Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:30, 9 January 2025

Proposed deletions

• 07 Jan 2025 – British Society of Dowsers (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by CoconutOctopus (t · c): Non-notable organisation. No independent sources exist on the article, merely a link to a (broken) website of the organisation and a link to companies house. A BEFORE search brings up passing mentions in opinion pieces about dowsing, and a few self-p ...

Categories for discussion

• 05 Jan 2025 – Category:Ancient near eastern cosmology (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c); see discussion
• 21 Dec 2024 – Category:Possibly fictional people from Africa (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c); see discussion
• 21 Dec 2024 – Category:Possibly fictional people from Asia (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 23 Dec 2024 – Transgender health care misinformation (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (t · c); start discussion
• 15 Dec 2024 – Misinformation about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Dan Leonard (t · c); see discussion
• 14 Dec 2024 – Flying saucer (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Rjjiii (t · c); start discussion
• 23 Aug 2024 – Epistemology (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Phlsph7 (t · c); see discussion
• 30 Dec 2024 – Havana syndrome (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by Noleander (t · c) was not promoted by IntentionallyDense (t · c), see discussion

Requests for comments

• 30 Dec 2024 – COVID-19 lab leak theory (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Slatersteven (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

• 06 Jan 2025 – Deep state in the United States (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States by BootsED (t · c); see discussion
• 02 Jan 2025 – Seed oil misinformation (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Health effects of seed oils by 73.40.102.35 (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 02 Dec 2024 – Amulet (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Ta'wiz by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion
• 24 Nov 2024 – Omphalos hypothesis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Last Thursdayism by Викидим (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion

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 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Water fluoridation controversy

• Water fluoridation controversy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

RFK Jr. may belong in the article, but some people insist it has to be in a specific way, which results in lots of edit-warring recently. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the correct space for this. But why do we call it a "controversy"? There is no reasonable controversy to speak of when we're looking at water fluoridation. We don't call the antivaxxer movement part of a "vaccination controversy", or do we? The nicest terms I've seen used is "hesitancy", as in vaccine hesitancy. I think anti-fluoridation cranks deserve the same treatment as anti-vaxxers. Also, they're mostly the same people... I'm thinking the tone should be more in line with anti-vaccine movement or outright mention misinformation, like in COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy. VdSV9•♫ 12:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, deleting the "controversy" part would probably give a better article name. "Opposition to water fluoridation"? But that belongs on the talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That would be a better name Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there has been discussion on the talk page about this: I've moved the article to Opposition to water fluoridation; parts of this article will have to be reworded. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

See also Water fluoridation, which is teetering on the brink of an edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Gain of function research

Would appreciate editor input with regards to these edits:

Discussion is here: Talk:Gain-of-function_research#Covid_Section_Update_reverted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is getting so tiring, a self-admitted WP:PROFRINGE editor pushing and pushing lab leak talking points on multiple articles. There are very good sources on this so writing good content is not hard. Bon courage (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Pushing a partisan as fuck committee report is WP:FRINGE. I think we should be requiring MEDRS level sourcing on this given how politicised it is with people like Rand Paul pushing the conspiracy theories that leads to hyper-partisan committee reports. TarnishedPath 10:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I am the person who made the edits in question. I am not a "self-admitted fringe editor," the link provided for that claim is to a talk page discussion from an entirely different user.

I would like to present a succinct argument for my edits;

1. The United States House of Representatives is not a Fringe source, nor is it a conspiratorial organization.

2. Reports generated by the US House are not generally considered the "mere opinions" of those politicians who create them, they are generally considered, at the very least, not conspiratorial. (Some even have their own Misplaced Pages articles)

3. Testimony from a similar event, a US senate hearing, is presented in the paragraph above my proposed edit without any issue.

4. The edit which I revised, following feedback from other editors, includes secondary source reporting on the primary source, and presents criticism and negative reception of the report, so as to not unduly push one side.

5. The report in question was submitted by a bipartisan committee of Congressmen and Congresswomen. Some of the key points received bipartisan support. Other points had disagreement. It is not "hyper-partisan dog excrement."

6. The 500 page report contains mostly hard evidence, including photographs, emails, reports, transcribed sworn testimony, and subpoena testimony. It is not pure conjecture and opinions of the politicians authoring it, it is based on and provides evidence.

7. The question of "Was there US-funded gain of research in China" is not a question which requires scientific expertise to answer. It is not a scientific question, in the way that something like "What are the cleavage sites on a protein" would be. It is a logistical and budgetary question. Thus, the fact that the authors of this report are not scientists is irrelevant and, as the body which is in control of the budget, is exactly within their expertise.

8. Sources which disapprove of the study and respond to it negatively should absolutely be included. But the fact that some secondary sources disapprove of the study is not a reason to exclude it. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

1. The US House of Representatives is full of non-experts touting conspiracy theories. Odd that you would think otherwise.

2. Reports generated by the US House are representative of the members who produced them or sponsored their production. Since (1) is true, it is absolutely possible for reports from the US House to be problematic and not representative of the best and most reliable attestations to reality.

3.Testimony is only as reliable as the person giving the testimony. Many people giving testimony before Congress are unreliable.

4. If a source reports on a primary source with criticism and negative reaction, it may be that the primary source does not deserve inclusion.

5. The bipartisanship of a committee is irrelevant to whether the points in question are problematic. Just because a committee is bipartisan does not mean that the offending text is therefore beyond reproach or apolitical.

6. "Hard evidence" in the context of academic science needs to be published in relevant academic journal and subject to appropriate peer review.

7. "Gain of research" is obviously a typo, but illustrates the point well that expertise is needed to determine whether or not there is any relevant concerns about research funding. The report authors do not seem to have that expertise. Simply being called by Congress is not sufficient.

8. We have rules for exclusion as outlined in my response to point (4).

I think this response illustrates that, intentionally or not, you are functioning as a WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSHer. This is not allowed at Misplaced Pages.

jps (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Your opinion on the current members of the house is irrelevant. The US Congress is not a fringe source. See my example provided.

2. You just asserted the opposite of my point without any explanation. This isn't a refutation.

3. Unless you're arguing any specific testimony in the report is false, that is true, but irrelevant.

4. Secondary sources reporting on any topic will be both positive and negative, depending on their own biases. The presence of negative reviews is not dispositive to a source's inclusion.

5. The bipartisanship of the committee is completely relevant to the charge that it should be excluded because it is "hyper-partisan."

6. "Did the US fund gain-of-function research in China" is not a question which is scientific in nature. Scientific expertise in the field of gain-of-function research is not required to answer that question.

7. "Did the US fund gain-of-function research in China" is not a question which is scientific in nature.

8. See point 4.

And I do not appreciate threats being left on my talk page. Extremely inappropriate. BabbleOnto (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, it looks like this editor is coming in extremely hot based on the WP:IDHT responses I'm seeing just above my reply to you. With the attitude I'm seeing, it looks like they're heading to the cliff where something at WP:AE or an admin here acting under the COVID CT restrictions due to WP:ADVOCACY, bludgeoning, etc. would be needed. Controversial topics are not the place for new editors to coming in hot while "learning the ropes" and exhaust the community, so this seems like a pretty straightforward case for a topic ban to address that. KoA (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I directly addressed or refuted the challenges levied against my points. In what way can you claim my responses are WP:IDHT?

Which of my comments did I fail to substantively defend? I will be happy to do so now. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

What is your goal here? jps (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to have the rules, policies, and guidelines, applied.

The source I've been trying to cite very clearly does not violate WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe" as defined by WP:FRINGE, nor can the reports of it be considered "Unsubstantial," as defined by WP:UNDUE.

Yet, so long as 2 people disagree with source, more specifically, personally disagree with the findings or have a personal vendetta against its authors, it does not matter that my edit is perfectly legitimate and rule-abiding, it will be removed as "Against the consensus."

Which is not inherently bad, I'm willing to change the edit in response to criticism. But, despite my many efforts to compromise or edit the change, change the wording, add context, add secondary sources, those in opposition refuse to hear any compromise or even provide any constructive criticism.

There are parts of the article which neither side disagrees are, are as matter of pure fact, incorrect. However, I'm unable to change them, because one side will not approve any source that I use.

I'm making my case here because I feel I've reached an impasse where the current consensus refuses to listen to any reasonable changes, or any changes at all, even to statements everyone has agreed are just factually wrong. BabbleOnto (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A bunch of politicians certainly can be WP:FRINGE. In every country politicians are known to spout the most arrant nonsense, especially when it comes to science. The burgeoning antiknowledge movement in the USA as exemplified by the current incident is just another example of this. That we have editors signed-up to the same agenda trying to bend Misplaced Pages that way, is a problem. As always, the solution is to use the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean . While it doesn't deal that much with the science, I'm fairly sure there is probably some science nonsense in it, and there are far worse reports. Then there is United States House Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood which again mostly not dealing with science AFAIK, did deal with it enough to result in this . While not from the house, there was also the infamous Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis#National Cancer Institute demonstrating that even US federal government agencies aren't immune to publishing nonsense due to political interference. 05:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

New user has absolute faith in something that is clearly not a reliable source and insists on including it. This is a WP:CIR issue and a topic ban would be a good idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We've had more competent editors receive indefs for pushing WP:FRINGE in this topic area. TarnishedPath 11:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I like that you decided to pull out wikipedia articles which contain, by your own words "far worse reports." Wouldn't the fact these "Worse" reports are still allowed in the articles be evidence for my point? If worse sources are still allowed in under the rules, why would this "better" source not be? BabbleOnto (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This reply I think best sums up what I have to work with; it is the consensus of other editors that the US Congress is a secret, fringe, conspiratorial group which is secretly manufacturing fake evidence and putting out false reports to prevent the REAL TRUTH from getting out to true believers.

And I'M the one labeled the conspiracist for disagreeing. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said "secret". That group has been quite openly anti-science for decades. See The Republican War on Science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I directly addressed or refuted the challenges levied against my points. No. You responded. However, in your response, you have displayed the inability or unwillingness to understand what was being explained to you. That's IDHT. You continuing to claim that A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe" shows that you're missing the point. As does the repetition that nor can the reports of it be considered "Unsubstantial," as defined by WP:UNDUE. even though an explanation has been given on how these reports absolutely can be completely biased, politically motivated, and from a "quality of the source" perspective - be it scientifically, journalistic or just factually -, it is deemed unreliable. VdSV9•♫ 13:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe"

There has been no substantive explanation of this. Only repeated assertions that it is true, and then an expression of an author's personal dislike for Republicans or the government in general. That is not an explanation as to why the statement, an objective statement, is true.

even though an explanation has been given on how these reports absolutely can be completely biased, politically motivated, and from a "quality of the source" perspective - be it scientifically, journalistic or just factually -, it is deemed unreliable

Nobody is arguing that the article should be replaced by this report. However, the US Congress's position is very clearly a prominent position. And again, I know you personally believe the US Congress can't be trusted, but WP:UNDUE actually says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." The US Congress's viewpoint is a significant one, and even if you dislike the original source, there are dozens of reliable secondary sources reporting on it. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You're blatantly wrong here. Politicians saying "science is wrong" is as FRINGE as it gets. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A question of how much money, if any, was allocated to a certain project, is not a scientific question. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

We define what is WP:FRINGE based on the WP:BESTSOURCES. A politician with no expertise in medicine is a terrible source for anything related to diseases, and therefore carries no weight in discussion over whether a particular position is WP:FRINGE or not. There are mainstream politicians who deny evolution; that does not change the fact that that denial is a fringe perspective among the best available sources on the topic. Misplaced Pages's purpose, as an encyclopedia, is not to be an arbitrary reflection of what random politicians believe or what the gut feeling of random people on the street might be; it's to summarize the very best sources on every topic (which, in most cases, means academic sources with relevant expertise.) Keep in mind that WP:FRINGE doesn't mean that we omit a position entirely; in an article about government responses to COVID, we could reasonably cover the opinions of lawmakers who contribute to that response, even if their opinions are medically fringe. But our core articles on the topic will be written according to the conclusions of the parts of the medical establishment that have relevant expertise; the gut feelings of politicians with no relevant expertise have no weight or place there at all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

A politician with no expertise in medicine is a terrible source for anything related to diseases

The question of 'was there US-funded gain of function research in China" is not an epidemiological question, and is not remotely scientific in nature.

You're just not addressing why this question is scientific. You're just skipping past that part. Why does an Epidemiologist have to testify as to the US budget? What would they possibly know about Congressional funding? BabbleOnto (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The question what constitutes 'gain of function research' is very much is a scientific question and thus by extension the question "was there US-funded gain of function research in China" is also a scientific one. TarnishedPath 07:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a nonsense point. By that logic, the JFK assassination report could not be used to support the claim that JFK died unless a journal by the American Coroner's Association agreed with it. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The Member Magazine Of The American society for biochemistry and molecular biology quotes Nicholas Evans as saying "No one knows exactly what counts as gain-of-function, so we disagree as to what needs oversight, much less what that oversight should be". Evans specializes in biosecurity and pandemic preparedness.

It is a subject of active debate within the scientific community. Therefore politicians are out of their depth talking about whether there was "US-funded gain of function research in China" when scientists don't agree what that is. TarnishedPath 02:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I originally also had an edit which attempts to discuss this which was also removed. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

First off, you don't know anything about what I personally believe about anything. Looks like you're both poisoning the well and mistaking me for jps... Second, and, of course, more relevant here: a report sponsored by members of Congress is not "The Congress's viewpoint". Thirdly, even if they had an assembly where they discussed the matter and voted or whatever it would take to make something "The Congress's viewpoint", it's questionable if whatever conclusion they came to would be deemed a reliable source and IF that warrants being included in an encyclopedic article about the subject they discussed. Explaining it further would just be repeating what I and others have said before. About your other point of there being articles about other, worse, reports. These reports and their coverage are reliable sources for the articles that talk about the reports themselves. The fact that these have been covered by secondary sources means they are notable enough to get their own articles, not that it's a reliable source. What you are asking for is more akin to using the "findings" of the report mentioned by Hob Gadling on something like Use of fetal tissue in vaccine development or other fetal tissue research related article. VdSV9•♫ 14:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that these have been covered by secondary sources means they are notable enough to get their own articles

This report has also been covered by reliable secondary sources. Why then can this source not at least be mentioned? BabbleOnto (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Notability is not the same as reliability. The fact that these have been covered by secondary sources means they are notable enough to get their own articles, it doesn't mean they are reliable to be used as a source of information in articles other than the ones about themselves. That was the whole point I was trying to make above, please read again. VdSV9•♫ 19:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If the fact that they were covered by secondary sources doesn't make them reliable, then you never addressed my original point, which is why are other House Reports considered reliable, but this one isn't? BabbleOnto (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

VdSV9's last remark is related to WP:ONEWAY. Article about wackos talking about scientific subjects: Sources talking about wackos talking about scientific subjects are OK. Article about scientific subjects such as this one: Sources talking about wackos talking about scientific subjects are not OK. You need to understand that context matters. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe" Watch me. If it can happen once in an obvious fashion, it can happen again. Ours is not the job to decide it happened, but when reliable sources identify it happening, we aren't in the business of declaring categorically, as though there is something magical about the US Government, that the reliable sources can't possibly have identified something fringe-y being promoted within the hallowed halls of the US Government. jps (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems that we have to have this conversation about conspiracism in the US house of representatives regularly. There's a similar conflict at Havana Syndrome because some of the conspiracists in the US house believe the CIA is covering up Russian involvement in the proposed syndrome for vague, poorly defined, reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, the key thing to understand about WP:FRINGE is that it is about where a view stands in relation to the best sources on the subject; it's not a measure of what random people think or what arbitrary big names on unrelated topics believe. This is one of the oldest elements of our fringe policies (since a lot of the policy was hammered out in relation to the creation-evolution controversy, where there very much was a significant political structure devoted to pushing fringe theories aobut it); just because a particular senator doubts evolution doesn't make that perspective non-fringe. Members of the US government are only reliable sources on, at best, the opinions of the US government itself, and even then they'd be a WP:PRIMARY and often self-interested source for that, to be used cautiously. The WP:BESTSOURCES on eg. COVID are medical experts, not politicians (who may have an inherent motivation to grandstand, among other things) with no relevant expertise. Something that is clearly fringe among medical experts remains fringe even if every politician in the US disagrees. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  1. There are findings which are non-scientific which the report would be used to prove, namely whether or not the US government funded gain-of-function research in China. This is not a scientific claim, and the US government has the absolute most authority on that issue. There is no reason any given medical expert would be qualified at all to talk about this, as it is a logistical and budgetary question, not a scientific or medical one.

  2. There are also findings which are bipartisan. That is, they aren't just the opinions of one or two, or even an entire party's worth of politicians. They are agreed upon by all members of the committee, Republican and Democrat. That is drastically and categorically different than trying to cite one politician's personal opinion as fact.

  3. The remaining claims are still substantial, even if you or a large majority of people disagree with them, as a documentation of a significant viewpoint as required under WP:UNDUE. As paraphrased:

  If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

  Clearly the US government is "prominent," even if you believe they're secretly a cabal of anti-scientific fringe conspirators who seek to manipulate the fabric of reality to hide the REAL truth. BabbleOnto (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is not a usable source. You need to drop the WP:STICK. Bon courage (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. You've made your opinion abundantly clear. But you have never once provided a valid reason, other than "more people agree with me, so our interpretation of the rule wins."

  I have, at every turn, proven how the source fits the rules. You are overturning the rules in favor of your own, politically motivated consensus. BabbleOnto (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  You have, at every turn, proven that you do not understand the rules. Opposing pseudoscience is not politically motivated just because the pseudoscience is politically motivated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have consistently proven how my edits fall within the rules. The response has been "We interpret the rules differently and we have a majority, so what's actually written means what we say it does." BabbleOnto (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, that has not been the response. You do not understand the response or you do not want to understand it. I suggest you should first learn the Misplaced Pages rules in a less fringey topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The Men Who Stare At Goats Is one of Ronson's best works and illustrative of exactly why placing blind faith in the judgements of the government or military on scientific matters is tantamount to intellectually throwing in the towel and giving up on reality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I find this logic hilarious when just 4 years ago good-faith editors get banned for not trusting the government sources or trying to exclude the government as a source on lockdowns and social distancing. Go and read the discussion boards on social distancing from 2020, as I just have. I hope you understand that WP's new opinion of "Government primary sources cannot be used," was literally the exact opposite just four years ago. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a Strawman. No one is saying that a political report from the legislative branch and the output of public health agencies like the CDC are the same thing. Please try to engage with the arguments others are actually making. MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Amongst other secondary sources, I've been trying to cite to the DHHS report about EcoHealth. How is that a strawman to point out that the CDC is a completely valid source, but I have been prevented from adding a DHHS report? Do you know what a strawman is? BabbleOnto (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It feels like we're dealing with a WP:MASTADON here. You've been warned about WP:AE sanctions and you don't seem to be accepting what others are telling you. How do you want to proceed? jps (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You've been warned about WP:AE sanctions and you don't seem to be accepting what others are telling you

I haven't edited anything since being warned. I've complied and haven't tried to edit the article or revert my changes. Don't know what you're threatening here.

How do you want to proceed?

I would like the parts of the article which are demonstrably false, and supported by perennially approved secondary sources other than the house report and reporting thereto, rectified. Such as the DHHS barring EcoHealth from receiving funds (Other DHHS reports are cited in the article, and the article still says that EcoHealth was cleared from wrongdoing).

I would of course think at least some mention of the house report, even if negatively, even if only to highlight the secondary source's reception of it, is worthy. But I believe at this point I think some editors are too unwilling to compromise to consider that but, I'll throw it out there. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Well, if you're willing to WP:DROPTHESTICK, I'm sure we can happily help you find other places at this massive project to invest your volunteer time. Maybe give it six months and see if the landscape has changed. After all, there is WP:NODEADLINE. jps (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything since being warned. I've complied and haven't tried to edit the article or revert my changes. Don't know what you're threatening here.

Conduct on noticeboards and talk pages is actionable by WP:AE in WP:CTOPs. TarnishedPath 23:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• BabbleOnto raise valid point: question of US government funding allocations to gain of function research not fall under definition of scientific inquiry and is squarely in purview of US Congress. Dismising report from bipartisan committee undermine the "proportional representation of significant viewpoints" required by WP:NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  I stated above that the question ow what constitutes 'gain of function research' is very much is a scientific question and thus by extension the question "was there US-funded gain of function research in China" is also a scientific one. There has been no substantive rebuttal of what I wrote above. Politicians are out of depth discussing it while scientists don't even agree what it is. TarnishedPath 10:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, the controversy of what constitutes 'gain of function research' intersection of science, ethics and public policy, but that is a moot point because we have public testimony from NIH deputy director Lawrence A. Tabak in US congress, which I think is useable in the article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  I originally had that testimony in the article but it was removed. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  and removing it was the correct course of action. TarnishedPath 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Uh no. If it's not agreement upon what 'gain of function research' actually is then it would be wildly undue to be referencing government reports, regardless of who is quoted, that it has happened. TarnishedPath 05:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  By this logic the entire article would need to be rewritten, because currently the article does present a concrete, discrete definition of what gain-of-function research is. If you're seriously claiming there is no consensus as to what gain-of-function research is then the article will need to be rewritten to reflect that. Because currently here is the first line of the article

  Gain-of-function research (GoF research or GoFR) is medical research that genetically alters an organism in a way that may enhance the biological functions of gene products.

  Are you suggesting this is not actually the consensus as to what GoF research is, but just one scientist's opinion of what it is? If so, the article would have to be changed to reflect that. In fact the entire article would have to be rewritten to reflect your claim. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yakub (Nation of Islam)

Not sure about the new edits. My watchlist has never been so strange as in the last 12 hours. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have specific concerns? Looking over the changes, nothing jumped out at me as horrifically problematic, but I'm not reading that closely. Feoffer (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted a sanity check. :) Also seems ok to me. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if any edits were problematic! I am interested in strange things. It's a bit awkward writing the... plot? When it's something like this, but it's unavoidable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Quite the rabbit hole I just went down with this one. I've added it to my watchlist. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"Starving" cancer

• Warburg effect (oncology) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Some new accounts/IPs seem unhappy that the "Quackery" section of Lancet Oncology is being cited to call out the quackery in play here. More eyes needed. Bon courage (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thomas N. Seyfried

Thomas N. Seyfried is a biochemistry professor who probably passes WP:PROF who seems mainly notable for going on podcasts to tell cancer patients to reject chemotherapy in favour of going on a keto diet. Gorski on Science Based Medicine did a good article on him and his claims , which in light of current RfC alas looks unusable. The article has been subject to persistent whitewashing attempts by IPs (one of which geolocates to where Seyfried works) and SPAs, and additional eyes would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think he's notable for doing well-cited work on diet/metabolism and (mainly brain) cancer in mouse models, some of which on a quick glance seems reasonably mainstream (see eg Annual Reviews research overview doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-013120-041149), but notorious for attempting to translate that early research (at best prematurely) into medical advice for people with cancer. We should probably avoid mentioning the issue at all, as none of the sources (either his or those debunking it) fall within the medical project's referencing standards for medical material. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

People are looking up Seyfried specifically because he is coming onto podcasts to make these claims , and if we omit them then Seyfried looks like a distinguished scientist giving mainstream advice, when he is saying things against the medical consensus. I think it would be better to delete the article than to omit this information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I fear the problem is that he genuinely is a distinguished scientist, even if he is currently talking in areas in which he appears not to be qualified. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this statement in general; it should be a guideline somewhere. Dronebogus (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Modern science and Hinduism

I presume that new article Modern science and Hinduism could do with a thorough check. Fram (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Despite the head note about not confusing it with Vedic science, most of it seems to be about Vedic science. And quite apart from anything else, most of the body of the article seems to be a paraphrase of reference 8. The headings are pretty much identical. Brunton (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The same editor has also started a draft at Draft:Hindu Science Draft with some of the same content. Brunton (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I boldy redirected to vedic science as an alternative to a WP:TNT. I judge maybe a half dozen sentences/ideas may be useful to incorporate over there. jps (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Vedic science itself needs some serious work, particularly given the appropriation of the term by Hindutva. JoelleJay (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. If nothing else, the creator has pointed out a gaping hole in our coverage. We need something along the lines of an article on Hindutva pseudoscience. Maybe a spin-out from Hindutva itself? jps (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

many religions use science apologism to justify faith. best to understand they are mostly means to justify religion to those insecure about it, but pseudoscience might be incorrect term of talking about it.

I don't mean to say that science proving hinduism right should be taken as a fact (def would break NPOV), but that we would also be wrong to dismiss the beliefs of a worshipper as "pseudoscience" when "religious faith" and "scientific apologism" would be the more correct term to describe this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

an example of an article section covering scientific apologism a bit better Islamic_attitudes_towards_science#Miracle_literature_(Tafsir'ilmi) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

When there is a concerted effort to replace certain scientific disciplines with religious-inspired belief, that is pretty classic pseudoscience. There are plenty of pieces from respected scientists who are aware of the current political/religious arguments being proffered against scientific understanding within the context of Hindutva who call this kind of posturing "pseudoscience". Misplaced Pages need not shy away from this designation. jps (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

What if Hindutva pushes n pseudoscientific positions but n+1 is not pseudoscientific, do we risk n+1 inheriting the posturing stink of the others? Evathedutch (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If Hindutva pushes a position that isn't pseudoscientific, then it shouldn't be discussed in a "Hindutva pseudoscience" article. Brunton (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Would a "Hindutva pseudoscience" page focus on the pseudoscientific topics itself or how "Hindutva pseudoscience" is used for other other aims? Evathedutch (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

i dont know what hindutva pseudoscience would entail. just pointing out terminology for the phenomenon where some guy tries to argue their religion describes the germ theory/embryology/big bang/etc first before science is scientific apologism not pseudoscience.

pseudoscience is passing off a fringe topic as science. science apologism is bending religious words to match current theories to argue your god knew it first Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The argument that Hindu astrology or ayurveda or any number of other ideas for which we have no scientific basis are actually "science" is proper pseudoscience. But "science apologism" is also pseudoscience especially in the context of arguments where there is claim that the particular religious idea predated the scientific context and was therefore privy to the evidence that led to later scientific developments. jps (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed most of the unsourced puffery added on 21 November. Frankly though whether the article should exist at all should be examined; it might be ripe for AfD. Crossroads 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The creator of the article had the username "HindutvaWarriors" until a bit over a week ago. Brunton (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Gonna add a reference section to the bottom of the article.CycoMa2 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The main paper promoting hydroxychloroquine as a Covid treatment has been withdrawn.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-04014-9

I doubt this'll shut up the pro-fringe users, but now all of their "evidence" can be tossed outright. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:8D86:230:8528:4CDC (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the paper was retracted by the journal's co-owners. The word "withdrawn" is often associated with an action taken by a paper's authors, which is not the situation here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Social_thinking

No clue if it's a fringe therapy for autism or not... apparently theres at least one scientific article discussing it as a pseudoscience , but i can't really tell if it falls under that or not. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

David and Stephen Flynn

There is an ongoing effort at David and Stephen Flynn to remove or whitewash these individual's medical misinformation section. I believe additional eyes would be helpful on this page. --VViking_TalkEdits 15:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

On the noticeboard Biographies of living persons I've requested help because this situation needs a review by neutral, experienced editors to ensure compliance with Misplaced Pages’s neutrality and verifiability guidelines.

The previous edits are one-sided, hence several attempts have been made to improve the neutrality of the section by adding balanced context and reliable sources to reflect differing perspectives.

In the "careers" section, edits have repeatedly removed references to David and Stephen Flynn stopping collaboration with Russell Brand, implying continued support despite this not being true.

Specific concerns with the medical section include:

1. The section title “Medical Misinformation” is to make it sensational; hence, changed it into “Health Advice and Public Response” instead.

2. Peer-reviewed studies and mainstream media articles, were added for context but reverted without justification.

3. Efforts to clarify the Flyns’ acknowledgment of errors and removal of contentious content have also been ignored. SabLovesSunshine (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I've started a convo on the article talk page. Please continue there. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns

Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some WP:PROFRINGE editing from an account with <1000 edits. I don't have time to engage with them further over the holiday (and I'm at 3RR on this article anyway). Other experienced editors are invited to take a look. Note this response I left on their user talk page to their most recent revert. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You added a cite and I quoted it verbatim. If it's a fringe source, why did you add it? Hi! (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You quoted it selectively to highlight a caveat as though it were the central point of the piece. This looked an awful lot like WP:POINT, as did your subsequent edits to the page. Generalrelative (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed Turkheimer had this out in November: Turkheimer, Eric. "IQ, Race, and Genetics". Understanding the Nature‒Nurture Debate. Understanding Life. Cambridge University Press. fiveby(zero) 18:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Cult whitewashing

See , , and . tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted them. I see long-term Grail SPA @Creolus: whitewashed the Abd's article two months ago so I just reverted them as well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Also noting for posterity that I've managed to find another decent English-language source on the topic , don't know if there are any more in German. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup, in his Grail Message he distinguished between the Son of God (Jesus Christ) and the Son of Man (himself). The morals of the book was that Christ was a loser, while Bernhardt is a winner. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I really feel that if you are to stay objective, then you should look at the evidence to come to a conclusion. It's not whitewashing if you choose to use the author's exact words to represent his legacy whilst stating the interpretation of others which are not really in accord with the author's wishes or actions.

And worthy of note, I'm not a member of the grail movement but even they shouldn't be banned from editing if the content brought is true and verifiable. 2A00:23C8:E70F:C001:A5BF:3554:E7D:7FCF (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's not how Misplaced Pages works. We prefer WP:IS WP:SECONDARY sources written by real scholars to a WP:IN-UNIVERSE view of the religious believers. See emic and etic.

Also, religious preachers often state "Go left!" when they go right. We don't take WP:PRIMARY religious writings at face value. We don't take Bernhardt's statement that he preaches the rationally intelligible version of Jesus's message, but essentially the same message, at face value.

He knew that saying "Let's do like the primary Christians" was tantamount to founding a new sect. Because there were plenty of historical examples of that. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

use the author's exact words to represent his legacy

No. That's just propaganda, not reliably sourced information. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Service: Grail Movement (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

For those who are already watching the article and do not want to destroy their last-version-seen bookmark by clicking directly on a newer version. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth I've comprehensively rewritten the article on the Grail Movement based on the very useful encyclopedia entry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Heliocentrism

Recently there was a statement which is added in heliocentrism article which claims that vedic philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres".The problem is that the reference given below is just a misinterpretation of the text which claims that vedic scholar knew about heliocentrism way before Aristachus of samos and was the first to do so.I have reverted the edit but it is keep on adding by other users.It is traditionally accepted in mainstream academia that the first person to propose heliocentrism is the ancient Greek astronomer aristachus of samos and any theory before him isn't accepted by mainstream academia or it is considered as fringe theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myuoh kaka roi (talk • contribs) 06:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't explain how it was "misinterpretation" of the text rather than direct mention of the authors 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Authors in the reference themselves misinterpreted the the text which states that the

Sun is the centre of spheres

as heliocentrism but heliocentrism itself states that the sun is the centre of the universe and planets revolve around the sun and secondly there is no mention of original text by authors in their reference most of them rely on tertiary sources and the statement itself is unscientific as it is widely accepted in scientific and mainstream academia that the first person to propose heliocentrism is the ancient Greek philosopher aristachus of samos Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources which talks about astronomy in indiaNone of them talks anything related to vedic heliocentrism. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't mention how Yajnavalkya's mention is interpreted in Heliocentric context.Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres". 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't equate to heliocentrism as it's just a religious interpretation so it doesn't belong to the article and Secondly, J.Gregory; Henley, Ernest M (2012). Physics Around Us: How And Why Things Work. World Scientific Publishing Company Isn't even credible source as neither of them are experts in these fields.Even the description of the book claims that it is suitable for a first year, non-calculus physics course not a peer reviewed journal.Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources are authentic, nonetheless there are probably more to it, I ill discuss in that particular page of the article. 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

See here 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Just because World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc is used to publish research paper and project that doesn't mean that all research papers are credible and I had already discussed in my previous comment that the book is meant for first year non calculus students.Research books required to be reviewed by authors who are expert in that particular field to give it a peer review . Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

So what, You can't dismiss it's credibility on Anything; There are multiple other cite besided that. 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Most other sources you provided aren't credible that's the reason why it got removed. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Credible on what basis, Yesterday or early today you were arguing good publication like Oxford Cambridge to provide and seemingly thats the only basis, and somehow provided you want other criteria and somehow getting your own opinion or research being given that way. 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion on one page-it will be easy rather switching. 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=kt9DIY1g9HYC&pg=PA317&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
2. Subbarayappa, B. V. (14 September 1989). "Indian astronomy: An historical perspective". In Biswas, S. K.; Mallik, D. C. V.; Vishveshwara, C. V. (eds.). Cosmic Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. pp. 25–40. ISBN 978-0-521-34354-1.
3. Dash, J.Gregory; Henley, Ernest M (2012). Physics Around Us: How And Why Things Work. World Scientific Publishing Company. p. 115. ISBN 9789813100640.

Does the lead of Hamlet's Mill cover the criticism sufficiently?

I don't think it does. The biography of one of the authors, Giorgio de Santillana, mentions the book but no criticism of it. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: RfC on NewsNation

For your awareness, I've opened an RfC here on the reliability of NewsNation, a frequent source used for UFO coverage on WP. Chetsford (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, even if I do not agree with the deprecation/depreciation system. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, even if I do not agree with your disagreement. Chetsford (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

I think we need more eyes on the talk page for COVID-19 lab leak theory regarding multiple discussion threads there. There's been a lot of WP:SPA and new account activity over the past two months and there should really be broader community involvement so WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues don't occur. There's several instances of comments currently on the talk page where accounts more or less openly state that they're trying to make POV changes because the scientific community is covering up the facts. Silverseren 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The Newport Tower, a 12th century Norse baptistry?

Of course not, But an ex-navy graduate student has managed to get a paper claiming this into a book published by Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Coğrafya ve Kartografya (Geography and Cartography in the Ottoman Empire), eds. Mahmut Ak and Ahmet Üstüner, 201-86. Istanbul: Istanbul University Press, 2024 . An article I wrote long ago might be relevant here.. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Found him being used in one article and deleted it. It was obviously a good faith addtion. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

He's emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Taken it to RSN. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

New fringe article Luso–Danish expedition to North America

Among other issues is used as a source. Also see Cartographic expeditions to Greenland where that article has been added through the redirect Pining expedition. We don't even know if John Scolvus was a real person. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

AfD'd it. I would have thrown up a speedy delete but I imagined it'd pass some very quick smell check with the way it's written looking more legitimate than normal fringe nonsense here. Didrik_Pining#Alleged_trip_to_America seems to have everything needed for now. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And now we have Portuguese Newfoundland also saying the Portuguese got there first, same fringe book as source. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

AFDd this, as well. It does appear there's a few adherents to these ideas around Misplaced Pages and the writing quality is high enough to mask the patent garbage underlying, which is a nuissance as it sort of rules out speedy deletion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Harald Walach

• Harald Walach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Homeopathy crank, involved in the anti-Ernst smear campaign a few years back. (de:Claus Fritzsche was paid by Big Homeopathy to tell lies about Edzard Ernst, was exposed in an article in a major newspaper, "The dirty methods of the gentle medicine", was dropped by Big Homeopathy like a hot potato, killed himself. Walach blamed the skeptics for that.) Should his involvement be in the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Seed oil misinformation

• Seed oil misinformation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New IP address on talk claiming there is evidence seed oils are driving chronic disease. The usual suspects cited including a paper by James DiNicolantonio that is often cited by the paleo diet community. User is requesting that the article be renamed "Health effects of seed oils". See discussion on talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Electrohomeopathy

The article Electrohomeopathy appears to be in the middle of a months long Edit War to remove any mention of it being quackery or pseudoscience. I would appreciate some extra set of eyes on this article, specifically people that have more experience in this type of article. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Rewrote some of the intro to call it quackery, which thankfully wasn't hard to cite. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Off-wiki coordination on Circumcision related articles

It looks like the 'intactivists' are coordinating off-Wiki to influence circumcision related articles. I was made aware of this at User talk:RosaSubmarine. To quote that editor:

As we speak, pages on children's rights, female genital mutilation, human's rights, male circumcision, and genital modification and mutilation have all been recently improved upon editor notice.

More watchlisting on affected articles would be greatly appeciated. MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not touching that article with a ten foot pole but surely the fact that the entire bioethical debate is relegated to a single sentence when it's highly contentious within that field makes an argument that the folks coordinating have a point? The question mark is sincere there, I assume any point I could bring up has already been argued to death by people who know more than I. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The wiki linked on that Talk page quotes Larry Sanger and the Heartland Institute. If those people "have a point", it is by random chance since LS and HI are both, let's say, not among the 8.1 billion most trustworthy people on Earth. This is likely a very WP:PROFRINGE operation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a big topic and written summary style. Most of the relevant content should be at Ethics of circumcision or Circumcision controversies and not the places the new editors have been putting things. MrOllie (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I actually don't really agree the summary style used there is a good one. Dumping the ethical concerns into their own article while keeping the religious concerns (which are inherently ethical concerns) present a WP:POVFORK.

But again, ten foot pole etc. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If the choice is between summary style (since a specialized article exists) and huge manifestos that solely aim at maximal visibility of a particular POV (massive tables in the lede, excessive blockquotes), then the short-term solution is obvious. For balanced, sensible extensions beyond summary style, there is sufficient room to discuss in the respective talk pages. –Austronesier (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm already involved in enough eternal dumpster fire articles for me to want to get too involved in this one. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Obviously the meatpuppery is a problem, but I do not really see how any of this is related to a fringe theory. It seems like a pretty clear case of activist editing to right great wrongs, which, while misguided, does not really try to introduce fringe views. The "intactwiki" article cited at the beginning of their response is obviously trash that does not help their case, but I believe they are if anything mostly a new user not yet familiar with how things are done here. I tried to point them in a better direction in the discussion on their talk page Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 17:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

We get waves of this business on Misplaced Pages. The main fringey positions will be attempts to draw equivalence between female genital mutilation and male circumcision. This is often a precursor to fringe medical claims (intactivists like to overstate complication rates in particular) and sometimes antisemitic conspiracy theories show up as well. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That there is a notable equivalency, not in terms of harm or the damage caused, but in terms of ethical concerns around consent is a completely mainstream perspective within bioethics and calling it a fringe stance feels like using WP:FRINGE as a cudgel. That’s why dumping any concerns into their own article is a POV fork. I think it’s extremely disingenuous to discount the very real and ongoing discussions around bioethics as a fringe stance, even if the attempts to twist the harms to make it more equivalent to FGM are POV-pushing fringe edits.

Literally the first line of the Ethics of circumcision article is the statement:

There is substantial disagreement amongst bioethicists and theologians over the practice of circumcision

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct. But there isn't substantial disagreement about FGM, which is why one side of the argument finds it useful to draw a false equivalence on that point. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think enough WP:RS sources would disagree about there being no equivalency at all that brining this to FTN instead of an appropriate venue for dealing with the offsite coordination and asserting that it’s WP:FRINGE feels quite inappropriate? Either way, I’m not going to get suckered into this one and will leave it be :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is that the obvious RGW canvassing and meat-puppetry are obviously bad and should be dealt with accordingly, but also the serious ethical debate around the subject shouldn’t be casually downplayed as purely “fringe”. This is an NPOV issue more than anything. It’d be like saying “opposition to human trafficking is fringe” because some Qanon weirdos are brigading articles about it— mainstream topics always have fringe positions within them, without being fringe themselves. Dronebogus (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

John Yudkin

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

I have no idea how right or wrong exactly he was, but sentences like The efforts of the food industry to discredit the case against sugar were largely successful sound exactly like what we hear from fringe pushers. Characterizing a rather sensible-sounding sentence by Ancel Keys as rancorous language and personal smears is inappropriate too. Who has the competence to improve this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The efforts of the food industry to discredit the case against sugar were largely successful

Is this a fringe view? I was under the impression that this was as generally accepted as the history of the tobacco industry. GMG 14:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

No it was mostly exaggeration. There were only a handful of sugar industry funded studies on CVD. The article has been on my watchlist for a while, many Misplaced Pages articles in the past cited this credulous Guardian piece written by Ian Leslie promoting a conspiracy theory about the sugar industry which takes its information from low-carber Robert Lustig who is completely unreliable. John Yudkin was an early low-carb author who rejected the evidence for saturated fat and CVD risk; instead he blamed sugar. Robert Lustig promoted a lot of conspiracy theories defending Yudkin. There are a handful of old studies funded by the sugar industry that investigated cardiovascular disease but low-carbers like Lustig and Gary Taubes exaggerate and claim there were hundreds. It would be worth removing Ian Leslie's unreliable article as a source from the article, it promotes WP:Fringe and sensationalistic claims. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Umm... I'm not sure that's the prevailing modern view. GMG 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have read that paper many times. It is a favourite of the low-carb community. The paper you cited is talking about the 1960s and its cites unreliable sources like Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz. D. Mark Hegsted received a one off payment from the Sugar Association for $6500 for a review of research. There is no evidence for 100s of studies funded by the sugar industry, if you think there is please list them. The claims are exaggerated, that's why they have so few examples. Back in the 1960s the standards of disclosure were less stringent than they are today. Hegstead also received funding from the dairy industry for his research but of course that isn't mentioned in the paper because it doesn't suit their narrative. The modern prevailing view is that high saturated fat consumption is bad for health. All the guidelines recommend limiting processed sugar but it isn't considered the main risk factor for CVD. There are many risk factors. The "blame only sugar" approach for CVD or all chronic disease is definitely a WP:Fringe view, and no different than what we are now seeing with seed oil misinformation. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is Hegstead's 1967 review , can you find any faults in the methodology? The paper admits to having received funding from the "Special Dairy Industry Board". The paper you cited by Cristin E Kearns doesn't mention this. Here Is Hegstead's conclusion from the paper: "The major evidence today suggests only one avenue by which diet may affect the development and progression of atherosclerosis. This is by influencing the serum lipids, especially serum cholesterol, though this may take place by means of different biochemical mechanisms not yet understood". Dude was right in 1967 with over 50 years of research since supporting that conclusion. Plenty of clinical evidence has since confirmed the lipid hypothesis. Most of what Yudkin was saying has not been confirmed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

2019 Military World Games

• 2019 Military World Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Noticed this since it was linked in some COVID-19 talk page. An editor keeps adding this conspiracy theory about COVID-19 based largely on 2020 sources including sources which contradict what they're adding. I intend to bring them to ARE next time they try, but in case ARE doesn't see it the same way it would be helpful to get more eyes on this. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

To give an example of a contradiction, the edit says "The National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI - a branch of the DIA within the USIC) based in Fort Detrick, MD, provided an intelligence report soon after the end of the Military World Games that indicated a contagion had begun spreading in the Wuhan region; this intelligence report was shared only with NATO member states and the state of Israel." So it's presenting this as something factual that did happen. But one of the very sources used specifically includes an explicit denial of such a report "No such NCMI product exists," the statement said." While government statements can't always be trusted, with such an explicit denial reported by the very source we're using, if we're going to present the report as something factual as the editor is trying to do, we'd need strong evidence that this reported is widely accepted to exist despite this denial but there is none in those sources. And this is from April 2020. No sources have been provided demonstrating that anyone in 2025 still thinks this report exists and that's with a change in administration in the US and all else that's gone on since then. I'd note this also seems to contradict the timeline of COVID-19 which suggests it was first identified in December 2019, or with November 17 given as the earliest date in our Origin of SARS-CoV-2 article meaning it is inherently impossible for there to be a report in the 2nd week of November. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we can go ahead and mention that the claims exist, but with much less WP:WEIGHT. I've trimmed it down to one short paragraph that properly balances everything (mentions that the rumors exist, then states why they are false). Diff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't see a problem with that. I did consider drastically reducing and leaving something in but frankly it was such a mess with all the 2020 sources and even one or two from 2019 (which while the games were in 2019, was well before any talk of COVID so raised strong WP:Syn concerns) that I decided not to bother since it didn't seem that important. I did miss the 2022 source somehow which make it seem more likely we should mention it (since it isn't just something people make a big deal of in April 2020 then completely forgot about). Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I was reverted. Might need more eyes, or an RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Acupuncture, Hypnotherapy references in Jaw Dislocation article

In the article about Jaw Dislocation, in the treatment section, lies some dubious claims hidden in otherwise rational and sourced claims:

The different modalities include patient education and self-care practices, medication, physical therapy, splints, psychological counseling, relaxation techniques, biofeedback, hypnotherapy, acupuncture, and arthrocentesis. (Emphasis added)

This edit was added without a source and then a source was added a few minutes later. The source is behind a paywall, but when I got through it, I don't see any mention of hypnotherapy, acupuncture, or biofeedback at all. Even when I went to the separate page about treatments, again no mention of hypnotherapy, acupuncture, or biofeedback. (And to be frank, no mention of relaxation techniques, psychological counseling, or splints, either, but those seem to at least be more plausible.)

I think an editor put those into the actual treatments hoping no one would notice. As such, because they are unsourced and pseudoscientific, I think they should be removed. BabbleOnto (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

All those that aren't sourced should be removed, including treatments not in the source because they seem plausible is OR.Brunton (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Also summarize everything you do on the Talk page so that the editor is on notice in case they try to sneak it back in. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, that entire paragraph is about treating Temporomandibular joint dysfunction rather than jaw dislocation. It can just be removed, leaving the second paragraph which is actually about treatment of jaw dislocation. Brunton (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Temporomandibular joint dysfunction#Alternative medicine could probably do with some eyes. Brunton (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Delta smelt

There is an IP adding a theory from an SPS that does not come from a subject matter expert. The theory claims that an act Newsom refused to sign to protect the Delta smelt caused the Palisades Fire to spread out of control. What should I tell the IP? None of the Twinkle warning templates really seem to match. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would use the Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material ... warning, with a link to WP:RSSELF in the edit window of the message. Donald Albury 21:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution