edit warring kamikaze user account has been blocked. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

    Ian Stevenson

    O Govinda is a Hare Krishna editor who is obviously a believer in reincarnation. He has done mass edits on Ian Stevenson's page. His source is mostly James Matlock a parapsychologist. Does not look like a reliable source. I reverted some of his material but the Stevenson article is rife with fringe sources. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

    Eek! the editor seems to be on a mission. Might be time to comb through the contributions? jps (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    I have been bold and reverted his content on Ian Stevenson. No doubt he will take issue with this, but I will wait and see what happens. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

    Near-death experience

    Article has been dominated by a user Josezetabal who is a believer in the paranormal interpretation of NDEs. This user does not like naturalistic neuroscientific explanations for the NDE and prefers the research of Bruce Greyson or Sam Parnia. This user has added 'limitation' sections for every neuroscientific or psychology theory for the NDE. I have not seen this on any other articles. Now POV editing the lead, for example "However, this model lacks robust data", "their model remains speculative due to the lack of data" etc inserted right into the direct lead. The article now reads stupid. Not interested in engaging this individual but someone else may want to revert the lead to how it was before the fringe edits. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

    Starlite

    Deletion discussion underway concerning this miracle material. Survival seems likely; hoaxiness of material seems equally likely, so may need some of our loving care. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

    Universal Medicine

    Universal Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There's a number of new IP editors adding information to this article that are not paying attention to reliable sourcing. I've reverted some already, but some oversight from more experienced eyes than mine would be appreciated. 79616gr (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

    @79616gr:, you say you aren't experienced, so I want to make sure you know about the Protection Policy. If you think this activity fits the outlines of that policy, you may want to request page protection. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you. I did think semi-protection may be appropriate, but ultimately thought the eyes of an Admin over the article would be the best first call. 79616gr (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

    So this is a thing

    Quantum neuron recoding GMG 17:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

    Just wow. --MaoGo (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    Well, it doesn't seem to fit any criteria for speedy. I don't honestly know enough to tell if AfD is an option, or if it is a "legitimate" fringe theory. GMG 17:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    It is unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    PROD'ed. Created by Brainwellnessspa to largely duplicate their own "study" promoting their business. No independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    Hey, there we go. I knew I came to the right place. GMG 17:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    Orangemike did the necessary thing. Thanks for the speed response. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

    Shroud of Turin

    Chronically infected by shroudies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

    Larsonomy AfD

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dewey Bernard Larson.

    jps (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

    Integral theorist AfD

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Zimmerman.

    Please comment. jps (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

    White genocide conspiracy theory

    A few pages kinda come a bit close to treating some South African farm attacks as evidence for the White genocide conspiracy theory. A South African far-right survivalist group seems to be tying the two together. The Peter Dutton almost treats them as mainstream.

    Not to pretend that nothing's going on there, but at the very least, those pages in question seem to be treating the subject a little too simply, in a way that could be interpreted as giving credence to a white supremacist conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

    William Happer, science fiction reports of climate change, and usually opposing scientists

    This might be a thing to look at. I'm not really good at deciding whether I should revert and face 3RR, but I do see the contribs by a few IP editors aren't supported by sources. Things are calm at the article right now, but you might want to keep an eye on it. byteflush Talk 06:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

    Reality Sandwich

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Reality Sandwich

    Please comment.

    jps (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

    NYCJosh on CIA activities in Iraq

    Shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, numerous newspapers and websites (some more serious than others) published opinion pieces claiming (based largely on the journalist Said K. Aburish's 2000 book Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge) that the CIA had aided the 1963 coup that overthrew Abd al-Karim Qasim and first brought Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party to power. Chief among these was "A Tyrany Forty Years in the Making," which appeared—clearly labelled "opinion"—in The New York Times on March 14, 2003 (only days before the invasion). These claims have been largely ignored since that time, but several academics have scrutinized them and concluded that they are unsupported by evidence. These include the following:

    • Hahn, Peter (2011). Missions Accomplished?: The United States and Iraq Since World War I. Oxford University Press. p. 48. ISBN 9780195333381. Declassified U.S. government documents offer no evidence to support these suggestions.
    • Gibson, Bryan R. (2015). Sold Out? US Foreign Policy, Iraq, the Kurds, and the Cold War. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. xvii, 58, 200. ISBN 978-1-137-48711-7. However, a careful examination of a wide range of documents and interviews raises important questions about the veracity of these claims as to whether the CIA was behind the 1963 B'athist coup. ... In sum, barring the release of new information, the preponderance of evidence substantiates the conclusion that the CIA was not behind the February 1963 B'athist coup. (Salim Yaqub cites Gibson as "the most detailed and comprehensive study to date of U.S.–Iraqi relations from the late 1950s to the 1970s".)
    • Citino, Nathan J. (2017). "The People's Court". Envisioning the Arab Future: Modernization in US-Arab Relations, 1945–1967. Cambridge University Press. p. 222. ISBN 9781108107556. Although the United States did not initiate the 14 Ramadan coup, at best it condoned and at worst it contributed to the violence that followed. (emphasis added)

    Aburish was not a historian, but a journalist that relied on anonymous "contacts in the Arab world." This has led scholars to avoid relying on his work. For example, Wolfe-Hunnicutt (Stanford, 2011, pp 27–28) cautions: "The most sensational claims have been based largely on the work of journalist Said Aburish. In his book, Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge Aburish claims that the 1963 coup 'represented one of the most elaborate CIA operations in the history of the Middle East' (55–56). His account furnishes a great deal of detail, but very little documentation as it based largely on interviews with former Ba'thists." Aburish's Nasser: The Last Arab (2004) was similarly savaged in the International Journal of Middle East Studies: "Methodologically, the most serious flaw in the book is the (mis)use of sources. Aburish has ignored new sources on Nasser and Nasserism based on declassified archival material that has been published in revent years ... Instead, Aburish has relied on old, well-known biographies and outdated studies as well as several biased interviews, which he accepts at a face value."

    Yet NYCJosh is now spamming this garbage into several articles: CIA activities in Iraq, United States involvement in regime change, and Ramadan Revolution. He appears to be completely unaware of the academic debate on this topic over the past decade. One of his sources—an "Exclusive" April 10, 2003 UPI report by Richard Sale making the related claim that the famous 1959 assassination attempt on Qasim involving Saddam—which was endlessly restaged on Iraqi television for decades under Saddam's rule—was somehow supported by the CIA was never corroborated, was ignored by every other media outlet, and has been universally dismissed by all other sources—including Aburish! (The claim is based entirely on the fact that Egypt provided sanctuary to Saddam after the attempt failed, which could indicate the culpability of Egyptian intelligence in the attack, and warming relations between the U.S. and Egypt at the time—which of course must mean that the U.S. was involved, too—along with Sale's "anonymous sources", speaking in 2003.) Wolfe-Hunnicutt 2011 dismisses Sale in a footnote on p. 42, but it is again Gibson 2015 (pp. 25–26) that provides the most thorough debunking: "The body of evidence available does not suggest that the United States was directly complicit in the attempted assassination ... Indeed, documents from the period leading up to the attempt all suggest that, while the United States was aware of several plots against Qasim, it had still adhered to its nonintervention policy."

    NYCJosh appears to believe that Misplaced Pages's only sourcing policy is WP:V. He does not seem to understand that opinion pieces cannot be used for statements of fact in Misplaced Pages's voice. There is not a single reliable source for these claims in any of his edits, whereas he has previously been cautioned by other editors (e.g., Snooganssnoogans here) for actively removing academic sources that contradict his views (also in the area of U.S.–Iraq relations). Are not academic historians more reliable than opinion columnists? Given the available scholarship, could NYCJosh's additions be any more WP:FRINGE?

    It seems to me that it would reflect very badly on Misplaced Pages if the lack of expertise among Misplaced Pages editors allows FRINGE garbage like this to proliferate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

    Categories: