m Archiving 4 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard) (bot
|
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard) (bot
|
||
(9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 550: | Line 550: | ||
:I have nominated the project for deletion [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Systems|here]] [[User:Carchasm| - car chasm]] ([[User talk:Carchasm|talk]]) 23:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC) |
:I have nominated the project for deletion [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Systems|here]] [[User:Carchasm| - car chasm]] ([[User talk:Carchasm|talk]]) 23:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
== [[Talk:Spanish Empire#Area]] == |
|||
The theory in question is that the Spanish Empire reached a peak area of ca 24 M km<sup>2</sup> 1580 and 1640/68, during the [[Iberian Union]] as purported in the [http://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf thesis] at p 109 and presented in the map at 138. During the Iberian Union, Portugal was effectively a vassal of Spain subsumed into the Empire. This is not a point of contention. 24 M is based on the [[Treaty of Tordesillas]] and the assertion that Spain and Portugal ''owned'' all of South America, which is quite different from what they controlled at the time. |
|||
[https://escholarship.org/content/qt3cn68807/qt3cn68807.pdf This journal article] by Taagepera is widely cited and gives 13.7 M km<sup>2</sup> (5.3 Mil sq mi) as the peak area around 1780 and 7.1 M km<sup>2</sup> for the Iberian Union (1640). ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' [https://www.britannica.com/list/8-of-the-largest-empires-in-history here], states: {{tq|At its height, in the late 1700s, the Spanish empire comprised 5.3 million square miles ...}} Etemad's [https://books.google.com/books?id=fTS0BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA135 ''Possessing the World: Taking the Measurements of Colonisation from the 18th to the 20th Century'', p. 135] gives a figure of 12.3 million km<sup>2</sup> for Spain's colonial possessions (i.e. excluding Spain itself) in the year 1760. [https://books.google.com/books?id=9mkLEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA93 ''The Oxford World History of Empire'', p. 93] gives a figure of 7.1 in 1640 (from Taagepera) and 12.3 in 1760 (from Etemad). [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2571873 This 1948 source] says that the Spanish Empire {{tq|broke all records about 1763, with an area of approximately 5,400,000 square miles}}. This map ([[:File:Philip II's realms in 1598.png]]) shows the areas that were settled and controlled during the Iberian Union and would be consistent with a figure of 7.1 M. During the subject discussion, additional sources citing 2.4 M have not been provided. |
|||
The question is whether the 2.4 M figure should be considered a fringe theory. A secondary consideration is whether the 2.4 M figure should be cited in the infobox (ie that it has a consensus in sources). [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 02:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I will assume there are many sources in Spanish and Portuguese that support 24 M which would make it hard to describe as fringe. I'm no expert, but I thought Tordisillas (1494 based its presumption of Spain 'owning' most of South America on the 1493 bull ''[[Inter Caetera]]'', which it did not do. If correct then wouldn't it be more accurate to point out that Spain's assumptions about 'ownership are wrong. If the bull is IMO correctly interpreted then there is nothing to support the claim of 'owning' most of South America. [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 03:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::"This is not a point of contention. 24 M is based on the Treaty of Tordesillas and the assertion that Spain and Portugal owned all of South America, which is quite different from what they controlled at the time." This assumption is false. The author does not use the Treaty of Tordesillas as the basis for [https://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf his figure of 24 million km2]. The author writes, and I quote:『From a punctual and synchronic perspective, the Empire of the Catholic or Hispanic Monarchy between 1580 and 1640-68 , with the incorporation of Portugal and its overseas territories, reached around 24 million km² of effective formal sovereignty in all continents, without counting other territories of nominal or conceptual formal sovereignty.』Page 109. The 24 million km2 are further supported by a representative map on [https://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf page 138]. On the other hand, to assume that Spain did not control South America would be the same as saying that the UK did not control all of India, Egypt, Canada, Sudan or South Africa because they did not have a soldier in every town. The British territorial calculations include all the territories mentioned even though they were not under the control of the British army in a total and effective way. The same could be said of South America, although it was under full Spanish-Portuguese control, since the Christian missions were already educating the local populations in Spanish and the Christian religion, and the royal armies had already co-opted the indigenous populations by integrating the former reigning empires into the Hispanic imperial organisation. We should first determine what is meant by effectively controlled territory. If it is exclusively at the level of military presence, we could say that today the United States is the largest empire in history, given that it is in charge of the defence of half the planet with its vassal states. On the other hand, if we make an exhaustive comparison between what is considered effectively controlled or uncontrolled territory between British Egypt or British India and the Spanish empire, we can observe that on a cultural, military, economic, religious and practically all spheres, the Spanish-Portuguese empire effectively controlled the territory much more extensively than the British. When even Egypt was not considered part of the British territory because 1° Egypt was a vassal state of the Ottoman Sultan. 2° the Egyptian population was never considered British. The same goes for India or Sudan since they were always vassal territories but never formally British territory nor their citizens British. This is the great difference with the Spanish Empire that considered the natives of Peru, Colombia or Mexico as full Spanish citizens. This is just an example for you to see the what effective control means. In spite of this, you persist in taking half of the territory effectively controlled by the Spanish-Portuguese empire out of the Spanish-Portuguese empire without a valid argument. There is a clear difference between the traditionally European colonial empires and the Spanish-Portuguese one and that is that while the European colonial empires such as the English or Dutch did not mix with the local populations and relied heavily on military deterrent force as well as terror either by controlling food production or brute force, the Spanish-Portuguese empires based their strategy on intermarriage and co-optation of the local populations which made it more durable as well as allowing them to control a much larger territory in a much larger territory in a much shorter period of time, the Spanish-Portuguese empires based their strategy on miscegenation and co-optation of the local populations which made it more durable as well as allowing them to control a much larger territory in a much broader sphere of domination than simply military. Having expressed this and having made this comparison with the British Empire, which includes vassal territories, I ask myself: Did the Spanish Empire control 24 million km2 ? Yes, it did. [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 08:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::This is the wrong noticeboard for this dispute, but come on. The Spanish Empire at the time was only interested in the coastal regions. They had never even ''been'' to the vast majority of the territory of South America. How could the Spanish Empire control the interior of the continent if the people living there had never even heard of them? [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 08:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm an involved party here, as is {{u|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa}} above. With that said, this is obviously a fringe view. No serious scholar on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities attributes effective control of 24 million km<sup>2</sup> to the Spanish Empire during the time of the Iberian Union, and no serious scholar on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities uses any other measure than land area under effective control. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 11:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Hi TompaDompa. Yes they do: [https://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf Page 109 + page 138]. Please stop please stop delegitimizing and lying about my [https://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf reference.] This is not a battle of ego. We are trying to get closer to the truth. [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 11:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yeah, ''Iberofonía y Paniberismo'' is not a source on territorial extents of historical polities. One doesn't have to conduct a particularly extensive search for sources to find that area estimate for various historical polities are a dime a dozen in sources that are written by laypeople (in the sense that they aren't scholars on the topic at hand, even if they may be scholars in some other discipline), but this is really no different from any other academic discipline where you can find loads of sources from laypeople that express viewpoints that are way outside of the academic mainstream. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 11:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Delegitimising my [https://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf reference] Page 109 + page 138 is a very pitiful recourse on your part. If you have no sources to disprove mine, withdraw. Thank you. [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 11:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'm saying that "your" source is not a source on territorial extents of historical polities, which is true. I'm also saying that [https://escholarship.org/content/qt3cn68807/qt3cn68807.pdf this source] by Taagepera (mentioned by {{u|Cinderella157}} above) which says that the area in 1640 was 7.1 million km<sup>2</sup> (and that the area in 1780 was 13.7 million km<sup>2</sup> and that the Spanish Empire never reached a greater extent than 13.7 million km<sup>2</sup>) ''is'' a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, which is also true. This all just comes across as you not liking the lower figures. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 12:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Hi TompaDompa this all comes across as you not liking [https://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf the higher figures of my reference.] Page 109 and page 138 that show with evidence that 24 M km2 was the Spanish Empire extent. Please withdraw. [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 10:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The source he is using marks this area as "Espacios de jurisdición, soberanía, protectorado o posesión sustantiva o formal hispánicos". Which is perfectly correct, this area was indeed formally under Spanish possession. While I think it's ridiculous say that this is the area of the Spanish Empire, this is not a fringe theory, it's just a sterile argument about semantics. To be a fringe theory you need to have a following of crackpots denying reality. There is no question about reality here, the only thing that is being debated is an inconsequential definition. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 12:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::In this context, using that definition of area is way outside of the academic mainstream. In that sense, it is indeed fringe, though perhaps one might prefer calling it by some other term such as just plain [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 13:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[:es:País_de_los_Maynas|here]], [https://www.laamazoniaquequeremos.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Chapter-9-ES-Bound-September-14.pdf here] Page 24, [[:pt:Francisco_de_Orellana|here]], [[:es:Pedro_Teixeira_(militar)|here]], [http://dspace5.filo.uba.ar/bitstream/handle/filodigital/3349/uba_ffyl_t_2017_se_garzon.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y] and [http://dspace5.filo.uba.ar/bitstream/handle/filodigital/3349/uba_ffyl_t_2017_se_garzon.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y here] After all the given references I refer to [https://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf the original reference Page 109 + page 138] which is not a fringe theory, it is therefore the territorial extension that should be applied to the Spanish empire in its maximum extension. [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 10:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Hi Terner. They got inside and founded several cities from the very beginning [[Francisco de Orellana|please check]], [[:pt:Manaus|another]], [[Cochabamba|another]], [[Salta|another]], [[Bogotá|another]], [[Quito|another]], [[Asunción|another]], just select any city in South America in google maps and check the history and you will see that most were made by spaniards so your argument is a fallacious one. [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 11:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Please don't be disingenuous. With the exception of Manaus, all these cities are in the dark red area of [[:File:Philip II's realms in 1598.png|this map]], which excludes the vast majority of South America. You know very well that this is what I was talking about. And I'm very confused about why you would link Manaus, since it was founded by the Portuguese long after the Iberian Union was over. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 12:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Hi Tercer, Manaus was founded where the missionaries [[:pt:História_de_Manaus|carmelitas were settled in 1659]] which proves that the Spanish presence and control of the Amazon was real, which is what we are discussing here. Please also check the map. Beyond this example I give you the following ones: [[:pt:Forte_de_São_José_da_Barra_do_Rio_Negro|here]], [[São Gabriel da Cachoeira|here]], references of [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/200977379.pdf jesuit, carmelitas, and dominicos] under the Spanish empire. More [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3536980 here]. [https://www.laamazoniaquequeremos.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Chapter-9-ES-Bound-September-14.pdf More] Page 24. [[:es:País_de_los_Maynas|Here also]]. [[Special:Contributions/194.38.172.194|194.38.172.194]] ([[User talk:194.38.172.194|talk]]) 09:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The point is that Manaus was founded long after the Iberian Union was over. It can't be used to argue that during the time of the Iberian Union the Spanish Empire had a presence in the interior. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 09:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Hi Tercer. First Manaus was a Spanish Carmelita’s settlement during the Iberian Union. Please check the reference. furthermore, please check all the other given references and replies. [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 10:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::[[:es:País_de_los_Maynas|here]], [https://www.laamazoniaquequeremos.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Chapter-9-ES-Bound-September-14.pdf here] Page 24, [[:pt:Francisco_de_Orellana|here]], [[:es:Pedro_Teixeira_(militar)|here]], [http://dspace5.filo.uba.ar/bitstream/handle/filodigital/3349/uba_ffyl_t_2017_se_garzon.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y] and [http://dspace5.filo.uba.ar/bitstream/handle/filodigital/3349/uba_ffyl_t_2017_se_garzon.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y here][[:es:País_de_los_Maynas|here]], [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 10:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::The initial settlers were Portuguese, not Spanish, and the Iberian Union ended in 1640. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 10:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Hi the initial settler were part of the spanish empire and Portugal was in the [[:es:Tratado_de_Lisboa_(1668)|Iberian Union until 1668.]] Furthermore the news did not arrive to america after 2 years. [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 11:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::[https://jesuitonlinelibrary.bc.edu/?a=d&d=historiadelamis-01.2.2.156&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN------- Extra references of settlements] Please give me just one british settlement in Northwest Canada or West Sudan of the british empire although these territories are counted as British empire territories... [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 11:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Now you're just denying reality. 1668 is merely the date when Spain recognized Portugal's independence. And I couldn't care less about the British Empire, it's not being discussed here. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 12:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Hi Tercer. You are denying the reality. When there is a war at the end there is a treaty and the treaty determines the terms between the two parties. [[:es:Tratado_de_Lisboa_(1668)|The treaty was signed on 1668]]. Portugal was part of the Iberian Union until 1668. Could you please stop with the historical revisionism. Thanks [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 13:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::[https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Europe/Spain Please check] where it says Portugal. Spanish and Portuguese are brothers of the same family and until 1668 they were the same Empire. [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 13:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Just in case you can't find it [https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Europe/Spain "Neighbouring Portugal acquired independence in 1668"] [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 13:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::I think you need to vandalize [[Iberian Union]] then, as it repeatedly puts the date of the end of the union as 1640. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 14:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::Hi Tercer. Yes someone should change the dates as they happened. Please check page [https://repositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/53407/1/documentação%20medieval.pdf 405 and 406] [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 15:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::[[:es:Jéberos_(Alto_Amazonas)|Another one]] [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 11:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::[https://arquidiocesedemanaus.org.br/historico/ Another reference for you]『1659 – Chegada dos missionários carmelitas no local onde se iria construir a cidade de Manaus.』[[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 13:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::[https://revista.sabnet.org/ojs/index.php/sab/article/view/667/561 another reference] Page 307 [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 14:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:IMO this is the wrong noticeboard for this. What seems to be going on is not a fringe theory, it's a semantic dispute. |
|||
:Personally, I wouldn't use the word "owned": if I had to refer to the larger area, I'd say it's territory ''claimed'' by the Spanish Empire, and the smaller area is territory ''controlled'' by the Spanish Empire. Which one is mainly referred to should be determined by the sources. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 22:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::I think (but ping {{u|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa}} just in case) that the whole claimed vs. controlled distinction is pretty uncontroversial. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 22:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Hello Loki, |
|||
::The territory referred to in the [https://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf reference] provided is owned territory since the reference indicates [https://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf "formal effective sovereignty"]. Page 109 [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 07:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''Comment''' [[WP:FRINGE]] states: {{tq|In Wikipedia parlance, the term [[fringe theory]] is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.}} From [[fringe theory]] (linked therein): {{tq|A fringe theory is an idea or a viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship of the time within its field.}} The peak figure of 13.7 M km<sup>2</sup> appears to have widespread acceptance, as evidenced by some of the sources specifically cited herein. The figure of 24 M km<sup>2</sup> has only been attributed to a single source - a doctoral thesis. In the subject discussion ([[Talk:Spanish Empire#Area]]) I ask for further sources that would evidence this higher figure has a degree of acceptance within the field but so far, only the thesis has been provided - both there and here. Given the P&G, I bought this question here because the circumstances do appear to fit the definition and scope of this noticeboard. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 09:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Cinderella157 same reply as previously to Tercer please check [[Pedro Teixeira]] expedition. Please [http://www.ahimtb.org.br/LIVRO_AMAZONIA.htm#2-10 check], please check page 24 [https://www.laamazoniaquequeremos.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Chapter-9-ES-Bound-September-14.pdf the missions], please check this [[:es:País_de_los_Maynas|here]] |
|||
:This evidence the presence of spaniards. This is better proven than the British presence in western Sudan. [[Special:Contributions/194.38.172.194|194.38.172.194]] ([[User talk:194.38.172.194|talk]]) 09:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Cinderella this is more than enough to prove it https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pa%C3%ADs_de_los_Maynas, also [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/200977379.pdf this] also [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3536980 here] [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 09:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:After all the given references I refer to the [https://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf original reference] Page 109 + page 138 which is not a fringe theory, it is therefore the territorial extension that should be applied to the Spanish empire in its maximum extension. [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 10:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::This is not about ''editors'' proving a figure of 24 M and adding sources (as above) to support the arguments being made ''by editors'' - which is what sources and links added by proponents are doing. It is about sources which ''explicitly'' refer to and endorse the 24 M figure as a ''prevailing view and accepted scholarship in the field''. As {{U|Slatersteven}} would indicate below, it is about the consensus of what good quality sources actually say the figure is. It is not about how editors here might rationalise a particular figure as being better in ''their opinion''. So far, the only source ''specifically endorsing'' the 24 M figure is the thesis - as far as I can see. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 02:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hi Cinderella the same can be said about the other figures since none of them match the previous one. Are they all Fringe theories? The latest research, which is the one I have provided, indicates 24 M km2. [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 15:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oh, cut it out. If you think ''[https://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf Iberofonía y Paniberismo]'' represents "the latest research" on the subject, you're either being disingenuous or you have no idea what you are talking about. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 15:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Hello TompaDompa, thank you for your message. Unfortunately your comment is an opinion without academic backing. Have a nice day. [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 16:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I think people need to read [[wp:or]] and [[wp:otherstuff]]. We go by what the bulk of RS say. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi in this case there is an original research [https://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf here] [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 13:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::That is not what it means, but as I do not read Spanish I shall ask a simple question. Can you provide a translation of the line about the Spanish empire's total land area? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hi Slatersteven, Thanks for your question. [https://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf Page 109]『Desde una perspectiva puntual y sincrónica, el Imperio de la Monarquía Católica o Hispánica entre 1580 y 1640-68, con la incorporación de Portugal y sus territorios ultramarinos, alcanzaría en torno a los 24 millones de km² de soberanía formal efectiva en todos los continentes, sin contar con otros territorios de soberanía formal nominal o conceptual.』"From a punctual and synchronic perspective, the Empire of the Catholic or Hispanic Monarchy between 1580 and 1640-68, with the incorporation of Portugal and its overseas territories, would reach around 24 million km² of effective formal sovereignty in all continents, without counting other territories of nominal or conceptual formal sovereignty." [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 13:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Why the two dates, surely this should be about the empire at its greatest extent (1668)? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Hi Slatersteven. It represents the extension during the Spanish Empire when the Portuguese were part of it. [https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Europe/Spain Until] the [[Treaty of Lisbon (1668)|treaty of Lisbon.]] [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 14:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Folks, this is a noticeboard. It is for notices. When an article is linked on this noticeboard, it means that people frequenting this noticeboard should go to the Talk page of the article and discuss there. Not that the entire discussion from that talk page should move here. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 14:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:A good point, so is this a fringe theory, does it accord with standard scholarship? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::This is not a Fringe theory as already discussed. [[User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa]] ([[User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa|talk]]) 13:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::From experience, this will trigger a new discussion here about whether it really isn't. To avoid this: |
|||
:::*If it is not a fringe theory, you should continue the discussion at [[Talk:Spanish Empire]]. |
|||
:::*If it is a fringe theory, you should continue the discussion at [[Talk:Spanish Empire]]. People from the noticeboard can join you there. |
|||
:::*If it is still an open question whether it is a fringe theory, you should continue the discussion at [[Talk:Spanish Empire]]. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 13:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Pressure point == |
|||
*{{al|Pressure point}} |
|||
Seems to be in a bad state. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 05:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pressure_point&diff=prev&oldid=1162349014 disambig] seemed like the best option. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 14:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::I've undone your edit changing it to a disambig. There's already a disambiguation page at [[Pressure point (disambiguation)]]. It seems the dab should be moved to the primary title and the content already at pressure point should either to to AFD, be moved to another title ([[Pressure point (Traditional Chinese Medicine)]] perhaps?), or merged with something like [[Acupuncture]] or [[Meridian (Chinese medicine)]]. ~ ''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="color:#0cc">ONUnicorn</span>]]''<sup>([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])</sup><small>[[WP:P&S|problem solving]]</small> 15:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oops, glad you caught my mistake before i started fixing links. Would think the primary if any would be bleeding control, but the reader probably better served by [[WP:NOPRIMARY]]. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 15:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[COVID-19 misinformation]] == |
|||
Discussion on the [[Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#Bioweapon idea and WikiVoice|COVID-19 misinformation talk page]] on an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_misinformation&diff=prev&oldid=1159835619 edit] that removed discussion about bioweapons conspiracy theories due to a [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-wuhan-lab-covid-pandemic-china-america-qhjwwwvm0 Sunday Times piece]. There's similar discussion on the [[Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory|COVID-19 lab leak theory talk page]], and proposals to not make it in "wikivoice". [[User:ScienceFlyer|ScienceFlyer]] ([[User talk:ScienceFlyer|talk]]) 03:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:[https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1668239114037067776?cxt=HHwWgIC8idao46YuAAAA Just gonna drop this here] [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 05:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:There is now a [[Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14|related RfC]]. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 14:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:And [[Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Circulating_rumors|another discussion on the lab-leak-theory talk page]]. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 23:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Salvatore Pais]] == |
|||
* {{articlelinks|Salvatore Pais}} |
|||
This article on a aerospace engineer could use some more eyes - especially whether the article should speculate that Pais invented technology used in UFOs and whether we should link to youtube videos claiming that. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 12:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
: [[YouTube]] links and [[Forbes]] contributors are not considered reliable sources. Another red flag is that a number of [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY]] claims are sourced only to ''thedrive.com''. One would expect wider attention for such allegedly groundbreaking technology. [[User:LuckyLouie|- LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 14:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
: Looking closer, I find myself wondering if this BLP fails [[WP:PROF]]. There are an awful lot of [[WP:PRIMARY]] citations to Pais papers and patents. The Popular Mechanics source mentions Pais, but only in passing within a discussion of the technology. The coverage is all about the speculative technology -- there are few if any details about Pais as a person -- not what you'd need for a BLP. [[User:LuckyLouie|- LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 17:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Doesn't look like a pass of [[WP:PROF]] to me: just a lab researcher with a not-very-high-profile citation record. So if he's notable, it's for the press attention to his (fringe?) inventions, not for scholarly attention to his scholarly publications. That said, if there is indeed in-depth independent coverage of his inventions, it would be appropriate to call him notable for that. That's exactly the sort of coverage one would expect to have of inventors, not the sort of puff piece about love lives and taste in restaurants (or as you phrase it "details about Pais as a person") that would be more appropriate to famous-for-being-famous celebrities. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 05:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::UFO-centric editing has resumed. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 03:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::I just tagged it. I'll be looking at this some more. As far as I can see, this doesn't make the cut for GNG. Especially with only "The Drive" and descriptions of patents for sources. ----[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 21:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Call for more eyes on [[Multiplicity (psychology)]] == |
|||
[[Multiplicity (psychology)]] has experienced some editing disputes recently––as a topic with aspects overlapping between medicine and subcultures, attention from editors experienced with fringe and MEDRS would be greatly appreciated. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 01:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{Clear}} |
|||
== Bengali Kayastha == |
|||
According to Banu, the Bengali Kayasthas migrated to Bengal in the ancient era; however, except for this source, the migration of the Kayasthas was not mentioned by any other reliable sources. According to Kayastha kulajis, they migrated to Bengal under King Adisura in medieval times; however, some historians still consider this migration fake. My question is: can we give information on Wiki by using only one source? I think WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not allow that. This theory by Banu makes the kayasthas immigrants, which is a very bold and exceptional claim.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE|NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE]] ([[User talk:NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE|contribs]]) 12:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:You're referring to Razia Akter [https://brill-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/display/title/2178?rskey=5RRYcd&result=1 ''Islam in Bangladesh'']? Banu is not part of the surname. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 12:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::...it appears she cites for this statement: |
|||
::*{{cite book|author=B. Gosh|title=Bangali O Bangla Shahitya|trans-title=Bengalee and Bengali Literature|location=Calcutta|publisher=New Age Publishers|year=1981|pages=2-4}} |
|||
::*{{cite book|author=A.K. Chattopadhyaya|title=Introduction to Ancient Bengal and Bengalis|location=Howra|publisher=Locknath Pustikalaya|year=1957|pages=l l-12}} |
|||
::*{{cite book|author=N. Ray|authorlink=Niharranjan Ray|title=Bangalir Itihas: Adi Parbo|trans-title=History of Bengalees: The Ancient Phase|location=Calcutta|publisher=Lekhak Somobay Samiti|year=1950|pages=850-63}} |
|||
:Well, since Bengali Kayasthas are human and all humans are decended from ape-like ancestors in Africa, they obviously had to immigrate at some time. Why do you call that {{tq|a very bold and exceptional claim}}? --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 13:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes I know that, every human migrated from africa. But Banu did not claim Kayasthas migrated from africa rather she claimed Kayasthas migrated from aryavarta (land of aryans/ North India) to Bengal. Bengali caste groups like Kayasthas are not migrant but Banu claimed they are. Thats why I am asking for another soources under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. [[User:NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE|NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE]] ([[User talk:NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE|talk]]) 13:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::What Razia Akter (Banu) states is: {{tq|Most of the upper-class Hindus of Bengal—Brahmans and Kayasthas—seem to be descendants of these Alpine Aryans, whose numbers at the time of immigration were not very large}} citing Gosh and Chattopadhyaya, then {{tq|The Guptas also brought into Bengal a large number of Kayasthas to help run the administration}} citing [[Niharranjan Ray|Ray]]. Is she actually making weaker claims than what you are ascribing to her? "seem to be descendants"? Is there a way to reword or add to the article text to address your point? [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 14:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::"Most of the upper-class Hindus of Bengal—Brahmans and Kayasthas—seem to be descendants of these Alpine Aryans, whose numbers at the time of immigration were not very large" well Aryan migration never happened in Bengal. So this statement is clearly a fringe theory. [[User:NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE|NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE]] ([[User talk:NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE|talk]]) 17:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Apologies, i missed 'alpine' is this then a ''[[Homo alpinus]]'' ala [[Ramaprasad Chanda#Proposed theories]]? Someone more knowledgeable would need to take a look. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 18:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Joe Donnell]] == |
|||
Article was just created based on the wacky fringe claims that he's been making on the QAnon grifter circuit. Not sure if the article should be kept, deleted, or fixed. I leave it here for the self-anointed experts to decide. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 07:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Donnell]] [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 12:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh my, a can of worms was opened that I had not realized! I misinterpreted [[WP:NPOL]] and I am amazed as what, apparently, is the status quo interpretation of that standard. Not relevant to this board, ''per se'', so I started a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#WP:NPOL_BLP_issue]]. Never a dull moment! [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::But we would lose this gem: "Donnell went viral after he described how he believed God revealed to him that there is a direct ley line from the Mount Rushmore National Memorial to Washington, DC, which God is going to break. He suggests that this is due to demonic forces that are using the monument as an altar, creating a portal that will allow communism to enter." [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 18:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::I know. But apparently we will not lose it because the WP powers-that-be think that every legislator is notable. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 02:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::<s>I can only recommend taking it to AfD again under the auspices of failing GNG, or BIO, or BLP.</s> The sources are mostly local/ regional but the coverage is not biographical. It's about his campaign and his fringe claims in The Hill. That means the coverage is mostly routine, if that can be argued in this instance. So, how can this be a biographical article or a BLP? It's more like advertisement for his campaign, now and in the future. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 06:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::What parts read more like an advertisement than a biography? We can and should fix any tone issues on the page. [[User:TulsaPoliticsFan|TulsaPoliticsFan]] ([[User talk:TulsaPoliticsFan|talk]]) 15:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I was referring to the article itself as an advertisement for his campaign because much of the source material seems to be about his campaign. And, I was looking at the sources more than I was looking at the article. Hence, the article can be interpreted as an adjunct to his campaign. Also, the article presents him in a mainstream light which is good PR for him as a candidate and as a South Dakota legislator. But his stated views on Mount Rushmore as a demonic portal for communism present him in a much different light. This view indicates he engages in conspiracy theories and an editor in the above mentioned something about making the rounds in a QAnon grifter circuit. Anyway, all that is what I was referring to. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 05:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I notice you are one of his supporters or defenders? I say this because you Ivoted ''Keep'' at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_Donnell AFD] . Anyway, I am not going to do an AfD here in case you have that in mind. --[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 05:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Neither supporter nor defender of ''him''. I just edit biographies of state legislators. That's why I asked about fixing tone issues in the article. [[User:TulsaPoliticsFan|TulsaPoliticsFan]] ([[User talk:TulsaPoliticsFan|talk]]) 05:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination) == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination)]]. |
|||
Of relevance to board watchers, I believe. Please offer your thoughts. |
|||
[[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Analysis of UFOs by Joel Achenbach == |
|||
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/08/11/stop-ufo-mania-no-evidence-of-aliens/ I missed this article] when it came out two years ago! It is truly excellent analysis that applies today. Would love to see it highlighted in some relevant articles: [[ufology]], [[UFO]], [[Pentagon UFO videos]], [[Luis Elizondo]], etc. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
: Paywalled? [[User:LuckyLouie|- LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 14:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Not as far as I can see. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::I was able to get around the splash screen with Chrome+[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/just-read/dgmanlpmmkibanfdgjocnabmcaclkmod Just Read]. There's probably a more couth way to do it through [[WP:RESOURCE]]. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::https://archive.today/https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/08/11/stop-ufo-mania-no-evidence-of-aliens/ [[User:Rjjiii|Rjjiii]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii|talk]]) 03:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Red meat]]== |
|||
About 6 months ago there was heavy traffic to the [[red meat]] article as carnivore diet advocates were adding a new NutriRECS review, and another flawed meta-analysis that red meat does not increase cancer risk. Two of those users were blocked. |
|||
The same studies are being added again by a new user. The NutriRECS review uses a different methodology and has been heavily criticized by health authorities as flawed, see [https://www.wcrf.org/latest/news-and-updates/red-and-processed-meat-still-pose-cancer-risk-warn-global-health-experts/] which includes Signatories by many cancer organizations rejecting the NutriRECS review. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Piri Reis map == |
|||
The '''[[Piri Reis map]]''' is notable for incorporating a lost map from Columbus, the earliest European map of the Americas to survive in some form (Happy 4th of July to anyone reading in the US). It's also notable for a long-disproven hypothesis that it's an [[out-of-place artifact]] depicting an [[Ancient Apocalypse|ice-free Antarctica]]. |
|||
Over the past few months, I've rewritten much of the article. I realize it may be odd for an editor to post their own work here, but it seems appropriate to put this up for scrutiny as this board previously looked at the article. I imagine I've either reorganized, reformatted, or rewritten much of that. Regards, [[User:Rjjiii|Rjjiii]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii|talk]]) 07:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::introduction looks sound! one question, in the following sentence, would a better word be "claimed" rather than "noted"? |
|||
::{{Talk quote inline|Some writers have noted visual similarities between places on the map and parts of the Americas not yet known to have been discovered.}}----[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 11:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[WP:CLAIM]] is a [[WP:WTW]]. Sometimes it is appropriate, but if a better, less argumentative synonym can be found, that's usually preferred. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks for the input, {{u|Licks-rocks}}. While cleaning up the intro, I've tried to make that section more clear. If it looks weird to you, I'm sure it will to others. It now reads {{tq|Some authors have noted visual similarities to parts of the Americas not officially discovered by 1513, but there is no textual or historical evidence that the map represents land south of present-day Cananéia.}} I didn't use "claim", because it's not strange for someone to say,『That part looks like the [[Valdés Peninsula]],』as that's a kind of subjective evaluation. There's just no evidence that it ''represents'' the [[Valdés Peninsula]], especially on a map where things like Puerto Rico, really look nothing like our modern understanding. [[User:Rjjiii|Rjjiii]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii|talk]]) 00:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Root Cause (film)]] == |
|||
Alerted by my brother, a dentist, I created this stuff in pt-wiki some time ago. Now this old fringe documentary with wild claims was recently created in en-wiki. More eyes needed. Cheers! [[User:Ixocactus|Ixocactus]] ([[User talk:Ixocactus|talk]]) 01:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over]]. If it is even notable in the first place. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 01:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::It definitely is notable, because many sources talked about its misleading claims, but it may need a rewrite. [[User:Partofthemachine|Partofthemachine]] ([[User talk:Partofthemachine|talk]]) 17:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I've cut down the article and brought it closer to NPOV [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 02:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:"Nearly every sickness is from the teeth." - Flann O'Brien, ''The Third Policeman''. [[User:Brunton|Brunton]] ([[User talk:Brunton|talk]]) 09:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Attunement == |
|||
Attunement [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attunement] needs a lot of work. It presents the nonsense ideas without criticism. <span style="color:darkblue;"><b>[[User:Chamaemelum|<span style="color:green;">Chamaemelum</span>]]</b></span> (<span style="color:red;"><i>[[User talk:Chamaemelum|<span style="color:purple;">talk</span>]]</i></span>) 22:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Specified complexity]] AFD == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specified complexity]] may be of interest to this noticeboard. [[User:Partofthemachine|Partofthemachine]] ([[User talk:Partofthemachine|talk]]) 04:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Highest IQ in history == |
|||
I feel like it would be better for someone else to join the conversation at [[Talk:Adragon De Mello]] about whether this person's "projected IQ" (as personally projected and heavily promoted by his own father, and uncritically repeated by the [[Reader's Digest]] and a few similar sources that explicitly attribute the claim to the Reader's Digest listicle) is 400. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 14:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:They probably just omitted the error bar of +-350. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 15:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh dear. I thought [[Christopher Langan]] was the highest IQ in history. I guess we'll never know. I will join the conversation. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 19:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Ancient astronauts == |
|||
*{{al|Ancient astronauts}} |
|||
Acquired a slightly [[WP:WEASEL]]y [[WP:CSECTION]] recently, which should be worked into the rest of the article. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 18:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I started overhauling that article. There are now ''excellent'' sources out there that we can use to improve this page. It's actually a great time to revamp this article. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Second American Civil War]] == |
|||
I am concerned about the state of [[Second American Civil War]], which started out much more along the lines of [[World War III]] (broadly discussing a hypothetical future event), but has now become excessively focused on propositions that we are ''currently'' in the middle of (or at the outset of) such an event. There is, of course, a real-world fringe position (reflected in various low-level political commentaries) that such a state of affairs exists. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 01:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I haven't taken a look at the article, but there have been recent, fairly reliable articles that have seriously suggested the idea that the US is currently engaged in a cold civil war. This idea is being taken very seriously at certain professional levels, with some experts suggesting we have entered [[The Troubles]] kind of conflict in regards to what appears to be an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the ultra MAGA right wing (and the stochastic terrorism that emerges in their wake) and the establishment political process represented by whatever moderates are left in power at this time. If that power balance is upset in the next election, with the right wing vanquishing whatever is left, these experts suggest we are close to losing whatever democracy the US has left. Former president Obama has even recently commented about this. I understand some people are still not aware of how serious this problem is or appears, so it's understandable if you think the idea of a second American Civil War is still considered fringe in 2023. I would like to suggest that it is not. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 09:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Careful, you might piss off our resident MAGAts with language like that. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:CF0:7280:E5B8:A4BD:3D4D:726C|2603:7000:CF0:7280:E5B8:A4BD:3D4D:726C]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:CF0:7280:E5B8:A4BD:3D4D:726C|talk]]) 14:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:: "we are close to losing whatever democracy the US has left" So there is mothing to worry about. The United States has been in a state of [[democratic backsliding]] for nearly a decade. You can not lose again what was lost years ago. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 15:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Ping|Viriditas}} you forgot to link the articles. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:This article needs some ''serious'' trimming. The "reinterpretations of past events" section is perfectly valid. But the rest of it? I don't know what can be salvaged. The biggest problem, as you've said, is that fringe editors have gotten to it and tried to present it as a current events article. But beyond that, it seems to use a lot of [[WP:SYNTH]] to present it like this, there's no rhyme or reason to what's actually included, a lot of it is just "here's something that some person said once", I'm seeing a lot of [[WP:PROCON]]/[[WP:HOWEVER]], and of course there's the dreaded [[WP:INPOPULARCULTURE]] list. I'm thinking this is probably going to need a "consensus required" [[WP:CTOP]] sanction sooner or later. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 21:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::The "In popular culture" section would be more accurately entitled "Second American Civil War in fiction" and could be broken off into an article by that name, it really isn't a pop culture section at all. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 22:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::: Agreed. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:This needs to be deleted as serious [[WP:CRYSTAL]] since it sure as heck isn't history. We don't win points for prescience, and the exaggeration is obvious. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 01:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)\ |
|||
::Yeah, I kind of missed that. I think that’s the best argument against it here. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* Huge parts of this article should be scythed, or outright deleted. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:: Now up for deletion, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second American Civil War (2nd nomination)]] (the original nom was an April fools joke). [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 02:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Post-truth politics]] seems like it's starting to go down the same path. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 22:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Except it’s not. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
After the original article was deleted, someone redirected this to [[Second American Revolution]] and added the term to the lead, but that article is also nominated for deletion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second American Revolution (2nd nomination)]]. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Single top for interdimensional hypothesis/being == |
|||
Do we really need two separate articles on [[interdimensional hypothesis]] and [[interdimensional being]]? Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect the latter to the former? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 09:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I guess there could be a single article, but right now the two articles deal with different things. ih deals with UFOs while ib deals with fiction. [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 11:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:The IB article is mostly [[WP:OR]] with only two references: a ufology book, and a book about ''[[Buffy the Vampire Slayer]]'' which I have not otherwise attempted to verify. Therefore, I'd suggest deleting that article. I have not attempted to assess notability as a [[Trope (literature)|literary trope]] or as a [[Spiritualist]] belief like that connection to the IH suggested in the [[Jeffrey J. Kripal]] source at the IH article. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 02:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::With no further comment in 15 days, I have opened the AfD at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdimensional being]]. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 15:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Misc antivax == |
|||
*{{al|Dan Burton}} |
|||
*{{al|Sharyl Attkisson}} |
|||
*{{al|Peter Hotez}} |
|||
Some articles are moving towards an antivax-friendlier position today. --20:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Sent relevant user to [[WP:AE]] for a discussion. Sigh. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#RFC_on_use_of_terms_in_first_sentence]] == |
|||
[[Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#RFC_on_use_of_terms_in_first_sentence|This RfC]] may be of interest to the community here. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 17:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:NBC has called him "one of the world's foremost conspiracy theorists" [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-anti-vaccine-push-white-house-rcna89470]. That seems like a reference we ought to be using somewhere, but I'm not sure where. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 23:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:This is still going on for a few more days, it looks like. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 19:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Recovered-memory therapy == |
|||
*{{al|Recovered-memory therapy}} |
|||
Scientists who do not think one can recover lost memories in therapy are pedophiles, right? --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 18:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Why does the username of the person writing that not surprise me? [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 19:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::He has now reverted four times.--[[Special:Contributions/2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:80DB:DADC:C6B5:DCE1|2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:80DB:DADC:C6B5:DCE1]] ([[User talk:2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:80DB:DADC:C6B5:DCE1|talk]]) 07:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::All of the user's contributions both here ([[Special:Contributions/StefanoProScience]]) and on the Spanish Wikipedia ([[:es:Especial:Contribuciones/StefanoProScience]]) consist of POV pushing in this topic area. [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 16:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::He is still reverting without consensus. He has two edit warring notices now (one from JaggedHamster two days ago and one from me just now). Hopefully we can resolve this issue civilly. [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 20:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::There is now a discussion of the proposed changes on the article's talk page. I invite you to participate in the discussion. [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 20:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
==RS noticeboard== |
|||
There is a recently opened discussion that may be of interest to FTN participants [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Just_making_sure]. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 02:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Spoiler alert: It is about [[Journal of Parapsychology]] and [[Rhine Research Center]]. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 05:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I have a feeling these two articles would benefit from academic sources rather than regular news orgs. Most of them are parroting Rhine Research Center's words without secondary analysis. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <sup><i>[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</i></sup> 07:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't have a problem with your assessment. I also think these articles would benefit greatly from academic sources. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 04:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Manifestation (popular psychology) == |
|||
Even ignoring recent attempts to turn this into the TikTok guide to manifestation (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manifestation_(popular_psychology)&diff=prev&oldid=1165087348]) this article lacks substantive counter-woo. Needs fixing, or deletion... [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 23:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I've weighed in on the editor's talk page. There's a bit of a spike in interest in religious studies academia about the emergence of faith-esque things from social media, of which manifesting is decidedly one. While I don't think they're going to succeed in getting a guide to manifesting on Wikipedia for obvious reasons, I do think that offering them an opportunity to work on what they wanted to add to Wikipedia in a stylistically appropriate manner may work in this case; they do appear to be attempting to edit in good faith. [[User:Warrenmck|Warrenmck]] ([[User talk:Warrenmck|talk]]) 00:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Given that the article is a clear content fork of [[Law of attraction (New Thought)]], I've prodded it. Any academic discussion of such beliefs can be covered there. We don't need two articles on the same subject. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 00:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::I was suggesting the editor work on it in a sandbox regardless, they're clearly new. [[User:Warrenmck|Warrenmck]] ([[User talk:Warrenmck|talk]]) 01:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Personally, I'd not say it was clear at all. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 01:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::"[[User talk:Logrus9090|''I had hoped that the Wikipedia community would provide a supportive and collaborative environment, where constructive feedback and guidance would be offered to newcomers like myself. Unfortunately, this has not been my experience thus far.'']]" |
|||
:::::[[User:Warrenmck|Warrenmck]] ([[User talk:Warrenmck|talk]]) 02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Not everyone who claims to be a newcomer here is one. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 02:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Good thing we [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]]. [[User:Warrenmck|Warrenmck]] ([[User talk:Warrenmck|talk]]) 02:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Good thing we don't do that all the time... [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 02:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Most of us active here have been burned enough times in these scenarios that it's just not something that seems like an efficient use of time. By all means, please try to help them out. But seeing things like this play out before, I have a feeling I know how it will go, unfortunately. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 02:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Four new low-edit count SPA's showing up since June is a little suspicious. [[User:LuckyLouie|- LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 13:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think this is really a fork of [[Law of attraction (New Thought)]]. Having a quick skim of these two Guardian articles: [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/feb/03/my-life-completely-turned-around-is-manifesting-the-key-to-happiness-or-wishful-thinking this one] and [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/mar/20/making-dreams-come-true-inside-the-new-age-world-of-manifesting this one], it seems like with the internet (particularly TikTok) the idea of "manifesting" has taken on its own life as its own modern meme, somewhat seperate from the original New Thought/law of attraction stuff. Arguably all this material about the modern meme could be a section in the law of attraction article, but that doesn't make it a fork. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 13:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:If American cop car sirens go waaaaah waaaaaah waaaaah and European ones go wee-woo wee-woo wee-woo what sound does the skeptical cop's siren make? Counter-woo counter-woo counter-woo. That being said I would go for fixing over TNT, agree with Endwise that the term has evolved beyond the law of attraction (clearly The Secret isn't to manifest yourself a monopoly on the concept) but could be covered there. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 13:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Olavo de Carvalho == |
|||
*{{al|Olavo de Carvalho}} |
|||
Believed in a lot of crazy stuff, died from something he did not believe in. Discussion on Talk page about whether his ideas are allowed be sourced to SPS. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 18:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Somehow he is not listed in [[Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19]]. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 19:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:A number of sources have been added in Portuguese. Editors familiar with which Brazilian sources are reliable or fringe would be helpful. [[User:Llll5032|Llll5032]] ([[User talk:Llll5032|talk]]) 19:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Monoamine oxidase A == |
|||
*{{al|Monoamine oxidase A}} |
|||
Over the past several years this article has become a repository of questionable claims about this gene's influence on violent behavior, and on its prevalence in different ethnic groups. Ten years ago a user was blocked for edit warring over some poorly-sourced figures, but at some point those same figures crept back into the article. Editors with some understanding of psychology and statistics should have a look at the article and its talk page. Many of the issues raised with the "genetics of educational attainment" article above probably also apply here. [[User:WeirdNAnnoyed|WeirdNAnnoyed]] ([[User talk:WeirdNAnnoyed|talk]]) 14:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Is it just me, or is a lot of that stuff not [[WP:MEDRS]]-compliant? It's one thing to use a non-MEDRS source to say that the "warrior gene" was discussed by a criminal trial, but for some of the claims in the article I'd expect a MEDRS source. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 15:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC) |
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Lots in play here: fad dieting, MMR/autism, hyrdoxychlooquine, and the assertion that COVID-as-bioweapon is now an "accepted theory". More eyes might help. Bon courage (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
If you WP:CENSOR a professor of medicine who is advocating a new approach to diet that he has found works, and whose theories incidentally echo good, current science from colleagues like Prof Richard Johnson and many others, you are damaging WPs utility IMO. If you think Johnson is fringe, then I will concede Noakes is too. If not, put your critics' words in the article, but don't censor. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I found a 140 page preprint by Brett Chrest which documents a lot of the anti-vax commentary coming from Noakes. Not usable as a direct source, but there seem to be some sources cited in that document which may be useful. jps (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Bon courage (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Noakes, an emeritus professor in the Division of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine at the University of Cape Town (UCT), uses his Twitter profile to regularly share posts opposed to Covid-19 vaccination (and associated conspiracies) and to promote climate change denialism and American right-wing views.
Fascinatingly, I think his co-author, Marika Sboros, has broken with him. Her Twitter feed seems like it is a direct response to Noakes's. She has even positively retweeted Alastair McAlpine which was the doctor she and Noakes were most angrily rebutting two years ago. Anyone have any more information on this? Sourcing is incredibly weak. jps (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ratel: What exactly are you trying to achieve here? There is enough evidence in this thread to make a pretty strong case for you to be topic-banned from Noakes because apparently you are so strongly in favor of promoting his ideas that you seem unable to bear any criticism of his dietary pronouncements. If that's not your end goal, what is? Wikipedia is not going to accommodate your right great wrongs approach. And it seems pretty clear to me that if you tried to change this, consensus would be against you. So what gives? jps (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi folks. See Draft:Brainspotting. I'm inclined to accept it - it seems to be neutrally written and on the face of it the sourcing looks adequate, but not really my wheelhouse so thought I'd flag it here in case there are any concerns about the sourcing. Girth Summit (blether) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Somatic psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
From the article: "It is based on a belief, from the principles of vitalism, that bringing sufficient awareness will cause healing."
New section because it's not directly related to parapsychology but I found it listed as a specialty of one of the parapsychologists along with a whole bunch of other altmed. Doesn't seem to have any clinical trials backing to it, or to have escaped the orbit of psychoanalysis, so it's not clear how much is poor epistemic hygiene vs outright quackery. - car chasm (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
https://politicalsciencenow.com/how-conflicts-and-population-loss-led-to-the-rise-of-english-wikipedias-credibility/ For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
contentious topics (e.g., American politics, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience). Overlapping of course, but his story of changing reliable sources is basically choosing New York Times over New York Post. Comparing AP2 and pseudoscience, i would say the latter is by far the greater success story. But i wasn't around for the big fringe fights of old. fiveby(zero) 18:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
This guy promotes a type of carnivore diet but only gained media attention after he admitted to steroid use. I am thinking it might be worth to take this to afd. Any thoughts about this one? Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
See discussion as to whether Healthline should be deprecated or blacklisted. I've added comments noting their dubious commercial ties, SEO optimized articles of questionable value, and endorsement of pseudoscientific concepts like Qi.
In 2019, Healthline was purchased by Red Ventures. In a 2021 NY Times article, a former Red Ventures employee said it is “all about profit maximization” and was going to earn commissions on referrals from Healthline. ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Does archeological work conducted in the 1990s prove that Catholic mystic's Maria Valtorta descriptions of her personal conversations and time travel with Jesus are historically factual? And does this mean that we can discard otherwise reliable sources who do not treat these claims as true events? We have a user, @Yesterday, all my dreams...:, advancing just such a theory at User:Yesterday, all my dreams.../Review1 and on Talk:Maria Valtorta. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
"Horse Eye": I am not claiming that as my theory. It is written by Fernando La Greca (prof of ancient history) etc. and Mattriciani et al in their books. The books can be ordered on Amazon. But at some future point I would go to WP:RSN and argue that Bouflet is not a reliable source. I have just read 2 xhpters of his book, 4 or 5 more to read before I go to WP:RSN. So wait and see what they say there. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Aaaaaaah, I am just about to leave... But for the sake of your blood pressure I will delete the link to my review. Your cardialogist can thank me later. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Those of you have been around here a while know that Wikipedia has long had a problem with a lack of folklorists and, as a result, we've had a lot of very poor coverage of folklore topics with the exception an amount of our coverage of myths (a genre of folklore). Sadly, coverage of folklore—everything from traditional jokes to recipes and local legends—continues to suffer on the site and attract references to whatever people find on the internet rather than, say, peer-reviewed material from scholars.
One problem this results in is a repeated attempt to inject fringe approaches from various subculture into articles, primarily the pseudoscientific subculture of cryptozoology. It wasn't long ago that one could find references to the subculture in every nook and cranny of any folklore critter on the site, usually bundled with the subculture-coined word cryptid (a pseudoscientific term coined by cryptozoologists in the early 80s to avoid the words like 'creature' and 'monster' and instead to mean 'this monster may be hiding somewhere and may be waiting to be found by we cryptozoologists').
One big magnet for this kind of pseudoscientific approach has long been Bigfoot. While the article there remains quite a mess and badly needs a source review, I've attempted to keep the introduction in line with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROFRINGE when I can check in. Unfortunately, emic (basically 'in-subcultural-universe') terms keep creeping in from users in the introduction. This includes referring to the monster with cryptozoology's pro-fringe cryptid terminology and while emphasizing the importance of the subculture.
More eyes would be very welcome.
The best outcome here would really be a complete rewrite using only WP:RS from specialists, because the current article is by and large highly misleading about the development, popularization, and cultural status of the creature. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
"Cryptids are animals that cryptozoologists believe may exist somewhere in the wild, but whose present existence is disputed or unsubstantiated by science."Until cryptid is redefined as a catch-all for a creepy folktale creature or just another category of mythical/fictional beings like angel or alien, the present definition ("a mythical creature") in the Bigfoot article is more accurate and less confusing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Not an argument for this discussion, but if anyone missed Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot, it's quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion here Talk:Alina Chan#Those who hypothesize conspiracies to explain natural phenomena are called conspiracy theorists. that maybe of interest to this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I've been getting pushback at Francevillian Biota from my rewriting of the article. To summarise, a team of authors, headed by Abderrazak El Albani, have published various papers since 2010 claiming that centimetre-scale radial structures found in the Francevillian B Formation in Gabon, dating to around 2 billion years ago, represent the oldest known eukaryotes and multicellular organisms. However, when you look beyond this particular set of authors and papers, coverage of the structures is much more critical and there doesn't appear to be a consensus that these represent fossils. e.g. [17] [18]. Given the extraordinary nature of the claims made in the papers by El Albani et al, I don't think they can be taken at face value, as people at the talkpage seem to want to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
New section "The recovered memory / false memory debate" should be checked. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Defringifying going on, maybe someone is interested. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
A new article has been created for a conspiracy theorist film The Quiet Epidemic, which was created by the anti-science chronic Lyme disease movement. I have raised concerns that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements and that there are no reliable sources to use for the article. The article's creator @WikiTryHardDieHard has also made edits to the chronic Lyme disease article to include a credulous film review. See talk page discussion). ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
New article about RFK Junior book. Belongs on watchlists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
What is the right application of WP:ONEWAY here? See latest discussion on Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The article Green man (spirit of nature) has recently been forked off of the main Green Man article. I have nominated the article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green man (spirit of nature). Participate if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
[23] Doug Weller talk 07:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
...modern European powers conspired to cover up Tartaria, which was destroyed in a mud flood, and replace the idyllic civilisation with a globalised, degenerated society that they could control.That is a conspiracy theory, it has the grand plot and the powerful shadowy group. The adherents are fighting the global world order and they can deny the historical record because of the coverup. Grant you that i missed that in the article and focused on
Given the cryptic nature of these theories, the pseudohistorical narrative straddles or embraces conspiracy, and the two can become indistinguishable in online spaces.It just seems that sometimes calling memes and manifestations of dangerous ideologies "conspiracy theories" sometimes trivializes issues. You say "conspiracy theory" i'm going to look for the plot and the shadowy group to try and understand the ideology of the adherents. I don't see that approach being very helpful here. fiveby(zero) 17:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
By looking at the articles in Category:Alternative and traditional medicine journals, one can observe that most of them are presented as being perfectly legitimate scientific journals, which is likely an issue with regard to WP:FRINGE. Suggestions on what to do about this would be welcome. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I make no claim to being a physicist, but even my elementary understanding of the topic suggests to me that this [24] addition to the Dark Energy article may be 'fringe' at minimum. Am I right in this assumption? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Am I imagining stuff, or Foristslow is using sub-standard references? tgeorgescu (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
E.g. publisher=School of Five Element Acupuncture. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, and sorry my attention is somewhat divided today and I can't do more on this page, but a user has made some large revisions which, whether intended or not, seem to take out any sort of skeptical language as well as some high-quality scholarly sources. If anyone has time to stop by and have a look, I would appreciate it. As usual, feel free to tell me I am simply wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
While working on a humdinger of a cleanup effort, I came across the article N'kisi, which appears to be heavily influenced by Rupert Sheldrake woo and a news story that was later retracted. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Discussion about the correct exegesis of WP:CLAIM on the Talk page. I had my say, maybe others want to chime in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
An IP editor keeps adding a book that the best that I can tell is a fringe book about Tiwanaku and Atlantis to the bibliography section of the Tiwanaku article. The book is『Cerqueiro, Daniel: Tiwanacu una nueva revelación. Ed. Pequeña Venecia. Buenos Aires (1997). ISBN 987-9239-02-4.』The first time it happened at June 10, 2023, 12:37 and the second time June 13, 2023, 13:52. At best, the book does not add anything to the dicussion about Tiwanaku. At worst, book is fringe material about Tiwanaku and Atlantis. Could someone look into this book and act accordingly. Paul H. (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion that may be of interest to this noticeboard regarding Category:Psychonautics researchers at Categories for discussion here.
As part of the ongoing cleanup operation mentioned a few sections above, I came across the article Diaphragmatic breathing. Some of the sources look iffy: there's a lot of "complementary and alternative" being thrown about. Suggestions welcome. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Proactively taking this here due to a potential dispute, but Institute of Noetic Sciences seems to be a rather clear-cut case of WP:FRINGE, no? I'm in the process of splitting out various parapsychology articles from well-regarded academic studies of consciousness in neuroscience, cogsci, and philosophy of mind and I've gotten a bit of friction here.
For what it's worth, the parapsychology people rarely use consciousness in the way that academic researchers use it anyway (interiority, basically), and mostly are either talking about reincarnation or perception, but it seems like parapsychology pages shouldn't be categorized or listed in with legitimate researchers either way per WP:ONEWAY. - car chasm (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Alpert and Leary were doing what they termed "consciousness research" those decades past, but I think now that is more properly aligned with altered states of consciousness and psychadelics. Today, this kind of research is more closely matching pharmacology instead of what is actually studied by those who are interested in consciousness. Even the most woolly philosophers (and, boy, are there some woolly ones!) do not consider Leary's or Alpert's ideas as being worth serious consideration. jps (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Eight-circuit model of consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is an article that needs a clean-up, for sure. It also lacks contextualization and makes some pretty outlandish (in the sense of WP:ECREE claims! jps (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
The reputation of the author really has nothing to do with whether a particular idea is WP:FRINGE or not. Our concern over the treatment of this idea has nothing to do with Leary's drug use. The evaluation is entirely based on the lack of WP:MAINSTREAM acceptance. Leary wore that as a badge of honor, so it's a little weird that this argument is happening here. Anyway, we label people based on how the reliable sources call them. As we have pointed out, Leary et al. are not referenced in reliable sources as consciousness researchers and theorists. They aren't mentioned at all. jps (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Beyond the fringe. I searched APA PsycINFO, ProQuest Psychology database (limited search to journals), and EBSCOHost Psychology & Behavioral Sciences collection, full-text search terms were Leary and "eight circuit". Zero articles in the peer-reviewed psychology literature. (There are some unrelated retrievals, e.g. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, and some irrelevant ones, e.g. a book review in the Fortean Times.) Eight circuit is so far beyond the fringe that nobody even bothers to mention it in passing. However the obvious conclusion is insufficient for Wikipedia purposes, it would be useful to find a reliable source which says so. -- M.boli (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
category:American consciousness researchers and theorists
Whew boy!
I just went through this category and removed a bunch of people. Found some rump areas of Integral theory, transpersonal psychology, process philosophy, and process oriented psychology that likely need weeding or demolishing, but I'm pretty spent for the time being. You might see a bunch of new AfDs as well.
jps (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Mind machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
From a roundabout trip through the links, straight to AfD? fiveby(zero) 20:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Celia Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Found in my travels through Category:Parapsychologists, appears to have been a vanity page. Unfortunately, the personal website linked at the bottom told a very different story, which made me look closer at the sources and claims on the page and revealed a number of citations to unpublished theses that may or may not actually exist, along with essentially no secondary citations. The institute she's a director of appears to be an independent research group rather than anything formally affiliated with Oxford. To AfD? - car chasm (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh dear. The thing's entirely a puff piece on the pseudohistorical concept, and uncritically parrots fringe sources like the largely untrustworthy homophobic "documentary" Buck Breaking without a second thought. It's largely written by one person and seems to have slipped under the radar. Good Morning Captain (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
BLP created during the recent news cycle and based on tabloid coverage. Alleged whistleblower claims US hiding alien spacecraft and dead pilots. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Hanlon's razor. Don't attribute to intelligent malice which can reasonably be attributed to bumbling journalistic incompetence. I don't see the Jack Smith investigation being buried by UFOs in any mainstream sources. As for right-wing echo chambers, well, they weren't ever going to pay attention beyond screaming witch hunt anyway. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. jps (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what's going on, but there is a recent push to remove sourced and attributed criticism from the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I filed a RPPI. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I was only sorta following this story of Grusch - Thriley posted on Wikiproject skepticism. I just noticed last night that Mick West has been doing a lot to explain what is going on with this Grusch. OMG They are all linked together, I have written multiple Wikipedia pages over the years and more and more the rolodex of names is about a dozen. Sgerbic (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
New discussion in talk about a now-reverted edit I made to the page of Joe Rogan. I also think that The Joe Rogan Experience page could benefit from better reflecting article content in the lead. ScienceFlyer (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
According to the newest Talk page contribution, there is significant resistance among some wikipedians to bringing this article in line with contemporary scientific and therapeutic consensus re: trauma induced dissociative amnesia
. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
significant resistancemust refer to previous arguments the user made on another talk page here and here (which I know you've seen) in favour of accurate recovery of repressed memories. I remember finding issues with the sources she brought up back then and typing up a pretty long draft reply, but getting bored and binning it. DFlhb (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at BLPN that might be of interest. It pertains to Michael Shermer's comments regarding the David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims. The discussion is taking place here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Discussion about deleting GMO. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure if this belongs here or not, as I can't really make head or tails of the article as it currently stands, but it's written from a extremely in group view. It was recently rewritten by someone with a close connection to the group, who understands little of how Wikipedia is meant to work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems seems to be an attempt to smoosh together everything that uses the word "system" as one related field of study. Whether this is the original work of wikipedians, or an attempt by... management theorists (?) to form some grand unified theory of everything, it doesn't seem like something that has broad academic support among every discipline, and so the extent to which its ideas have been spread all over the project is concerning, I'm constantly finding WP:COATRACKs linking back to Ludwig von BertalanffyorNiklas LuhmannorHumberto Maturana far in excess of what one might expect of these moderately notable people. I'm also pretty sure the "systems theory" is often also a word used by various WP:FRINGE groups such as Integral theory, and the related term cybernetics is a favorite of Ray Kurzweil - but I'm not sure how much is these particular groups or other unrelated ones. Many of them also cite the pages on Principia Cybernetica, which I brought to this noticeboard before.
Most of the pages that have to do with this topic are full of WP:OR and uncited attempts to relate it to various fields of study, which I've been removing wherever I find it. But I wonder if more needs to be done - perhaps the wikiproject itself could be deleted? - car chasm (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The theory in question is that the Spanish Empire reached a peak area of ca 24 M km2 1580 and 1640/68, during the Iberian Union as purported in the thesis at p 109 and presented in the map at 138. During the Iberian Union, Portugal was effectively a vassal of Spain subsumed into the Empire. This is not a point of contention. 24 M is based on the Treaty of Tordesillas and the assertion that Spain and Portugal owned all of South America, which is quite different from what they controlled at the time.
This journal article by Taagepera is widely cited and gives 13.7 M km2 (5.3 Mil sq mi) as the peak area around 1780 and 7.1 M km2 for the Iberian Union (1640). Encyclopædia Britannica here, states: At its height, in the late 1700s, the Spanish empire comprised 5.3 million square miles ...
Etemad's Possessing the World: Taking the Measurements of Colonisation from the 18th to the 20th Century, p. 135 gives a figure of 12.3 million km2 for Spain's colonial possessions (i.e. excluding Spain itself) in the year 1760. The Oxford World History of Empire, p. 93 gives a figure of 7.1 in 1640 (from Taagepera) and 12.3 in 1760 (from Etemad). This 1948 source says that the Spanish Empire broke all records about 1763, with an area of approximately 5,400,000 square miles
. This map (File:Philip II's realms in 1598.png) shows the areas that were settled and controlled during the Iberian Union and would be consistent with a figure of 7.1 M. During the subject discussion, additional sources citing 2.4 M have not been provided.
The question is whether the 2.4 M figure should be considered a fringe theory. A secondary consideration is whether the 2.4 M figure should be cited in the infobox (ie that it has a consensus in sources). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment WP:FRINGE states: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.
From fringe theory (linked therein): A fringe theory is an idea or a viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship of the time within its field.
The peak figure of 13.7 M km2 appears to have widespread acceptance, as evidenced by some of the sources specifically cited herein. The figure of 24 M km2 has only been attributed to a single source - a doctoral thesis. In the subject discussion (Talk:Spanish Empire#Area) I ask for further sources that would evidence this higher figure has a degree of acceptance within the field but so far, only the thesis has been provided - both there and here. Given the P&G, I bought this question here because the circumstances do appear to fit the definition and scope of this noticeboard. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I think people need to read wp:or and wp:otherstuff. We go by what the bulk of RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Folks, this is a noticeboard. It is for notices. When an article is linked on this noticeboard, it means that people frequenting this noticeboard should go to the Talk page of the article and discuss there. Not that the entire discussion from that talk page should move here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be in a bad state. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Discussion on the COVID-19 misinformation talk page on an edit that removed discussion about bioweapons conspiracy theories due to a Sunday Times piece. There's similar discussion on the COVID-19 lab leak theory talk page, and proposals to not make it in "wikivoice". ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
This article on a aerospace engineer could use some more eyes - especially whether the article should speculate that Pais invented technology used in UFOs and whether we should link to youtube videos claiming that. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Multiplicity (psychology) has experienced some editing disputes recently––as a topic with aspects overlapping between medicine and subcultures, attention from editors experienced with fringe and MEDRS would be greatly appreciated. signed, Rosguill talk 01:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
According to Banu, the Bengali Kayasthas migrated to Bengal in the ancient era; however, except for this source, the migration of the Kayasthas was not mentioned by any other reliable sources. According to Kayastha kulajis, they migrated to Bengal under King Adisura in medieval times; however, some historians still consider this migration fake. My question is: can we give information on Wiki by using only one source? I think WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not allow that. This theory by Banu makes the kayasthas immigrants, which is a very bold and exceptional claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
a very bold and exceptional claim? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of the upper-class Hindus of Bengal—Brahmans and Kayasthas—seem to be descendants of these Alpine Aryans, whose numbers at the time of immigration were not very largeciting Gosh and Chattopadhyaya, then
The Guptas also brought into Bengal a large number of Kayasthas to help run the administrationciting Ray. Is she actually making weaker claims than what you are ascribing to her? "seem to be descendants"? Is there a way to reword or add to the article text to address your point? fiveby(zero) 14:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Article was just created based on the wacky fringe claims that he's been making on the QAnon grifter circuit. Not sure if the article should be kept, deleted, or fixed. I leave it here for the self-anointed experts to decide. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination).
Of relevance to board watchers, I believe. Please offer your thoughts.
jps (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I missed this article when it came out two years ago! It is truly excellent analysis that applies today. Would love to see it highlighted in some relevant articles: ufology, UFO, Pentagon UFO videos, Luis Elizondo, etc. jps (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
About 6 months ago there was heavy traffic to the red meat article as carnivore diet advocates were adding a new NutriRECS review, and another flawed meta-analysis that red meat does not increase cancer risk. Two of those users were blocked.
The same studies are being added again by a new user. The NutriRECS review uses a different methodology and has been heavily criticized by health authorities as flawed, see [36] which includes Signatories by many cancer organizations rejecting the NutriRECS review. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
The Piri Reis map is notable for incorporating a lost map from Columbus, the earliest European map of the Americas to survive in some form (Happy 4th of July to anyone reading in the US). It's also notable for a long-disproven hypothesis that it's an out-of-place artifact depicting an ice-free Antarctica.
Over the past few months, I've rewritten much of the article. I realize it may be odd for an editor to post their own work here, but it seems appropriate to put this up for scrutiny as this board previously looked at the article. I imagine I've either reorganized, reformatted, or rewritten much of that. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Some writers have noted visual similarities between places on the map and parts of the Americas not yet known to have been discovered.----Licks-rocks (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Some authors have noted visual similarities to parts of the Americas not officially discovered by 1513, but there is no textual or historical evidence that the map represents land south of present-day Cananéia.I didn't use "claim", because it's not strange for someone to say, "That part looks like the Valdés Peninsula," as that's a kind of subjective evaluation. There's just no evidence that it represents the Valdés Peninsula, especially on a map where things like Puerto Rico, really look nothing like our modern understanding. Rjjiii (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Alerted by my brother, a dentist, I created this stuff in pt-wiki some time ago. Now this old fringe documentary with wild claims was recently created in en-wiki. More eyes needed. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Attunement [37] needs a lot of work. It presents the nonsense ideas without criticism. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specified complexity may be of interest to this noticeboard. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I feel like it would be better for someone else to join the conversation at Talk:Adragon De Mello about whether this person's "projected IQ" (as personally projected and heavily promoted by his own father, and uncritically repeated by the Reader's Digest and a few similar sources that explicitly attribute the claim to the Reader's Digest listicle) is 400. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Acquired a slightly WP:WEASELy WP:CSECTION recently, which should be worked into the rest of the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I am concerned about the state of Second American Civil War, which started out much more along the lines of World War III (broadly discussing a hypothetical future event), but has now become excessively focused on propositions that we are currently in the middle of (or at the outset of) such an event. There is, of course, a real-world fringe position (reflected in various low-level political commentaries) that such a state of affairs exists. BD2412 T 01:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
After the original article was deleted, someone redirected this to Second American Revolution and added the term to the lead, but that article is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second American Revolution (2nd nomination). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Do we really need two separate articles on interdimensional hypothesis and interdimensional being? Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect the latter to the former? Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Some articles are moving towards an antivax-friendlier position today. --20:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
This RfC may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Scientists who do not think one can recover lost memories in therapy are pedophiles, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a recently opened discussion that may be of interest to FTN participants [39]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Even ignoring recent attempts to turn this into the TikTok guide to manifestation (see [40]) this article lacks substantive counter-woo. Needs fixing, or deletion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Believed in a lot of crazy stuff, died from something he did not believe in. Discussion on Talk page about whether his ideas are allowed be sourced to SPS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Over the past several years this article has become a repository of questionable claims about this gene's influence on violent behavior, and on its prevalence in different ethnic groups. Ten years ago a user was blocked for edit warring over some poorly-sourced figures, but at some point those same figures crept back into the article. Editors with some understanding of psychology and statistics should have a look at the article and its talk page. Many of the issues raised with the "genetics of educational attainment" article above probably also apply here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)