Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Articles for deletion
- 13 Aug 2024 – Time dilation creationism (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by ජපස (t · c); see discussion (12 participants; relisted)
- 12 Aug 2024 – Ron Wyatt (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by JzG (t · c); see discussion (11 participants; relisted)
- 13 Aug 2024 – Russell Humphreys (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by ජපස (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 20 Aug 2024; see discussion (6 participants)
Redirects for discussion
- 16 Aug 2024 – Nakso (talk · edit · hist) →Casein was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
- 16 Aug 2024 – Naksu (talk · edit · hist) →Casein was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
- 16 Aug 2024 – Casorphin (talk · edit · hist) →Casein was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
- 11 Aug 2024 – Anti universe (talk · edit · hist) →Antimatter was RfDed by Web-julio (t · c); see discussion
Featured article candidates
- 27 Jul 2024 – Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Femke (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 10 Mar 2024 – Roswell incident (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Feoffer (t · c); start discussion
Requests for comments
- 26 Jul 2024 – Hallwang Clinic (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Glane23 (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 14 Aug 2024 – Occultism in Nazism (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Esoteric Neo-Nazism by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
- 30 Jul 2024 – Look-alike (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Doppelgänger by Belbury (t · c); see discussion
- 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion
- 03 Jun 2024 – There was no such thing as Palestinians (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Golda Meir by TarnishedPath (t · c); see discussion
- 23 May 2024 – Thirteenth floor (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Triskaidekaphobia by Awesome Aasim (t · c); see discussion
- 03 Mar 2024 – Superstition in Islamic tradition (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Islam and magic by VenusFeuerFalle (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be split
- 08 Jul 2024 – List of common misconceptions (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by WhatamIdoing (t · c); see discussion
- 30 Dec 2023 – Scholarly approaches to mysticism (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise (t · c); see discussion
- 23 Sep 2023 – Witchcraft (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise (t · c); see discussion
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Family Constellations
[edit]- Family Constellations (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Cancel the "pseudoscience" description, it's all proven now! [1] --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please note that the article on the inventor is now soft deleted. Meanwhile, consensus seems to be pushing in the direction of having an article on Family Constellations. I honestly am not finding a lot of material on the Family Constellations therapy beyond what the inventors of it say and a lot of "laundry lists" that do little more than just identify it as one of any number of kinds of therapy. Critical evaluation is nearly entirely absent? Participants in the AfD seem to acknowledge that this is a problem, but no good solutions are apparent that I can see. jps (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- If I could be arsed I might argue for merging it into transgenerational trauma. Bon courage (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please note that the article on the inventor is now soft deleted. Meanwhile, consensus seems to be pushing in the direction of having an article on Family Constellations. I honestly am not finding a lot of material on the Family Constellations therapy beyond what the inventors of it say and a lot of "laundry lists" that do little more than just identify it as one of any number of kinds of therapy. Critical evaluation is nearly entirely absent? Participants in the AfD seem to acknowledge that this is a problem, but no good solutions are apparent that I can see. jps (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Prevalence in other languages looks like it is going to lead us to Keep this article. Fine. I am not sure how to proceed with sourcing, however. Y'all are on your own! (I might recommend putting up a maintenance tag, but I'm not sure which one is appropriate). jps (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Renee Dufault
[edit]Someone knowledgeable with medical research, mercury and autism care to review Renee Dufault? Aside from some questionable promotional edits, there's some fringe stuff being pushed here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Baishideng Publishing Group, publisher of the immediately suspicious World Journal of Psychiatry (cited twice in the article), is on Beall's list. Square One Publishers, who published Dufault's book Unsafe at Any Meal, also published a book called Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. There are so many red-flag sources in this article I don't even know where to begin. I'm busy with other things at the moment but someone really should take a hatchet to any section of this article sourced to these or other suspicious sources. I'll do what I can, when I can. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the article history, there seems to have been quite a bit of input from accounts now blocked for sockpuppetry or promotional editing. Brunton (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I slapped a bunch of unreliable source tags on it. Anti-vaccine blogs should not be used to support claims of a diet that prevents autism. Reconrabbit 19:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Related to this, Nutritional epigenetics. Lots of bold claims and marketing-esque language. The longer I look at this the worse it gets. Reconrabbit 20:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Presenting the POV of Orthodox Jews as unvarnished truth
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is about [2]. Please chime in. I don't think they edit in bad faith, but they have absolutely no idea what Wikipedia is about.
Are they kidding me that my edits aren't the view of Judaism? Just count how many rabbis I have WP:CITED at [3].
But: they are not the rabbis from this editor's sect. To be sure, my edits are not the POV of their sect of Judaism. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I gotta say, your edit is full of typos and awkward phrasings, and also many of the sources seem kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand. What the Bible says and what Judaism says are two different things. Judaism is a living religion that did not stop evolving several thousand years ago when the Tanakh was written.
- If you want a broader view than just Orthodox Judaism, you need to cite modern Reform and Conservative Jews, not a millenia old book that is famously open to interpretation. Loki (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @LokiTheLiar: That nothing has changed for more than 800 years isn't my claim; it is the claim of my opponent. And, yup, I think I have WP:CITED several Reform of Conservative rabbis. If you read the quotes, they speak about the Bible, but they also speak about Rabbinic Judaism, i.e. post-Bible Jewish religious authorities. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I went in and fixed it so you can see what I mean: [4] Loki (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @LokiTheLiar: Much better, but Orthodox Judaism believes that the Bible Outlaws premarital sex (Deuteronomy 23:18)(Maimonides, Hilkhot Ishut, 1:4 sorry, I only found a hebrew edition Maimonides...) It's true that it is not as explicit as most other forbidden relationships.
- The part about lesbians was almost accurate; it is only an outcome of the commandment "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do" (Leviticus 18:3)(Maimonides, Hilkhot Issurei Biah, 21:8). ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've always found that one a very impressive leap in reasoning. What about human pyramids? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- >:)
- Good point...
