Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 159: Line 159:


Those of you that have the time, please help out. Right now, the lede of the article states that it is simply a "climate" and "weather" blog without identifying its agenda at all. I am serially reverted regardless of how I try to let the reader know about its ideological bent. [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 21:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Those of you that have the time, please help out. Right now, the lede of the article states that it is simply a "climate" and "weather" blog without identifying its agenda at all. I am serially reverted regardless of how I try to let the reader know about its ideological bent. [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 21:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
: It is very obviously a climate change denial blog. Only an idiot would state otherwise. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


== The Day After Roswell ==
== The Day After Roswell ==

Revision as of 17:34, 19 April 2015

    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    Before 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:

    Anthony Watts (blogger)

    HOUSEKEEPING NOTE - This is part of a debate at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) which spilled over to other threads including

    Anthony Watts (blogger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    High-quality scholarly sources that non-trivially discuss this person's blog have characterized it as climate change denialism, obviously a fringe view. [Edit: See the seven sources in the opening sentence of this revision.] However since it is also called a "skeptic" blog by some popular magazines and newspapers -- as well as by some scholarly articles as a synonym for denialism (explained here) -- we have the problem of a fringe view being portrayed as non-fringe via the context-free use of the word "skeptic". The allusion to scientific skepticism is unfortunate, and indeed there is a source that specifically contrasts the blog with scientific skepticism.

    It has hitherto been difficult convincing some editors that a fringe-related article should make use of the high-quality scholarly sources available. Instead, editors have been counting the number of newspapers and other sources that use the term "skeptic". Manul ~ talk 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    But you're not arguing that we should make use of high-quality scholarly sources, now are you? Anyone can Google "denial" and find the results that they are looking for. Please see Confirmation bias. What we need is an objective random sampling of high-quality sources to see what they actually say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And no, it's not difficult to convincing some other editors. In fact, it's extremely easy. All you have to do is provide an objective random sampling of high-quality sources which backup this POV. But you have neglected to do so. Here's an actual example of an objective, random-sampling of reliable sources.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why must it be either-or? In cases where there is not an overwhelming preponderance of one usage over the other it is best to state both. Something like "Some sources (A, B, and C) characterize the site as 'denialist' while others (D, E, and F) say it is 'skeptical', and G distinguishes 'skepticism' in this context from scientific skepticism." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not even close. I performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of reliable sources, including peer-reviewed journals, and here are the results:
    These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. One could reasonably argue whether 10 sources is an adequate sample size (if so, just ask, and I can expand the sample size). But based on these results, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to Watts or his blog as:
    1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
    2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
    3. Science - 1 Source
    4. Denier - 0 Sources
    A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources are high-end mainstream sources but not "high-quality scholarly sources" as mentioned by Manul. Manul, can you give specific examples? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are in the opening sentence of this revision. Searching through mainstream independent sources in Google Scholar -- even searching explicitly for "skeptic"/"skepticism" -- every one I've seen regards the blog as climate change denialism (again see this thread). We care about identifying the fringe view of climate change denialism, in whatever terminology it takes. Making that identification prominent is part of WP:NPOV.
    In the past I have pointed to WP:RS, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." This is especially true for scientific topics. There is little indication that some editors have apprehended this principle, as we see e.g. foxnews.com being promoted over scholarship again. Note foxnews.com and others aren't necessarily in contradiction with scholarly sources; they just aren't discussing WUWT from a scholarly perspective. Manul ~ talk 02:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What about a formulation like "typically described as 'skeptical' in the mainstream press but as 'denialist' in the academic literature"? I think AQFN is broadly correct about the press (though some of those sources are a bit dodgy, e.g., American Thinker) and this deserves mention alongside the academic view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like key ideas are being missed. This thread I keep mentioning is about how even scholarly sources sometimes use "climate skepticism" to refer to climate change denialism. We care about identifying the phenomenon of climate change denialism, not about identifying a word. We have no independent sources saying that WUWT is just a science blog promoting scientific skepticism. Most likely none exist. We even have a source that explicitly divorces WUWT from scientific skepticism.
    Suppose we juxtaposed them, ...a website that scientists and scholars have characterized as supporting climate change denialism, and that is also called "skeptical". What would this convey to the reader? There would be the implied suggestion that these are opposing viewpoints, when our sources say that they are the same. We might be suggesting scientific skepticism, which is contrary to at least one source.
    There is every indication that this is only about avoiding the word "denialism". Apparently it is like the terms pseudoscience and pseudohistory -- scholars use them, but they are viscerally hated by proponents of works so labeled. If "climate change contrarianism" or "climate change renegades" were used everywhere in the literature then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. I once cited a Nature article that used contrarianism, but there were no takers. The offer is still out there. Manul ~ talk 06:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Contrarianism" is not sufficient or accurate.
    Here is a source[2] characterizing the blog as "denialist", and I'm sure there are more.
    And here's an even better one, by notable climatologist Michael E. Mann.[3]--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I now see that Mann's book had already been used, but somewhat strangely not for the material most relevant to this issue, which I've now added.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:

