Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Palpable (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 30 December 2024 (→Covid - conflicts of interest: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Palpable, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Monterey Bay (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNCERTAIN

Hello Palpable, I was banned from the topic of COVID-19 origins last year , and may soon be banned from Misplaced Pages completely . I saw your recent edits to 2022 monkeypox outbreak and I wanted to bring your attention to WP:MEDRSNOT, which I recently wrote but will likely soon be deleted or userfied. I would appreciate if you, StN, Mhawk10, Mr Ernie, Gimiv, SmokeyJoe, SmolBrane and JPXG​​ could expand WP:UNCERTAIN and propose it as a WP:SUPPLEMENT to WP:SCHOLARSHIP on WP:VPP. Completing this draft and incorporating it into our WP:PAGs will be far more productive and impactful than arguing with strangers online. If you require policy guidance, try pinging DGG, Wbm1058, or Boing! said Zebedee, and maybe they will respond. Thank you. CutePeach (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. If the concern is misuse of WP:MEDRS, the right thing is to improve the language there rather than trying to contradict it with another guideline. The authors of WP:MEDRS include more actual scientists and doctors than the people using it for WP:WL, and their intentions are better.

But I have to stress that if you are at risk of getting banned, you have already lost. That will be used to invalidate your statements regardless of their validity. In a bureaucracy, process is a higher value than truth. If you can't remain outwardly calm and polite at all times, you will damage your cause and your allies.

Sadly I expect that any efforts to improve the state of affairs will require more "arguing with strangers online" than I am really up for. Good luck. - Palpable (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Difficulty of Correcting or Updating WP Articles

I resonated with your User Page entry "Misplaced Pages was my favorite thing on the web. Until I started trying to contribute." I had a similar experience in 2020 editing and then walked away from both contributing and donating. It is unfortunate that in many cases, Misplaced Pages is just another repository of mis and dis-information zealously guarded but what seem to be troll editors. I discuss some aspects related to this: https://bachrachtechnology.com/wp/troubles-in-the-universe-of-the-mind/

I also appreciated your comments and perspective on the Feldenkrais Method Talk page.

The current article is incorrect, mis-categorized, ideologically biased and out of date with respect to current peer reviewed literature. Prominence is given to irrelevant sources like surgical oncologist, David Gorsk who made some snide comments on his Blog. From reading his blog and other writings, he does not seem to appreciate Medicine is both an Art and Science.

In a recent communication with an academic in the Health Field,

" I am very grateful that there are people who understand our frustration with the Misplaced Pages situation and the damage it does to a gentle educative method that makes no claims for medical effects.

In recent times we have felt the negativity profoundly and ironically. We were recruiting for a well-designed randomized controlled trial using Feldenkrais with people with stroke. A potential participant pulled out because he read the Wiki page. Another was going to withdraw for the same reason but fortunately stayed and realized the page was misleading and emotional. So it is ironic that we are being thwarted in our attempt to try and investigate the effectiveness in an evidence-based way."

This has encouraged me to try again and go through the escalation process.

Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be an information resource that redefines subjects or the meaning of words.

Note: This is not meant to be a discussion topic but a personal note to you. Bbachrac (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

Unfortunately I think you are wasting your time trying to improve the Feldenkrais article. Too many editors want to make it worse rather than better. In its current state at least readers can see that it's a hit piece.

This and other articles are collateral damage in a struggle against quackery that had legitimate roots. It takes a particular kind of aggressive personality to counter repetitive nonsense, and some of those same editors have done valuable service in that area. But now they see enemies everywhere - once the people who like quack hunting ran out of quacks they started looking for other targets. You probably know the Nietzsche quote: "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster". What's disappointing is that the more reasonable admins are unable to intervene effectively. The site is still interesting for a lot of topics though.

It would be great to see more studies of Feldenkrais work. There is something there, but it's not clear what or how much.

Best wishes - Palpable (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Misplaced Pages’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Misplaced Pages administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be great if the principles and guidelines were actually enforced on that topic. - Palpable (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

For example, someone on that article recently tried to tell me that only RS could be discussed in Talk space. This was a senior editor who certainly knew better - textbook GAMING. But of course if I complained about it the editor would summon all their friends and call for a boomerang, which apparently skips the due process normally accorded to the accused.

It's no wonder the COVID origins articles are so out of date. - Palpable (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's good advice. Discussing non-RS is not usually productive. It's hard to imagine doing good encyclopedia writing with non reliable sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not the general advice that bothered me, it was the misrepresentation of SELFPUB. I never proposed Weissman's analysis for use in the article.

Though for what it's worth, Weissman is a subject matter expert in statistics who has published on COVID origins in a respectable stats journal, and would be a fine source for an attributed quote though certainly not wikivoice. He'd be in the article just fine if he'd reached the preferred conclusion.

Instead, you are telling me that his analysis shouldn't even be discussed in the Talk page. Surely you can see how this looks?

I do appreciate that you are polite, thank you for that. - Palpable (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The trouble with quoting self-sourced material (even of experts, and Weissman has no domain expertise in biomedicine) is - where would it stop? Would you then have to quote the self-published tweet of an actual epidemiologist who was unimpressed with the argument? We have quite a reasonable amount of RS on Lab Leak now, so there is no need to stoop to lesser sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's just cut to the chase: please do not return to my talk page until you have learned some manners. - Palpable (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:BabbleOnto that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Misplaced Pages is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The comment was intended as helpful and I think most people would read it as such. If you want to clarify why it bothers you, you can reply here. - Palpable (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to "FYI the guy threatening you is a pro at this and has gotten several good faith editors banned within the past year. As you have already noticed the rules don't count for much in this area, and you are badly outnumbered. -". Doug Weller talk 17:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's uncivil to call the seasoned editor in question a pro, and if necessary I could go through all the history and dig out examples of him getting good faith editors banned from the covid origins area. It's good to hear you are concerned about incivility in that topic area though, it's a serious problem in general. - Palpable (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Covid - conflicts of interest

As I review sources in these discussions, it strikes me as both ironic and unethical that the primary goal of Dr. Shi Zhengli’s gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses was to generate evidence supporting viral zoonotic spillover. The logic was that if we could synthesize a dangerous new strain and get it to replicate in humanized cells, it would help us understand how such a spillover might occur in the wild. To me, this is a flawed and reckless approach.

Moreover, Dr. Peter Daszak co-authored a paper dismissing the lab leak hypothesis, which many have accepted as the "gold standard" despite his involvement in securing significant funding for bat coronavirus research, particularly with Zhengli. His collaboration with her lab, which is known to work at a lower biosafety level and at a reduced cost, suggests that he is more interested in raising funds than he is ensuring public safety.

The zoonotic hypothesis is often treated as a foregone conclusion, largely because it has been the default theory (null hypothesis). However, this is based on the assumption that a major epidemic has never emerged from a lab—despite the many documented laboratory accidents involving infectious pathogens.

Lab leak critics argue that there is no direct evidence of a lab leak, as if this somehow proves the theory has been conclusively debunked after a thorough investigation. However, the reality is quite the opposite. The authorities in Wuhan have failed to disclose critical information about the lab's protocols, research logs, and genetic sequencing of viruses—data that would be essential to making a definitive judgment on the matter.

At the same time, there is no direct evidence of zoonotic transfer either, in spite of extensive investigation. Despite scientists' best efforts, no wild animals have been found to carry the virus prior to the first human cases, nor has any evidence been found linking the virus to the supply chain for wild animals at the Wuhan wet market. In fact, the animals sold at that market were sourced locally, not from Yunnan province, where bat coronaviruses are endemic. What we do know for certain is that scientists from Wuhan were collecting bat feces in Yunnan, and later, cases of COVID-19 appeared in Wuhan, with the virus spreading through a crowded market where wild animals were sold. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree. Minor correction: Shi is a family name and Zhengli is a given name.

If you have some understanding of probability theory and are interested in diving in to the quantitative evidence around this, there is nothing better than Michael Weissman's work . It's so comprehensive that it always feels like a waste of time to repeat parts of it, but if you have questions about the methods I might be able to help out. The important thing to note going in is that it is about comparing two theories neither of which have enough evidence. I think the principled position here is open-mindedness. But if you're feeling gaslit, it's a breath of fresh air.

If you are interested in what the FBI knows but can't say, the next six months are expected to bring the release of a great deal more information. Stock up on popcorn I guess.

If you want to improve the lab leak article, I don't know what to tell you. As you've noticed there are some deeply rotten things going on and the admins seem afraid to step in. - Palpable (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you or another editor shared that article in the talk pages and I read it. It’s pretty compelling, but obviously it doesn’t pass Misplaced Pages “Medrs” so nobody on the so-called “NPOV” side seriously engaged with it. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It actually passes EXPERTSPS: it's a blog, but Weissman has published on Covid origins in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. But you'd have to fight your way through a lot of obnoxious GAMING to get it into the relevant article, and with no admins willing to intervene it's just not worth it.

Also, take a look at the top of the relevant talk pages: consensus is that covid origins is not biomedical information for the purposes of MEDRS. This is another rule that the senior editors commonly "forget". - Palpable (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I did see that There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021) However, a couple of editors were still using Medrs to argue against information about origins (i.e., not complying with the consensus, which is against policy), and everybody went with that person, or at least nobody explicitly called it out in the talk page, so I assumed that that consensus was outdated.

Apparently Misplaced Pages:SPSPREPRINT states: The short of it is that an SPS is acceptable for routine, non-controversial claims, but that novel claims must still, at the very least, clear the higher bar of peer-review. and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources states that Note that any exceptional claim would require WP:exceptional sources. I.e., Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. It is a quirk of Misplaced Pages that the POV aligned with comprehensive reviews in the most prestigious scientific journals is privileged very highly and any argument that goes against it must clear a higher bar. You would have to argue that the relevant claim(s) was/were ...covered by multiple mainstream sources. If there were a peer-reviewed secondary source that endorsed whatever claim, plus a showing that "multiple mainstream sources" endorsed it, then it could be verified in terms of Misplaced Pages. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Origins is still not MEDRS. Sometimes editors just have short memories, even for discussions they were originally involved in, whose conclusions are noted at the top of the page, and that they have been reminded of since. - Palpable (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2/