- I'm sure you realize Judaism has a little deeper meaning than that.
- I will do a little bit of research, and would be happy to notify you of my findings. ZucherBundlech (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ZucherBundlech Don't take my word on this, but I think I heard that the interpretation that this was about lesbianism was based on some supposed Egyptian religious cult/practice where women had sex with women. I find it interesting that it's so vague compared to "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The reason is simple. The emission of semen for no reason, or as it is called: "wasting seed", is one of the worst transgressions or the worst transgression in Judaism, up to the point where the Zohar says there is no repentance for it. (actually, even the Zohar agrees there is a way to repent, and that statement is only to show the severity of the sin; learners of kabbalah cite this as an example of why inexperienced people should not learn Kabbalah on their own.)
- Therefore, death is only prescribed in places where there could technically be an emission, (even if there actually was no emission).
- There is debate what the punishment for Lesbianism is; some say whiplashes, some say there is no punishment, but that the Court should punish them with whiplashes out of their own volition (called Makkoth Mardut). ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- If "the emission of semen for no reason" were a capital offence/mortal sin worthy of death, quite literally every single male on the planet would be put to death (ie masturbation). And any male that says "nay" is not telling the truth. So that explanation is ludicrous in its face, and I very highly doubt that any modern, mainstrean rabbis make such claims. (I don't doubt some 1000 years ago did; this is why you're being told 1000 year old sources are useless for what MODERN Jews believe).
- (Btw, as for Onan, his offence was not merely "wasted seed": when HE pulled out and "spilt his seed", the act of doing so caused him to become guilty of rape (and of a virgin to boot), because he only has consent to do her for no other purpose other than sperm donation). 73.2.106.248 (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The emission of seed is a sion worthy of death, but it is not punished by the court. It's in the hands of God... And yes, that's right, almost every single male on earth is guilty of it, if he doesn't repent. And as for Onan, what you wrote is not true, that's certainly not what Orthodox Judaism has to say about that.
- And you're right a lot of "modern" "mainstream" Rabbis claim it is not forbidden; that's precisely the reason why most sources given on Wikipedia are not accurate when talking about Orthodox Judaism; For the record: ORTHODOX JEWS BELIEVE THAT NOT ONE SINGLE LAW HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST 3500 YEARS; like it or not, I don't care. ZucherBundlech (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's silly, even going only based on halakhic sources, most rabbinic literature is nothing but disagreements on how to interpret laws (plus the massive update to the religion writ large once the temple sacrifices became impossible due to exile) and firmly established that halakha is to be interpreted and adapted by humans. After all, Rabi Yehoshua amar: "lo bashamayim hi" (w/ commentary from Orthodox Union rabbis [5]).
- You can stipulate the point of view that all of this is simply interpretation of the same underlying divine law, but the rabbinic discourse leaves quite clear that this interpretation was not self-evident or straightforward even for scholars, let alone Wikipedia editors. signed, Rosguill talk 15:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- All of these disputes are only between Rabbis in the same era, e.g. Tannaim, Amoraim, Rishonim, Acharonim etc. No Orthodox Rabbi in th present times would dare deviate even slightly from the words of a Rishon, except if there is a disagreeing Rishon, of course. And even then there are rules: Sephardim follow the Shulchan Aruch who generally follows Maimonides and other Sephardic Rishonim, Ashkenazim follow the Rema who generally follows Rashi and Tosafot. And so on... ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can't use your personal opinion or knowledge to decide what an Orthodox Rabbi in present times would or would not dare to do. We have to rely on scholarship for that, and that means we cite modern, reliable sources. See WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- True. However, if I would source that claim to a modern, reliable source, that would prove that other new sources are inaccurate, and at best simply not about Orthodox Judaism, but rather about the Modern Orthodox. (not the same thing) ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Even If you sourced that claim, you could not then use that claim to build an argument for something else (again, see WP:NOR). I could cite a source that says Jews follow the 10 commandments. I could cite a source that explains the 10th commandment. I could not then write 'No Jew has ever coveted a neighbor's house.' MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Personally I think that No. 5 ergo "no Jew has ever disrespected their parents" is the best example for making this point signed, Rosguill talk 17:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- But you could say "Jews believe a person shall not covet their neighbours hous". ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Even If you sourced that claim, you could not then use that claim to build an argument for something else (again, see WP:NOR). I could cite a source that says Jews follow the 10 commandments. I could cite a source that explains the 10th commandment. I could not then write 'No Jew has ever coveted a neighbor's house.' MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- True. However, if I would source that claim to a modern, reliable source, that would prove that other new sources are inaccurate, and at best simply not about Orthodox Judaism, but rather about the Modern Orthodox. (not the same thing) ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can't use your personal opinion or knowledge to decide what an Orthodox Rabbi in present times would or would not dare to do. We have to rely on scholarship for that, and that means we cite modern, reliable sources. See WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- All of these disputes are only between Rabbis in the same era, e.g. Tannaim, Amoraim, Rishonim, Acharonim etc. No Orthodox Rabbi in th present times would dare deviate even slightly from the words of a Rishon, except if there is a disagreeing Rishon, of course. And even then there are rules: Sephardim follow the Shulchan Aruch who generally follows Maimonides and other Sephardic Rishonim, Ashkenazim follow the Rema who generally follows Rashi and Tosafot. And so on... ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, there actually is debate if the what the Talmud calls נשים המסוללות זו בזו (Women ..... with each other) refers to Lesbianism. ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ZucherBundlech Don't take my word on this, but I think I heard that the interpretation that this was about lesbianism was based on some supposed Egyptian religious cult/practice where women had sex with women. I find it interesting that it's so vague compared to "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've always found that one a very impressive leap in reasoning. What about human pyramids? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is true, but what they say about Rabbinic Judaism isn't true. ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can't rely on your own opinion of what's true or your interpretation of documents that are 900+ years old. You're going to have to work with modern scholarship, the kind found in secondary WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MrOllie: I can source what I'm saying.
- Please read Halakha. ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- There should be enough * University Press WP:RS which tell matter-of-factly what Orthodox Jews believe. There is no need to WP:CITE centuries old texts. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but nothing is as accurate as the first-hand material itself. I'm beginning to feel that you are somehow opposed to Orthodox Judaism's views, especially after what you wrote me on your user talk page ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't based upon
first-hand material
, but upon WP:SECONDARY sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)- @Tgeorgescu: "first hand material" refers to the editors own research. Sorry... ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- If this is the "editors doing their own research is the best source" argument, then you're going to want to edit somewhere else. That's not how Wikipedia works. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu: "first hand material" refers to the editors own research. Sorry... ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is not what we say about WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources; as a rule we prefer the latter. Primary sources are important for research, but that isn’t what we do on Wikipedia. Repeated failure to recognize that this is part of our no original research policy is going to result in a loss of editing privileges if continued. signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: If you didn't notice, I quoted the Bible (the primary source) as well as Maimonides ( secondary source) precisely because I am aware of this. I would welcome an accurate later source. However, none have been provided. I will continue to search for later sources. ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maimonides in this context, as part of the Jewish theological tradition and as a pre-modern text, is considered primary with respect to the topic. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm searching for later sources. The problem is, not many Jewish Orthodox books have been written about the topic less than 200-150 years, since we tend to follow earlier sources in any case. The best I will probably find is a short summary or something similar. ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I expect that you’ll have a very easy time finding authoritative sources on the contemporary beliefs of Orthodox Jews on Google Scholar, as it is a topic that has drawn a fair amount of scholarly interest. signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here's some potentially useful sources:
- Traditional Jewish Sex Guidance: A History, Brill, seems like it would be an ideal source for the topic of Jewish attitudes towards sex as a whole.
- Women in Modern Judaism, Cambridge
- Observance of the Laws of Family Purity in Modern–Orthodox Judaism, Springer (which does appear to refer specifically to the Modern Orthodox movement and not those who are Orthodox today in the "modern" day, so a bit less useful maybe)
- signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The real question is if they read such sources, or they consider these sources as attacking their religion. I was a fundamentalist myself, so I know they see higher criticism and religion studies as attacks upon their worldview. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is NOT true. Please stop attacking Jews and Orthodox Jews. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your beliefs of Orthodox Jews being "anti women", "outdated", and as seeing criticism and religion studies as "attacks". You are free to make these accusations on social media; not here. ZucherBundlech (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Where are those quotes coming from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Check the editors Talk Page ZucherBundlech (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Check Fundamentalist–modernist controversy (yup, it's about Christianity, but the same has played out in Judaism, and other religions) and https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/free-hebrew-bible-course-with-shaye-cohen/ (from 0:29:00 to 0:30:00, for more detailed: 0:27:00 to 0:30:00). Shaye J. D. Cohen confirms there that that controversy applies to Judaism, as well.
- Also, the card of attacking Jews should not be played lightly. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- What am I missing? I can't find the term "anti woman" used and the only use of "outdated" is by you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- My edits can be construed as anti-fundamentalist, but I don't indulge in hate speech. In respect to my own emotions: I do feel emotions such as jealousy, envy, anger, but I don't feel hate. I never learned that emotion. Let me be very clear: the previous three emotions are not about fundamentalists or the Jews, I was speaking of my own psychology. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry T, thats a response to ZucherBundlech. I don't find your editing to be particularly anti-anything, no comment on whether core emotions are learned or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "They are not Orthodox Jewish rabbis, but they are rabbis nevertheless. Yup, women can be rabbis, too."
- "Wikipedia listens to modern mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not to Ancient or Medieval scholars. You are in the wrong place: this isn't Orthodox Jewish Wiki." ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm just over-sensitive, but this is a lot like other attacks I've been subjected to (not on Wikpedia) ZucherBundlech (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing "anti woman" or "outdated" where are those quotes from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Saying "Yup, women can be rabbis, too" (which is totaly unnecessary) is insinuating that I refused to accept her view because she is a women. Especially after what the editor wrote at the beginning of the discussion: "Maybe you work under the assumption that you should only trust scholars of Judaism who are male and halachically Jewish." ZucherBundlech (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- As for the outdated part, it was never explicit, but I got that feeling after repeatedly challenging me that "not to Ancient or Medieval scholars" "Orthodox Judaism does, Wikipedia doesn't. See WP:SYNTH. Medieval or early modern texts are not WP:RS for making claims in the voice of Wikipedia"
- The fact is that Orthodox Judaism believes the Torah to be inflexible, the same today as it was 3000 years ago. I tried making that clear to Tgeorgescu, but the editor constantly circled back to the fact that it was long outdated.
- But you're right; I should not have mentioned it. The discussion got a little bit too heated. I apologize for that, @Tgeorgescu.
- Forgive me? ZucherBundlech (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't that the Torah is outdated; it is that Orthodox Jews in the present day do not interpret the Torah in the same way that Orthodox Jews 1000 years ago did. And it IS a subject of subjective interpretation, if it weren't there wouldn't be any reason for rabbis to exist at all! So the Torah can be used as a primary source only for its exact text. For the contemporary beliefs of Orthodox Jews, you need contemporary texts. Nobody 1000 years ago can be a source for what anybody in the present thinks. This should be patently obvious... 73.2.106.248 (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is what Reform Judaism is all about. Not Orthodox Judaism. ZucherBundlech (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is true that Rabbis are there to interprete the Torah, but they cannot change anything that was already said. All they do is interprete current circumstances which was never spoken about before (such as the laws applying to electricity, modern medicine, etc.) according to what the Torah says. And the other thing they do is tell people who haven't learnt the entire Torah yet what they should do. But Orthodox Judaism does not believe in revisionism! That's one of the core principles of Judaism. ZucherBundlech (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The simple truth is that I don't think I have a right to voice here my opinion if Maimonides' work is
outdated
. It's just the way Wikipedia weighs WP:SOURCES. See WP:FORUM for details. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)- That is true. However, it is a pity if that would render Wikipedia inaccurate. Maybe this case should be evaluated, to guarantee better accuracy with regard to Orthodox Judaism.
- What would the rules say if I would bring sources ascertaining that in fact the Orthodox Jews even today follow the Shulchan Aruch? Actually more than that: the very definition of Orthodox Judaism is that they don't deviate from an earlier ruling, and that time has no effect whatsoever on the Torah? ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If our sources are inaccurate, we're fine with Wikipedia being inaccurate as well. Have a look at WP:NOTTRUTH. MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTTRUTH is talking about something that is not verifiable. What I'm saying is definitely verifiable... worst case you could always go around and poll Orthodox Jews... ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- No. You need to cite a modern source to verify something. See WP:V. I could theoretically count the grains of sand on a beach. But I can't then publish the results of my count on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
worst case you could always go around and poll Orthodox Jews
- No, we absolutely cannot. That is original research. Zucher, I think you need to accept that your ideas on sources are completely at odds with Wikipedia's, and you need to go edit elsewhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTTRUTH is talking about something that is not verifiable. What I'm saying is definitely verifiable... worst case you could always go around and poll Orthodox Jews... ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If our sources are inaccurate, we're fine with Wikipedia being inaccurate as well. Have a look at WP:NOTTRUTH. MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If Orthodox Judaism does not engage in revisionism, where did glatt kosher come from? signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is no prohibition to be more stringent. ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You've moved the goalposts--I wasn't asking whether glatt kosher is heretical, I was asking whether it represents a change in actual practice by the self-describing Orthodox community. signed, Rosguill talk 17:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Practice yes, laws no. ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You've moved the goalposts--I wasn't asking whether glatt kosher is heretical, I was asking whether it represents a change in actual practice by the self-describing Orthodox community. signed, Rosguill talk 17:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is no prohibition to be more stringent. ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly they don't believe they believe in revisionism... but they do.
- The penalty in the Torah for putting out someone's eye is to have your own eye put out. And it's very clear about that, says it in multiple places, and never once says that it means any kind of fine or monetary penalty. However, the penalty in the Talmud for the same offense is the monetary value of an eye. Clearly, even the oldest rabbis were not always going by the literal word of the Torah. Loki (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- For editors interested in reading more about the intertwined development of orthodoxy and revision, I found Henderson 1998 very accessible and illustrative. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody revised the Bible. Judaism believes that the Written And the Oral Torah are unseparable. Instead of quoting a piece of Talmud you obviously never read inside, how about you really learn it? If you don't understand something don't hesistate to ask..
- עין תחת עין אמר רחמנא אימא עין ממש לא סלקא דעתך דתניא יכול סימא את עינו מסמא את עינו קטע את ידו מקטע את ידו שיבר את רגלו משבר את רגלו ת"ל (ויקרא כד) מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה לתשלומין אף מכה אדם לתשלומין ואם נפשך לומר הרי הוא אומר (במדבר לה) לא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח אשר הוא רשע למות לנפש רוצח אי אתה לוקח כופר אבל אתה לוקח כופר לראשי אברים שאין חוזרין הי מכה אילימא (ויקרא כד) מכה בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת ההוא בקטלא כתיב אלא מהכא (ויקרא כד) מכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה נפש תחת נפש וסמיך ליה (ויקרא כד) ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו האי לאו מכה הוא הכאה הכאה קאמרינן מה הכאה האמורה בבהמה לתשלומין אף הכאה האמורה באדם לתשלומין והא כתיב (ויקרא כד) ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם מות יומת בממון ממאי דבממון אימא במיתה ממש לא סלקא דעתך חדא דהא איתקש למכה בהמה ישלמנה ועוד כתיב בתריה כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו ושמע מינה ממון ומאי אם נפשך לומר תו קא קשיא לתנא מאי חזית דילפת ממכה בהמה לילף ממכה אדם אמרי דנין ניזקין מניזקין ואין דנין ניזקין ממיתה אדרבה דנין אדם מאדם ואין דנין אדם מבהמה היינו דקתני אם נפשך לומר הרי הוא אומר לא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח אשר הוא רשע למות כי מות יומת לנפש רוצח אי אתה לוקח כופר אבל אתה לוקח כופר לראשי אברים שאינן חוזרין והאי לא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח למעוטי ראשי אברים הוא דאתא האי מבעי ליה דאמר רחמנא לא תעביד ביה תרתי לא תשקול מיניה ממון ותקטליה האי (דברים כה) מכדי רשעתו נפקא רשעה אחת אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו שתי רשעיות ואכתי מבעי ליה דקאמר רחמנא לא תשקול ממון ותפטריה א"כ לכתוב רחמנא לא תקחו כופר לאשר הוא רשע למות לנפש רוצח למה לי ש"מ לנפש רוצח אי אתה לוקח כופר אבל אתה לוקח כופר לראשי אברים שאינן חוזרין וכי מאחר דכתיב לא תקחו כופר מכה מכה למה לי אמרי אי מהאי הוה אמינא אי בעי עינו ניתיב ואי בעי דמי עינו ניתיב קמ"ל מבהמה מה מכה בהמה לתשלומין אף מכה אדם לתשלומין: תניא ר' דוסתאי בן יהודה אומר עין תחת עין ממון אתה אומר ממון או אינו אלא עין ממש אמרת הרי שהיתה עינו של זה גדולה ועינו של זה קטנה היאך אני קורא ביה עין תחת עין וכי תימא כל כי האי שקיל מיניה ממונא התורה אמרה (ויקרא כד) משפט אחד יהיה לכם משפט השוה לכולכם ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, stop. You do not get to dictate what the facts are based on your understanding of the facts. You clearly do not care to adhere to Wikipedia's reliable sources rules, so why are you here? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds: I agree with you in the point you made that Wikipedia requires modern sources. I will not change any article without providing sources that adhere to WP:RS. What I'm trying to do now is explain what Orthodox Judaism really believes, so that when all of you go out to the big, wild world and edit Wikipedia, you will know what to look out for. If you see a source that blatantly ignores what I discussed now, that would mean it either is about Modern Orthodox Judaism, or plain inaccurate; and if you truly are interested in the truth, you might want to look for a better source.
- That's all. ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's condescending as fuck. I'm aware of what Orthodox Jews believe, and that's beside the point. Lecturing us is just rude, and your insistence that you know better than the sources is not going to fly here. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, stop. You do not get to dictate what the facts are based on your understanding of the facts. You clearly do not care to adhere to Wikipedia's reliable sources rules, so why are you here? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The simple truth is that I don't think I have a right to voice here my opinion if Maimonides' work is
- It isn't that the Torah is outdated; it is that Orthodox Jews in the present day do not interpret the Torah in the same way that Orthodox Jews 1000 years ago did. And it IS a subject of subjective interpretation, if it weren't there wouldn't be any reason for rabbis to exist at all! So the Torah can be used as a primary source only for its exact text. For the contemporary beliefs of Orthodox Jews, you need contemporary texts. Nobody 1000 years ago can be a source for what anybody in the present thinks. This should be patently obvious... 73.2.106.248 (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing "anti woman" or "outdated" where are those quotes from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- My edits can be construed as anti-fundamentalist, but I don't indulge in hate speech. In respect to my own emotions: I do feel emotions such as jealousy, envy, anger, but I don't feel hate. I never learned that emotion. Let me be very clear: the previous three emotions are not about fundamentalists or the Jews, I was speaking of my own psychology. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Check the editors Talk Page ZucherBundlech (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Where are those quotes coming from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is NOT true. Please stop attacking Jews and Orthodox Jews. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your beliefs of Orthodox Jews being "anti women", "outdated", and as seeing criticism and religion studies as "attacks". You are free to make these accusations on social media; not here. ZucherBundlech (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: Thanks. I'm aware that source do exist, and I will quote them; however, I prefere sources in the Jewish Orthodox world itself, which I have found to be more accurate. ZucherBundlech (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- What kind of source are you thinking of, exactly? By definition, sources that contradict the majority of reliable sources on a topic will be considered WP:FRINGE at best. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The real question is if they read such sources, or they consider these sources as attacking their religion. I was a fundamentalist myself, so I know they see higher criticism and religion studies as attacks upon their worldview. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here's some potentially useful sources:
- Yup, search for WP:IS, i.e. third-party observers. See emic and etic. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I expect that you’ll have a very easy time finding authoritative sources on the contemporary beliefs of Orthodox Jews on Google Scholar, as it is a topic that has drawn a fair amount of scholarly interest. signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm searching for later sources. The problem is, not many Jewish Orthodox books have been written about the topic less than 200-150 years, since we tend to follow earlier sources in any case. The best I will probably find is a short summary or something similar. ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maimonides in this context, as part of the Jewish theological tradition and as a pre-modern text, is considered primary with respect to the topic. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: I'm sorry, I just reread my post. It is quit misleading. I apologize for that. ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: If you didn't notice, I quoted the Bible (the primary source) as well as Maimonides ( secondary source) precisely because I am aware of this. I would welcome an accurate later source. However, none have been provided. I will continue to search for later sources. ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't based upon
- I'm sorry, but nothing is as accurate as the first-hand material itself. I'm beginning to feel that you are somehow opposed to Orthodox Judaism's views, especially after what you wrote me on your user talk page ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- There should be enough * University Press WP:RS which tell matter-of-factly what Orthodox Jews believe. There is no need to WP:CITE centuries old texts. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can't rely on your own opinion of what's true or your interpretation of documents that are 900+ years old. You're going to have to work with modern scholarship, the kind found in secondary WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I went in and fixed it so you can see what I mean: [4] Loki (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @LokiTheLiar: That nothing has changed for more than 800 years isn't my claim; it is the claim of my opponent. And, yup, I think I have WP:CITED several Reform of Conservative rabbis. If you read the quotes, they speak about the Bible, but they also speak about Rabbinic Judaism, i.e. post-Bible Jewish religious authorities. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
New paper that might be a problem:"On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the Step Pyramid of Saqqara"
[edit]See [6] Also [On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the Step Pyramid of Saqqara]. Since it's hitting the news I expect there may be an attempt to add this to Pyramid of Djoser. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Should wait until some independent support is published. Note that "hydraulic force" is not as weirdo as it sounds, as all that is proposed is that stones were raised on a wooden float as water was added to a containment structure. Nothing that the ancients weren't easily capable of in other words. I can't judge the evidence though. Zerotalk 14:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- We probably should avoid any use of the source until the PLOS ONE editorial board completes its consultation with the authors. Donald Albury 15:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't normally use PLOS ONE at all for anything non-mundane; it's a bit of a junk heap. Bon courage (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- We probably should avoid any use of the source until the PLOS ONE editorial board completes its consultation with the authors. Donald Albury 15:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Gives hefty weight to a piece by Donna Jones supporting the rioters, cutting all the criticism of it found in the sources Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 23:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Nauvoo Expositor's legal Analysis section
[edit]A leader of the church performed a "legal analysis" and decided his church did nothing illegal. It is a nice bit of apologetics based on a source that believes not believing the action was legal would mean he goes to hell. Editors on that page are preventing either removal of the frivolous apologetics, or mentioning that the lawyer who performed the analysis is a church leader. How do we deal with fringe legal apologetics? 166.198.21.32 (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Motivated argumentation should be identified inasmuch as there are sources which identify it. Find a source which identifies it, if you can. Whenever there is a historical event involving the law, questions as to whether some action is "legal" or not is fairly irrelevant. The question is better framed as to what the arguments were that various sides made and what the outcomes were. The law is, of course, dependent on interpretation and application. Was Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland guilty of treason? Inasmuch as he was found guilty of treason, sure. But once the restoration occurred, the argument got flipped on its head. Not our job to decide who is right and who is wrong. jps (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The source clearly states that the analysis was performed by a ranking church member. There is no other analysis, because this is apologetics being passed as a legal review. Editors are opposed to explaining the analysis was performed on behalf of the church. 166.198.21.69 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The statement is pretty boring, I think. Even so, separating out this exposition into its own section strikes me as a bit WP:UNDUE. I've started a discussion with a proposed incorporation of this aside into another part of the article on the talkpage. jps (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- The source clearly states that the analysis was performed by a ranking church member. There is no other analysis, because this is apologetics being passed as a legal review. Editors are opposed to explaining the analysis was performed on behalf of the church. 166.198.21.69 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @anon166 IP: is there a particular reason you opened this without noting so in the talk page Talk:Nauvoo Expositor or pinging the editors you are accusing of editing in bad faith? You are also mischaracterizing the source and text in question. The author was not a church leader or ranking church member when the analysis was published. At the time he was a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School and he is being cited as such. The analysis was not published in a sectarian or apologetic source, but in an academic, scholarly journal. It was not performed on behalf of the church. The source has multiple citations to it in academic sources. There might be other reasons to disagree on inclusion and presentation, but you've presented no evidence beyond your own assertions that this is a fringe legal analysis. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The author was not a church leader or ranking church member when the analysis was published" are you sure? Dallin H. Oaks says that he became a church leader in 1959, was set apart in 1963, and we're talking about a paper published in 1965. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are "General Authorities" and "Local Authorities" in the Mormon church. To be considered a "ranking church member" you'd need to at least be a "General Authority". Being in a Bishopric or even a Stake Presidency is far from being "a ranking church member". These are all volunteer position. When he wrote this, he was the second counselor in the Stake Presidency in Chicago. Epachamo (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe thats how it works if you're a part of the church but objectively he was a church leader and high ranking member. The second counselor in the Stake Presidency of a major US city is a church leader and high ranking member by any reasonable definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The difference between a Stake Presidency and First Presidency is IMMENSE. Maybe in the 1800s and early 1900s I would agree with you, but since the correlation department in the mid 1900s, the power of a Stake President has significantly diminished. They don't interpret doctrine. They don't control their buildings or even budget. The General Authorities do all that, deciding where buildings will be built, when to make a new branch, how much money a Stake needs to operate, what lessons should be taught, and on which Sunday's they should be taught. The fact that he was in a major US city is not relevant at all. There was and is a tiny Mormon presence in Chicago. Epachamo (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree on the difference between First Presidency and Stake Presidency. Also, Oaks was a second counselor, not the president, in the Chicago South Stake (it did not even cover the entire city of Chicago.) The term Mormon leader, which implies the entire church, seems an overreach in 1965. Bahooka (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- These are all leadership positions that you're describing. The term Mormon leader does not imply the entire Church, a leader in a local congregation is still a leader in that faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- So now we're arguing about how powerful the leadership position was and how high the rank was? Because the statement was that they were not a leader and not a ranking member. If they're one of the most powerful leaders in a local congregation they are a ranking member, one of the top 1% of the religion. You can't turn around and argue that because the .01% has more power and prestige that the 1% aren't ranking members... That just doesn't make sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree on the difference between First Presidency and Stake Presidency. Also, Oaks was a second counselor, not the president, in the Chicago South Stake (it did not even cover the entire city of Chicago.) The term Mormon leader, which implies the entire church, seems an overreach in 1965. Bahooka (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The difference between a Stake Presidency and First Presidency is IMMENSE. Maybe in the 1800s and early 1900s I would agree with you, but since the correlation department in the mid 1900s, the power of a Stake President has significantly diminished. They don't interpret doctrine. They don't control their buildings or even budget. The General Authorities do all that, deciding where buildings will be built, when to make a new branch, how much money a Stake needs to operate, what lessons should be taught, and on which Sunday's they should be taught. The fact that he was in a major US city is not relevant at all. There was and is a tiny Mormon presence in Chicago. Epachamo (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe thats how it works if you're a part of the church but objectively he was a church leader and high ranking member. The second counselor in the Stake Presidency of a major US city is a church leader and high ranking member by any reasonable definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are "General Authorities" and "Local Authorities" in the Mormon church. To be considered a "ranking church member" you'd need to at least be a "General Authority". Being in a Bishopric or even a Stake Presidency is far from being "a ranking church member". These are all volunteer position. When he wrote this, he was the second counselor in the Stake Presidency in Chicago. Epachamo (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The author was not a church leader or ranking church member when the analysis was published" are you sure? Dallin H. Oaks says that he became a church leader in 1959, was set apart in 1963, and we're talking about a paper published in 1965. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article def needs a lot of work. Feoffer (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Did a big POV-Cleanse on the article. Lots of POV language issues, but amazingly well-balanced for an article with so many POV issues. Language seemed quite partisan, but EQUALLY partisan. Assuming no pushback from either side, seems fixed. Also @ජපස, I'm not just UFOs -- any 'big' American NRM (broadly construed to include UFOs and even atheist Ayn Rand) from say 1780 to 2000 is something you can ping me on. Feoffer (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ජපස, Bon courage, and Horse Eye's Back: Got some pushback after all. Article has scurbbed of all reference to the fact that Mormon scholars who denounce the destruction of the press have been subject to church discipline, while those who defend the the destruction have been elevated. Whatever one thinks of the events of the 1840s, this information is verifiable, but being deleted by proponents of FRINGE. Little help? Feoffer (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lets avoid edit warring, the talk page discussion has been productive so far and it looks like this new editor is willing to participate in discussion (if from a particular POV). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Continued edit warring from editors who oppose readers knowing that Oaks was born to an important mormon family. NPOV violation to masquerade him as an impartial legal scholar. Feoffer (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Quimbaya artifacts has been heavily cn tagged
[edit]Also see Talk:Quimbaya artifacts##Quimbaya airplanes claim" needs improvement which I'm sure is true. I'll try to find time but would appreciate some help if possible. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Never mind, I've found good sources and am working on it. The editor is very new. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Martin Sweatman is back, comets, ancient calendar, Gobekli Tepe
[edit][7]. “Carvings at ancient monument may be world’s oldest calendar” by Martin Sweatman published in Time and Mind. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Time and Mind has often taken a "Yeah man, far out but that could totally be true lets get this out there and see what people think (passes joint)" approach to curation which does bleed into outright fringe for example around ley lines where they publish stuff that is entirely outside of the norm. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that anything Sweatman writes should be considered fringe and ignored at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Papers by a co-founder and I believe current editor.[8] Doug Weller talk 20:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Roger D. Nelson
[edit]The current article for parapsychologist Roger D. Nelson is heavily skewed toward a sympathetic POV and fails to contextualize a description of his projects (like the Global Consciousness Project) with the scientific consensus that they're pseudoscience. It's also possible an AFD is appropriate here. 0xchase (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Service: Roger D. Nelson (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is this guy notable in any way outside of some tiny woo circles? Don't see why it can't just be given the boot, though that's partially because I'm too lazy to re-write it. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I had trouble finding in-depth coverage from independent sources so I created an AFD. 0xchase (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is this guy notable in any way outside of some tiny woo circles? Don't see why it can't just be given the boot, though that's partially because I'm too lazy to re-write it. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Leaky guts
[edit]- Leaky gut syndrome (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Got an IP insisting this is science and not quackery. Could use eyes. (Addendum: same IP has been at work with Candida hypersensitivity in a similar vein.) Bon courage (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is clearly the relevant guideline here. We don't cherry-pick primary sources to support a hypothesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- This episode is an interesting little example of how "due process" on Wikipedia is a mechanism to waste editors' time. A obviously bad editor making obviously bad edits; yet there needs to be the reversions, the warning, the Talkpage post, the noticeboard post, more reversions by multiple editors, and the miscreant keeps reverting with a giant FU. Bon courage (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- And now an edmin has had to do a block and a notice, and then the IP reappears with a fresh address necessitating a RPP, which will need to be responded to (argued over). Amazing the amount of time Wikipedia allows one fucker to waste. Bon courage (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this for some time too, but are there any admins left who specialize in medical or fringe topics? It seems like there's been attrition over the last 10+ years, so it's left to whoever is responding to the issue to do all the legwork you mention. KoA (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- The problem runs deeper, and particularly affects FRINGE articles which aren't protected in some way. We're really long past the point where Wikipedia should require an account to edit, but that's long likely to change because "anyone can edit" is part of the brand, and quite a few people think it's a good thing! Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let's not kid ourselves, any POV-pusher with the slightest bit of patience will just make a throwaway account and then you'd be back to square one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- While true, WP:SPI makes getting rid of the persistent ones easier. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let's not kid ourselves, any POV-pusher with the slightest bit of patience will just make a throwaway account and then you'd be back to square one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The problem runs deeper, and particularly affects FRINGE articles which aren't protected in some way. We're really long past the point where Wikipedia should require an account to edit, but that's long likely to change because "anyone can edit" is part of the brand, and quite a few people think it's a good thing! Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Ron Wyatt
[edit]Ron Wyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am curious as to whether we should identify Wyatt as an "amateur archaeologist" in the lede. The source being used right now to source this title is a bit iffy. jps (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well he is not a Professional one, and he did do a lot of "archeology", well what he claimed was. And it seems to me that is his main area of notability, his spurious archeology. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am mostly concerned that we are denigrating "amateur archaeology" with this identifier. There are legitimate and excellent amateurs active in archaeology. This is not one of them and the source being used to identify him as such isn't exactly one I would want deciding who is and is not doing legitimate work in the field. jps (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yet we have to say what he is primarily noted for, but in a way that dopes not imply expertise. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pseudoarchaeology is what he is known for. jps (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you can find souces that call him a pseudo archeologist go for it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pseudoarchaeology is what he is known for. jps (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yet we have to say what he is primarily noted for, but in a way that dopes not imply expertise. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am mostly concerned that we are denigrating "amateur archaeology" with this identifier. There are legitimate and excellent amateurs active in archaeology. This is not one of them and the source being used to identify him as such isn't exactly one I would want deciding who is and is not doing legitimate work in the field. jps (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
As is the case with a lot of these fringe characters, the sourcing is weak regardless of what we have. Here is an article which identifies him as a pseudoarchaeologist, but I don't like that source either. The fact of the matter is that there is very poor sourcing for this subject. jps (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- The sources on that article entirely fail to impress. Answers In Genesis (a canonically unreliable source, and even they think he was a nutter), "allthatsinteresting", which looks like a blog, etc. IMO the entire thing should be nuked from orbit. If we can't robustly source the thing he's known for (for certain, highly restricted values of known), then we should not have an article. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is some kind of reverse hierarchy of criticism going on here, where the farther out on the fringe you go the worse Wyatt makes you look by association. To the editors at BAR he is an amateur given little credence, Christianity Today calls him one of the most notorious of pseudoarchaeologists, but "positively reviled by creationists". It seems the more towards the fringe you are, the worse Wyatt makes you look by association. Can you use "these people make the other creationists look like pinko socialists"? fiveby(zero) 22:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Wyatt jps (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Time dilation creationism
[edit]Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time dilation creationism.
New creationism "just" dropped.
jps (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The author of said creationism is someone I recognized but, remarkably, very few sources on the fellow:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Humphreys
jps (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- David Kaiser's "The Other Evolution Wars" was disappointingly no help here, but a fun read anyway. fiveby(zero) 13:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Elizabeth Loftus
[edit]- Elizabeth Loftus (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Weird stuff from "New Yorker (which I do not have access to) has been added to the article [9]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted it. Loftus recalled something in court and the edit claimed that she recovered a repressed memory in court. Neither source says that. This should be watched in case it comes back. Zerotalk 11:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also see my talk page. Zerotalk 02:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)
[edit]- Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The usual: "hatchet job", "BLP violation", "many would consider are libellous". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
What do you think about [10]? tgeorgescu (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is it outing to point out that an editor appears to be citing themselves? Asking for a friend. fiveby(zero) 02:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Fiveby: Googling their username would amount at WP:OUTING. But whatever they posted themselves at Wikipedia is fair game. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Vojơšek also has Vojtísek, Z. (2013). "The Grail Movement" (PDF). Millennialism : expecting the end of the world in the past and present. Dingir. if you hadn't seen it. fiveby(zero) 03:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Fiveby: Googling their username would amount at WP:OUTING. But whatever they posted themselves at Wikipedia is fair game. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Purim
[edit]A whole lot of coincidences, numerology and other unencyclopedic stuff has come back at Purim after I deleted it. I'd appreciate someone else taking a look. Incidentally, the Jewish year 5707 is written with heh (5), not vav (6), and Hoshana Rabbah has nothing to do with Purim. Zerotalk 08:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Did J Smith actually have golden plates?
[edit]While editing Early life of Joseph Smith to remove some myths being passed off as factual parts of his biography, I've met some fringe opinions. In particular, did Joseph Smith actually possess golden plates and hide them under beans? Is a letter from a friend of his independent enough to put the plate under bean smuggling story in his should be facts based bio? 12.75.41.47 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Per Vogel, there's plenty of evidence -- even from his critics -- to support the claim that he DID have a set of plates that could be hefted and felt, but not seen. So far as I'm aware, only the faithful believe the plates were gold or provided by an angel. That said, we don't have to go around inserting the word "alleged" into narratives obviously based in faith or fancy. We can trust the reader to understand that "an angel gave him golden plates" is part of a story, not something we're asserting as fact. Feoffer (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something here but if it wasn't seen what is the support to the claim that it was a set of plates? Heft and feel alone don't do that Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lots of non-believers lifted the plates and ran their fingers over what felt and sounded like a set of metal plates. Vogel argues the plates were tin or sheet iron. Feoffer (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something here but if it wasn't seen what is the support to the claim that it was a set of plates? Heft and feel alone don't do that Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good luck arguing that. Mormonism-based articles are hard to edit here because there is a large contingent of faithful that monitor them and push their beliefs. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's not gonna be a problem. We handle editors with all sorts of strong points of view, and the editors with seemingly-pro LDS views show a great willingness to play by the rules. I wont single any other group out, but this isn't always so: the project has handled far more intense POV-pushing from far more 'organized' and secretive groups. Assume good faith. It's a wiki -- the editing process is helped by a few rule-abiding partisans on both sides. Good changes will be defended -- but just inserting "allegedly" into a story about angels is not a good change. Feoffer (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't add allegedly, I removed that he hid the plates under beans so nobody would find them. This is a tall tale/legend, and shouldn't be part of a biography. I also removed that he spent time transcribing them, but that was also reverted, as sourced (to Smith). 12.75.41.47 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- At least 11 contemporaries of Joseph Smith (and a few more) have stated that they saw, not just handled, the plates. More information is at the Book of Mormon witnesses article. Bahooka (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I rest my case. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- To add to what Bahooka said, witnesses weren't limited to Smith followers. Josiah Stowell saw a glimpse of 'greenish' metal plates, for example. The numerous 'hiding of the plates' stories are likely based in fact. Feoffer (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's important to note that the Mormon reliance on these testimonies are culturally important but have no bearing on the question as to whether anything actually existed. Until there is a Joseph Smith seminar similar to the Jesus Seminar, I don't think we're going to have much more to say on the subject other than it's all based on eyewitness testimony claims. Such claims are notoriously unreliable. jps (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- At least 11 contemporaries of Joseph Smith (and a few more) have stated that they saw, not just handled, the plates. More information is at the Book of Mormon witnesses article. Bahooka (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't add allegedly, I removed that he hid the plates under beans so nobody would find them. This is a tall tale/legend, and shouldn't be part of a biography. I also removed that he spent time transcribing them, but that was also reverted, as sourced (to Smith). 12.75.41.47 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's not gonna be a problem. We handle editors with all sorts of strong points of view, and the editors with seemingly-pro LDS views show a great willingness to play by the rules. I wont single any other group out, but this isn't always so: the project has handled far more intense POV-pushing from far more 'organized' and secretive groups. Assume good faith. It's a wiki -- the editing process is helped by a few rule-abiding partisans on both sides. Good changes will be defended -- but just inserting "allegedly" into a story about angels is not a good change. Feoffer (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Stages of death (recent quest to add non-human content)
[edit]The far fringe of animal rights seems to be pushing addition of animals to some pages where the clear expectation would be that the topic is "human-centric" (a phrase they're using as if it's a bad thing). You can see what they're doing to the article Stages of death for example. The common assumption when talking about death is of humans, just like an article about war or murder or transportation would be expected to be of humans. The quest by a few to add chickadees, sea slugs, plankton, and crabgrass to the article about (human) death is WP:FRINGE. They could just as well make a new article about the non-human content. On the article's talk page, they're discussing using existing legit WP policies like WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED, et cetera, to justify and prepare for edit-warring. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem to be a serious form of disruption at the moment.
- Until just now, the most recent edit to that article was a two-month-old vandalism edit. (which I have just reverted.)
- ApLundell (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)