    Google Scholar Totals:

    1. Skeptic - 3 times.
    2. Meteorologist - 2 times
    3. Conservative - 2 times
    4. Anti-climate science - 1 time
    5. Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
    6. Science - 1 time
    7. Science (in quotes) - 1 time
    8. Denier - 0 times

    A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think by excluding papers that are behind paywalls, you have effectively eliminated the most reliable sources. Remember there is WP:Resource request] for you to use if there are reliable sources you cannot get access to. Please try this again. We have, for example, a number of excellent sources that are mentioned on the talkpage that you don't include here at all. By contrast, it seems that you've included a number of sources in your "random sample" that aren't as good as the ones mentioned on the talkpage. jps (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with WP:Resource Request request, but I will check it out and report back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed resolution for Watts

    Here is an easy compromise: "a website that scientists and scholars have characterized as promoting climate change denialism, also referred to as climate skepticism or climate contrarianism."[4] This is well-sourced and covers all the bases: we accurately characterize WUWT, and we address the terminology that has generated so much confusion. (More on terminology in this thread.) Manul ~ talk 07:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, sorry. We're not putting fringe viewpoints into the lead. This is a WP:BLP for heaven's sake. At most, it belongs somewhere in the article text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you clarify what in that statement is a "fringe viewpoint" and how you made that determination according to WP:FRINGE? jps (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like clarification as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I'd be happy to:
    • First, in order to answer the question of what is WP:FRINGE, we need to examine what the mainstream viewpoint is. Based on two random samplings of reliable sources, the vast, overwhelming majority of reliable sources (i.e. the mainstream viewpoint) describe this blog as "skeptic", not "denier". Even if you combine both random samples, not a single source describes this blog as "denier". Now, I'm not saying that there aren't such sources, but the apparent majority of sources describe the blog as "skeptic", not "denier". Sources which describe this blog as "denier" are so fringe, that out of two random sample sets, not a single source makes such a claim.
    • Second, according to Wikipedia guidelines, we don't describe someone as a "denier" unless it's widely used by reliable sources. There is no evidence that "denier" is widely used by reliable sources. But there is strong evidenice that "denier" is not widely used by reliable sources.
    To put it another way, if we have 10 sources about something, and 9 say one thing, and 1 says something else, you don't cite the oddball source (i.e the fringe minority source), you cite the majority.
    A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no way that your original research can be used to determine what is or is not fringe. You need sources to prove that. If you write a paper that is published and can be used to prove your point, then we can consider it. But your claim that your samplings were "random" and that this helps you figure out determine what is fringe or not is not how we determine what is or isn't fringe.
    The majority of reliable sources, as demonstrated above, do describe Watts' blog as advocating what we at Wikipedia call global warming denialism. Even many of the sources you list do that.
    I call shenanigans and ask you to stop misusing wikijargon in POV-pushing agenda-driven ways.
    jps (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @jps: I'm afraid that you don't seem to understand what WP:OR is, and the claim that "The majority of reliable sources, as demonstrated above" is laughable given all the above sources support the exact opposite of what you claim. As for "POV-pushing agenda-driven", I'd love to know what agenda you think I'm pushing. Here's my agenda: I believe that we should follow WP:NPOV and treat fringe claims per WP:FRINGE. Again, if 9 sources say one thing, and 1 source says something else, you go with the mainstream viewpoint, not the fringe/insignificant minority. And I'm sorry, but if you can't actually put forth a rationale argument why should ignore reliable sources, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, there's little more I can say here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the problems is that in the academic literature "skepticism" and "denial" often are used synonymously with regard to climate change. So trying to draw a distinction between the two is artificial. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Much of this discussion is a red herring. I think the main question we should try to answer should be whether it is appropriate to identify the blog as being sympathetic or supporting global warming denialism. I think the answer to that is clearly, "yes." How this get said is a question of style rather than substance. jps (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Good. Then perhaps you will back off your insistence to violate WP:WTW by not using a contentious label unless widely used by reliable sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The attempt to use "random samples" and other arbitrary measures to dismiss the scholarly consensus on the matter is not compliant with policy.
    Unless an exhaustive survey of sources is carried out in order to determine WEIGHT, DUE/UNDUE, etc., it is readily apparent that climate change denialism or the like is a frequent characterization applied by scholarly and scientific RS. Accordingly, including said characterization clearly does not violate any Wikipedia policy; in fact, it is practically compulsory according to RS and NPOV. I agree that it is a question of style rather than substance.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unimpressed by AQFK's unwillingness to acknowledge that the sources point to global warming denialism as being the primary ideology that the blog supports. WP:Source counting is not the right way forward. Reading and understanding the sources is. jps (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @jps: I don't think you've read WP:Source counting very carefully. It's just an essay (which carries no weight) and you've mistaken the horse for the cart. Specifically, it cautions against using sources to bolster an argument. It does not caution against using sources to form an argument. Surely, you see the difference, right? Let me be perfectly explicit:
    • If you form a conclusion and then try to find sources that validate that conclusion, that's bad.
    • If you find empirical evidence first, and then base your conclusions on the evidence, that's good.
    Surely, you see the difference, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ubikwit: Can you please tell me where there was an "attempt to use "random samples" and other arbitrary measures to dismiss the scholarly consensus on the matter"? This is a very bold statement, so I hope you have evidence to back up such a serious accusation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @AQFK: You have used the random samplings in a manner such as to impart authority thereto, and ignored the peer-reviewed book by a bonafide climatologist, Mann. Arzel has referred to a personal dispute between Watts and Mann, but has not responded to my query for specifics or sources, and PG has arbitrarily stated that Arzel is correct. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ubikwit: I used random sampling in an attempt to provide an objective, non-biased answer to the fundamental question that we all need to answer: Is the term "denier" widely used by reliable sources? Even if a single source was omitted by random chance, this was never about a single source. This is about the term being widely used by reliable sources. So if an argument hinges on a single source, or even a small subset of sources, we still defer to the overall majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't notice a specific request. However, it is duly noted. Mann has made specific attacking statement against Watts, it is in his book. Watts has made specific statements about Mann, there is really no reason to go into depth as it is pretty clear. Arzel (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not clear because you are attempting to arbitrarily declare that Mann is unreliable because he lacks a "neutral presentation", etc. If you want to withdraw that position, fine. Please confirm, or add links to the detailed points related to the position.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are continuing to avoid the main point which is that WUWT is a blog that is sympathetic to global warming denialism. How we explain that to the reader is what we need to decide. jps (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction. It is a blog which is skeptical of man's contribution to global warming, and the actual impact of global warming, and the prediction of what the future warming may be. Arzel (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Artzel: You have repeatedly ignored questions regarding your allegations about the Mann source. This is the last time I'm going to ask you to either retract your statement or support it with specific citations. If you don't I'm going to raise you conduct at an appropriate forum, such as AE or the present ArbCom case, very soon.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources don't disagree with your characterization (except some deny that it is explicitly skeptical) but you can see our article on global warming denialism covers these claims and includes them as part of the overall ideology. jps (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Watts promotes authors who believe the moon landings were staged (John Costella) and one who is active in searching for the Loch Ness Monster (Henry Bauer). Plus a handful of other people who insist global warming cannot be real because God would never have designed the earth to be adversely impacted by human behaviour. There's really nothing skeptical about his blog. — TPX 16:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a FRINGE matter

    @Manul:, This isn't a FRINGE issue. We are not currently debating the substance of what Watts says about climate science like we do for other people at List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming. Instead, the question is whether we can include fact that some RSs use the label "denialist" when characterizing Watts' views and blog.

    The Speaker What is Said Applicable question Relevant to current debate?
    WRONG ISSUE Watts himself how climate works Are those views of climate science WP:FRINGE? No
    RIGHT ISSUE Others how Watts and blog should be characterized Is reporting some call him "denialist" a WP:BLP violation? Yes, it's relevant, but no its not a BLP violation

    We are debating the last line in this table. That's a BLP issue, not a fringe one, even if another editor is trying hard to count Google hits and frame the issue as a "FRINGE" matter. The applicable policy is WP:Biographies of living people#Public figures. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's also a question of how to link and describe climate change denial to the article. This is an issue because it involves the advocacy of fringe theories. jps (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have repeatedly made clear that the issue is about characterizing the blog, not the person,[5][6] and my edits have reflected this. I have never inserted "denier" or "denialist" into the article. Every discussion that I have begun on the topic, here and elsewhere, is about the blog, not the person.
    WP:PSCI (part of NPOV) is certainly involved because the blog promotes a fringe view, and it is against the NPOV policy to characterize it otherwise. WP:FRINGE is the explanatory guideline for the PSCI section of NPOV. See for instance Gavin Menzies' work being characterized as pseudohistory in the lead, which is the result of NPOV (specifically PSCI) being applied to a BLP. Also see BLPs that deal with pseudoscience. NPOV and BLP must both be upheld. Manul ~ talk 16:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're confusing
    • statements of pseudoscientific fact, with
    • statements of value judgments.
    PSCI could only potentially apply if we say something like According to Watts' blog, climate change is caused by XYZ. Your edits don't do that. Instead, your edits add value judgments, such as his blog "is characterized as promoting climate change denialism", the operative word being "IS", as in "is only". NPOV requires inline attribution of value judgments so that they read only as fact that so-and-so holds those views. Now if we were reporting what Watts says about some aspect of climate science, then I'm right there with ya, saying FRINGE controls. But so far you've been talking about value judgments, and it appears you want to tar and feather WUWT with value judgments that it is FRINGE crap. It's only a FRINGE matter if you report on one of his blogs' specific pseudoscience theories. Then and only then we contend with FRINGE, on a (crap)theory-by-(crap)theory basis. For sweeping value judgments applied to his overall site..... that's just not a FRINGE issue.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC) PS BTW, your example, Gavin Menzies, is distinguished in two ways. First, at that article the value judgments have in-line attribution to unnamed historians (though one could look up the names in the listed citations). Your edits lack inline attribution. Secondly, there appears to be no weighty RSs that disagree with the historians' value judgment. Are there credible weighty RSs that characterize WUWT as not-fringe? That's a question with no answer since the words "Denial" and "skeptic" are close to useless, due to conflation and ongoing arguments how (or if) they differ. When ALL the weighty RSs come together and do that unambiguously, then we can revisit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember the original wording was "scientists and scholars have characterized as promoting climate change denialism".[7] I removed "scientists and scholars" because of WP:WEASEL, even though I prefer having "scientists and scholars". The Menzies article may have a WEASEL problem, too, unless a source actually says something to the effect of "historians have categorized his work as pseudohistory". Perhaps this is a question for NPOVN.
    I am glad you asked, "Are there credible weighty RSs that characterize WUWT as not-fringe?" That is crux. I have seen no such sources. We have a source distinguishing WUWT from scientific skepticism and sources equating climate skepticism with climate denialism in the context of WUWT. Considering that WUWT opposes the scientific consensus on climate change (everyone seems to agree on that point), and considering how overwhelming the consensus is, we wouldn't expect to find independent mainstream sources saying that WUWT is just another science blog practicing scientific skepticism. If there is such a source, then article would need to change completely. Manul ~ talk 19:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still not talking about a concept to which FRINGE applies. This is a BLP issue. If we get into "Its the sun, stupid" details, then FRINGE will come into play. Until then, wrong venue. It's BLP territory. (Note to self.... you screwed up spending so much time arguing theory before completing your lit review.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the vast preponderance of the independent sources that have written about the blog agree that it accommodates/is sympathetic to/is supportive of climate change denial. Do you a) agree with this assessment? and b) think that we should provide a way for the reader to learn about this in the article? jps (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe something along the lines of "he has been described as an advocate of climate change denial by (sources)." That gets around describing him as a "denialist," which might have BLP problems (if the sources don't explicitly say that), but does provide a way to provide a relevant link and describe his positions. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More help would be appreciated

    Those of you that have the time, please help out. Right now, the lede of the article states that it is simply a "climate" and "weather" blog without identifying its agenda at all. I am serially reverted regardless of how I try to let the reader know about its ideological bent. jps (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It is very obviously a climate change denial blog. Only an idiot would state otherwise. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Day After Roswell

    The Day After Roswell (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    Is this book so notable it needs a dedicated article? Alexbrn (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Wikipedia:Notability (books), yes. The story of the book (not necessarily the book itself) is quite interesting, not that this supports notability per se. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The book attracted some notable criticism [8], [9] which probably belongs in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple news blurbs regarding Strom Thurmond being duped into writing the forward: [10][11]. -Location (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Men Who Stare at Goats

    Can people add this and other articles edited by the same IP to their watchlists? The latest edit is adding OR to a see also entry. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yosef Ben-Jochannan

    And this, about an Afro-centrist who died recently so has received a bit of pov editing. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ages in Chaos

    Many apologies, another one. Latest edit POV, OR, etc. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    John Lear

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

    Uncited biography of a living person who is a UFOlogist and grandson of the inventor of the Lear jet. Does coverage in reliable secondary sources exist or is this one for Afd? - Location (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironically the first external link has some of the best info (though it's a bit unclear whether it qualifies as an RS) but there are plenty of book hits too. Obviously the current version is UFOlogist trash. Mangoe (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangoe, I redirected to the applicable section in the father's biography. - Location (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Americans United for Separation of Church and State

    This is one of these edits that involved WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, etc and I never know where to mention them as I don't like going to 2 boards for one edit. But as it mainly involves Answers in Genesis, I'm coming here/ I've been trying to explain to 66.190.249.59 (talk · contribs) about our policies but they still don't get it.

    "In March 2015, Americans United filed a motion to intervene and a proposed motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit filed in the state of Kentucky. Americans United is representing, four Kentucky taxpayers, two of whom are Baptist ministers.<ref>http://baptistnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/29956-baptist-ministers-oppose-tax-break-for-ark-park</ref> In the lawsuit,<ref>https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/ark/lawsuit-document.pdf</ref> Ark Encounter LLC,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis#Ark_Encounter</ref> the developer of a tourist attraction featuring a life size model of Noah's Ark, is requesting the state of Kentucky approve its application for a tourism incentive program that would offset some of its development costs by deferring sales taxes the theme park itself will generate through its ticket sales. Kentucky governor Steve Beshear also filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Last year a board within the Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet that reviews such applications gave preliminary approval of an application seeking $18 million in tax rebates for the $73 million development. But in December Bob Stewart, secretary of the state Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet, rejected the application on final review saying the applicant changed its position on hiring practices and now intended to discriminate in hiring based on religion.<ref>http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/beshear-asks-dismissal-ark-case/70571974/</ref> In their motion Beshear and Stewart said, "Providing the public funding sought for religious purposes ...would constitute an unlawful establishment of religion under the U.S. and Kentucky constitutions." According to its complaint, Ark Encounter LLC, suggests the subject position advertised was not for an employee of Ark Encounter LLC but for a position at Answers in Genesis that is lawfully able to select employees based upon religious beliefs since it is a religious ministry."

    The WP:UNDUE bit is because I haven't been able to find any significant coverage of this lawsuit which does mention the subject of the article in the media besides the Baptist website. As for sources, we have the Baptist site (mentioning AU & the lawsuit), the Courier-Journal (mentioning the lawsuit but not AU), our Answers in Genesis article which should probably be a wikilink to the Ark Encounter, and a pdf on Answers in Genesis website (and note that even a court document would almost certainly fail WP:RS as a primary source. I don't want the IP to think I'm making this all up or being unfair (they already think I'm following them around, which of course is in a sense true, I found a problem at another article the IP edited and after fixing that looked at other edits). I'll notify the IP now.

    And if anyone thinks this should be at another NB, let me know and I'll move it. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah I mean this NB is for fringe theories of different fields, and the only thing fringe about this debacle is that AIG supports creationism. But that doesn't seem to be the problem here. What exactly is your stance, though? This section should be removed per WP:UNDUE? I've heard of this exchange/lawsuit elsewhere outside of wiki, I'm pretty sure it does have coverage. Let's see if I can find any...Yep! Here are some WP:RSes[1][2][3][4] that cover the passage above, maybe it should be cleaned up, made coherent, etc., but it definitely is WP:Notable, in my opinion.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding this. The fringe element is the ARK bit, which is all the editor is interested in - so far as I can see, the AU itself is almost irrelevant to the IP's edits, and I see you've removed a quote that again had nothing to do with AU. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/05/us-usa-religion-ark-idUSKBN0L92TK20150205
    2. ^ http://www.seattletimes.com/news/kentucky-sued-over-lost-tax-incentive-for-noahs-ark-park-2/
    3. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/10/ky-wont-grant-noahs-ark-park-tax-incentives/20220905/
    4. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/02/05/us/ap-us-rel-noahs-ark-park-suit.html?_r=0

    Scientologis & Narconon scammer at AFD

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per Wickstrom - the sources are entirely promotional and do not point out the rather well-known fact that Narconon is a scam. The article needs to go, or be drastically revised to reflect the reality-based view of the Scientology cult's abusive drug rehab fraud. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rupert Sheldrake: scientist

    Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Scientific_papers_listing

    Please note that Nigelj has added Sheldrake's reported list of scientific papers to the article as a citation to our first identifier of Rupert Sheldrake as a "scientist". I'm concerned that this list includes many papers which are not strictly scientific. It would be great to get some outside opinions on the matter.

    jps (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In my understanding this is a vexed question not a simple factual matter, so adducing a bunch of primary sources to call Sheldrake—in Wikipedia's voice—a "scientist" would violate WP:NOR, no? Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheldrake has credentials as a botanist, doesn't he? Considering the extremely nebulous meaning of "scientist," wouldn't inclusion of that word be both, well, less-than-productive and redundant? John Carter (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He is a former scientist. These days he's a professional crank. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, sure, but we obviously can't say that in the first sentence of the article. The question is, "What do we say?" There are competing positions here. One position is credentialism. It is undeniable that Sheldrake has been trained at first-rate institutions and has participated in process science that has been if perhaps not notable then at least what everyone agrees is a normal part of a scientific career. That was decades ago. Now, Sheldrake publishes ideas strictly outside of that framework. That doesn't mean he loses his membership card in the "I am a scientist!" club, but it certainly means that we should think about how this presentation is done. I tried putting in "biologist by training" as a way of explaining this situation, but that was rejected as being somehow demeaning to Sheldrake's background. So we're stuck with this kind of special pleading, but I'm not sure what way out of it there is. We need to be able to get across to the reader that here is a guy who has been trained and has worked professionally as a scientist but who currently works in way that most scientists would describe as "pseudoscientific". That's the game. How Wikipedia does this is not something I've figured out and it certainly isn't being helped by a talkpage that seems to have a number of people who aren't able to see that this actually is the game. jps (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC is always an option. And I think maybe something like "RS is a trained biologist who is perhaps most notable for advancing opinions outside of his field of training which have been rejected by the scientific community"? Wordy, yeah, but it conveys most of the information, I think. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Or simply don't mention it, as was the case for a long time. The current version is fine, it complies with all relevant policies. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't belittle him. He is a very charismatic crank, too. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If so, why can't we state that in our article? Because he isn't. -A1candidate 00:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we don't state it because we are an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid. That doesn't mean that the statement is false, just that there are better ways to say it (which we do in the article). jps (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ernst's Law

    If you are researching complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and you are not hated by the CAM world, you're not doing it right.

    Unbiased: The Truth about the Healing Arts on Wikipedia

    This constitutes evidence that we are, in fact, doing it right. Well done. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Some commentary from Orac here. Incidentally, whatever happened to Deepak Chopra's kind-of-similar "ISHAR" Project I wonder? Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Beware; alexbrn's link triggers kaspersky to prompt this alarm. Logos (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    False reports like that don't tend to last too long. Some people really don't like it when you call them out :) jps (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ISHAR has been happening: [12]. There was a little mixup when the first person in charge was fired and replaced by a different Wikipedian. Judicious googling will clue you in on the story. jps (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not much different from a religious cult that misinterprets their perceived persecution as some form of validation of their beliefs (e.g. "If the Devil does not hate you, it means you're not a true follower"). For the record, Ernst personally formulated his law as follows: "If a scientist investigating alternative medicine is much liked by the majority of enthusiasts in this field, the scientist is not doing his/her job properly" [13]. This is totally different from how the OP states it and his misinterpretation of Ernst's "law" is yet another reason why this particular brand of fake Internet skepticism and SBM advocacy, when seriously considered, is so dangerous to mainstream science and medicine. -A1candidate 17:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What is "SBM advocacy"? That one is new to me. The Traveling Boris (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is very different, because science changes according to developing evidence, whereas cults like homeopathy cannot, because they reject all evidence that is not consistent with their doctrines (in the case of homeopathy this includes most of physics, all of human biochemistry, physiology and anatomy, and pretty much everything we've learned as a species since 1790). Wikipedia does a remarkably good job of stating the facts, neutrally, by reference to the best available evidence. That means there is some material I dislike because I personally think that acupuncture and chiropractic are meretricious quackery that exploits the gullible, and Wikipedia is much more moderate, and there are some articles I like very much, including the one on "the one quackery to rule them all", homeopathy. The authors of the Kickstarter project are lunatic charlatans. Their opposition validates us. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The more you continue to seek validity in their opposition, the more it serves to prove my point - that the Internet skeptic's movement resembles a religious cult that misinterprets perceived persecution or opposition as some form of validation of their beliefs. Just like how a Jehovah's Witness is taught from a young age that conflict with the others is inevitable and subsequently misinterprets that as evidence for the validity of the Watch Tower society's doctrines. Feel free to oppose the Kickstarter project, but please don't view their opposition as evidence for the validity of your beliefs, if skepticism is still desirable here. -A1candidate 00:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The invalidity of the evidentiary basis of alternative medicine is definitional. No one (not even the proponents) argue that this isn't the case. The best that they can do is say that there is a "growing" number of supporters or "more and more studies". (I suppose they don't see the irony in that claim since the number of scientists and the number of studies that are about any topic are necessarily a cumulative distribution functions and so it is impossible for them to decrease in amount.) The point that is relevant is that people who support ideas which lack evidentiary basis will oppose evidentiary basis. It's not to say that you are necessarily doing something right, but if the anti-empirical believers were enthusiastic in their support of a project, it probably is not an empirically-based project. jps (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't seek validity in their opposition, I merely mock it. The thing about science is that it goes on being true whether you believe it or not. Homeopathy, especially, is based purely on faith. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    New essay

    See Wikipedia:Advocacy quacks‎. I request input. QuackGuru (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I made an improvement in spelling during my initial reading. It has an interesting and reasonably accurate description of the prevailing atmosphere at fringe articles under attack from advocates. Written in the same style as "The Litmus Paper," recently deleted and sadly missed, this essay makes accurate assessments and reasonable PAG based suggestions to editors. Well done. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 08:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I gather from the tagging and from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks that there's going to be a concerted effort to get this nuked. Mangoe (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was deleted as it should have been. Plagiarism of another editor's work is insufferable especially when that work is still under discussion for further improvement. Atsme☯Consult 23:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I made comments I thought just add that deleted works for me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    British Israelism

    Needs more eyes. I've just reverted some edits by an editor who doesn't understand that NPOV doesn't mean we take a neutral stance. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reconstruction Era

    I took a peek at the wiki on the Reconstruction Era after doing some reading on the topic, and was surprised by some of the assertions as well as the prominence given to historical views that are no longer common (like those of the Dunning School) and that might be viewed by some as racist. See my comment on the article's talk page: Talk:Reconstruction_Era#General_Bias?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wswanniii (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 April 2015‎

    Quantum mind

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

    Ongoing edit war to insert "Classical physics is a false theory of the world" [14] into the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    May be just a non-optimal framing of the topic in the lead, and not a fringe issue. Now on Talk. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Origin theories of Christopher Columbus

    Once again, an IP pushing Manuel Rosa, informing our readers that Rosa has made a convincing case. I've reverted once but it's back. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    David Talbott

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

    I tried to get this article deleted a few times unsuccessfully. This is a guy who read Immanuel Velikovsky's work and then decided to do his own amateur speculations on comparative mythology and so-called "catastrophism". The guy wrote a book thirty years ago that argued that 1) Saturn was a brown dwarf a few thousand years ago, 2) it was much closer to the Earth than the Sun at that time, 3) Venus and Mars also orbited Saturn and were basically visible as disks, 4) the Earth orbited Saturn orthogonal to its rotation axis so that the North Pole faced Saturn.

    Okay, so we can agree that this is totally bonkers, but the problem is that it is so bonkers that basically no one has bothered to critique the idea. The inappropriately attributed critiques included in the article make it seem that these are one-off problems with this guy's ideas, but since this person is not a famous crank, we don't have a lot of independent sources that mention him. The few we do have are so minor (and, I'll note, only published in fringe journals dedicated to Velikovsky) as to make the article very unbalanced. It doesn't help that this is a WP:FRINGEBLP and so we're stuck trying to evaluate nonsense ideas in a article that is supposed to ostensibly be about the person.

    Anyway, I'd like to get some help with this. What should be done?

    jps (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Crickets here? Okay! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott (4th nomination). jps (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=657209905"
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy