Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:07, 8 April 2015

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Words to watch

I've seen many times where people would object to a fringe label such as pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, etc. claiming it's not NPOV or contentious(those claims often coming from someone wanting to support a fringe view). WP:LABEL helps with this by specifically stating the term pseudoscience is supported by NPOV and why. Are there other terms we should consider either adding at WP:LABEL or elsewhere to cut down on claims of the terms being contentious when used to describe fringe content? I see conspiracy theory come up pretty often which may not be as concrete as pseudoscience, but is there anything we can do to give guidance in using such terms when others are opposed to them because they call the terms contentious? Maybe pseudoscience only gets the specific treatment at WP:LABEL because it's the most concrete of the fringe definitions, but I'm just curious what people's thoughts are on terms or places to mention this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Psuedoarchaeology and all its derivative words? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Adar 5775 18:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest maybe revising the phrasing to say something roughly along the lines of "terms like psuedoscience, pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, conspiracy theory, alternative medicine, alternative history, new religious movements, cult, and the like can be used in wikipedia to describe the subjects in wikipedia, with the prominence of usage of such terms in our articles to be, roughly, analogous to the usage of those specific terms or virtual synonyms in well regarded general reference or academic sources, or specialist reference or academic sources relating directly to the terms and their usage." Maybe, something like that anyway, although probably a hell of a lot better phrased. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

denialism has been contentious. Especially in regards to global warming denialism which denialists claim is defamatory since it sounds like Holocaust denialism. It's an extremely weak claim, but it has hoodwinked a number of administrators and editors who think that global warming skepticism is somehow "more neutral". It's not. All scientists are skeptics. Global warming denialists pretend to be skeptics but they're either lying about it or are too ignorant to understand that the ideas they are hung up on have all been investigated thoroughly. jps (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Misconceptions as per List of common misconceptions and Lie-to-children might merit inclusion as well. I do however think that there may well be a bit of a problem regarding what might be called the overuse of these specific terms. So, while I would have no objections whatsoever to incorporation of any of them in the most directly relevant lists with adequate sourcing, there does seem to me to be a question, as Ian.thomson has expressed here regarding perhaps how much weight and prominence to give such words in articles on the individual topics described by these terms themselves. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree in part with the statement that pseudoscience is supported by NPOV because the latter fails to mention the qualifier for what is and isn't considered pseudoscience. The latter argument is supported in WP:FRINGE/PS which states, Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. In that regard, we have the following definitions:

• Pseudoscience: Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (such as Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
• Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

Another consideration is WP:FRINGEBLP, so it is far more complex than simply stating the term is supported by NPOV. Atsme☯ 02:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Atsme, for the most part. I feel that it is better to describe the situation, rather than label it. pseudoscience is an overused term on en.wikipedia for 'things that are not mainstream'. I'd like to see us keep the focus on the actual meaning of it as 'totally bogus played off as scientific'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Rocksanddirt above. I regret to say that the word pseudoscience itself is not necessarily objectionable, but the word itself doesn't actually tell me much when it is used, given the ambiguity of the definition, and might be seen as an instance of WP:JARGON on that basis. Now, other language, such as "the field has been found to lack any sort of recognized scientific basis," or "studies have shown no advantage to individuals who have followed this procedure," or, if the real quotes from true experts exist, something along the lines "Stephen Hawking has described the concept as insane," would I think all be preferable in that they are more informative, to at least some degree, and it makes it easier to set up the phrasing in such a way as to describe the real reasons why something is described as pseudoscience, which probably would convey more information to the reader. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Carctol

Carctol (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
is a fake cancer cure, and our article has seen some recent activity. Needs eyes. Alexbrn 10:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've checked your source and restored the quote and the 'ineffective' qualification. There seems to be some whitewashing going on in the recent history, so i've placed the article on my watchlist and i'll keep an eye out. HTH. Tjuus... Kleuske (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Out-of-body experience

User who has also used a few IP addresses re-adding in a fringe source (near-death.com) that an OBE experiment by Charles Tart was genuine evidence for consciousness leaving the body. Future Kick (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

And some original research, too. I've written a strongly-worded note to the user. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

Fringe eye treatments

• Behavioral optometry (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Bates method (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• The Art of Seeing (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I recently undertook a major re-write of Behavioral optometry which had problematic (primary) sourcing and editorial special pleading and which lacked mainstream context. This led me to look at the other two articles. Bates method is generally okay, but my attempt to have the lede say the method is "ineffective" (rather than merely "unsubstantiated") has been reverted on that grounds I am POV-pushing. The Art of Seeing is Aldous Huxley's book on the Bates method and our article strikes me as problematic in that it essays Huxley's belief in the system without mainstream context - again my attempt to have the lede say the method is discredited has been reverted to ave us say that the method is just "controversial".

Thoughts, comments, scrutiny, etc. from fringe-savvy editors would be welcome as ever. Alexbrn 21:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Langdon Ward

"has recently discovered a relationship between global warming and volcanism rates" "After man began reducing these emissions by 1980, in an effort to reduce acid rain, the rates of increase in temperature and methane began to decrease, reaching zero by 1998."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.118.34 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

World Contact Day

World Contact Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notable enough for a standalone article?

The Carpenters sang about it.

jps (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Neurobics

IP activity heating up about this system of mental exercises. Mangoe (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Morgellons

Following Joni Mitchell's hospitalization today, the New York Times reported that Mitchell "suffered from Morgellons disease", a condition whose status as a "disease" is very much in question. Suggest eyes on Morgellons in anticipation of Mitchell-based fringe frenzy. --Seduisant (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the above comment, but I just want to note that the Times did not in fact say she suffered from Morgellons (I would be rather horrified if they had!), but rather quoted an interview with Ms. Mitchell wherein she herself claimed to have it. Just wanted to point out that slight distinction. Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

New article: Psychopuncture

• Psychopuncture (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

"Psychopuncture is a holistic form of psychoanalysis that combines acupuncture with a form of psychoanalysis in which the subject selects colored puppets from a lineup."

No not an April fool (?) - is this viable even? Alexbrn (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't an april fool? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If it is it's a very elaborate and long-planned one, since it's Out There on teh Internetz. Behold the puppets: http://bestpsychopuncture.com/1puppets.php3 Alexbrn (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's real. It received a PRD tag from WikiDan61on 28 March, user Alexandranag added sources(?), and WikiDan removed the tag yesterday. Fringeness remains, however. --Seduisant (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If it is real, I suppose it is probably as batshit insane as other fringe med stuff, like acu, or ayu, or hom. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not an April fool. I originally proposed it for deletion, but the original author has provided enough evidence that this is a real thing. (Not necessarily a really effective thing, but that's not really the point.) Actual citations in scholarly publications and everything. The term apparently broadly covers the application of Wu Xing (The Five Elements) to psychology, and is usually practiced by acupuncturists in association with actual acupuncture to address psychosomatic illnesses. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 20:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A real thing, but where are the independent sources which discuss it? Is there anyone not connected with Hallym Calehr who has taken notice of this peculiar technique? jps (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Just when you thought they couldn't get any weirder... . Is AFD maybe the way to go here? John Carter (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The article lists many sources that are independent of Calehr. The technique appears to have found a real foothold in Russia. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 11:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that could explain a lot. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

But the Russian psychopuncturists are not independent of Calehr. They appear to be recruited and trained by him as part of his Russian Psychopuncture Association. We need sources from people who aren't his acolytes. jps (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that the article now claims that psychopuncture is a form of 'treatment', it clearly falls within the scope of WP:MEDRS - I shall see what Wikiproject medicine has to say on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

IMO the article is an unsalvageable hodgepodge of WP:SYN and WP:FRINGE. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Psychopuncture. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Faith healing

The article Faith healing is getting edited with an attempt to interpret NPOV as meaning editorial comments should be inserted qualifying facts from sources, when such comments are not present in the sources. It has also been suggested that criticism be walled off in a separate section to make the article, "acceptable to the respective adherents and their healers." There is a lack of depth in coverage of the deaths and convictions related to denial of medical care to children and the legal shielding in some states. The structure of the article pushes evaluation, analysis and criticism to the bottom of the article. Some input from experienced editors would be useful. Particularly someone who could explain NPOV concisely. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Terence McKenna

Terence McKenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Did you know that it has been discussed ad infinitum and the "consensus" is that Terence McKenna is a "philosopher"? I had this pointed out to me by a philosopher in the philosophy department. Easy work if you can get it?

Anyway, I recommend reverting back to WP:Right version. I think it's also pretty clear we have a WP:SPA problem.

jps (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Just as a note I have found the main/frequent contributor to the article (Template:U:Screamliner, whose diff is provided above) to be willing and able to work constructively and collaboratively on talk. Not sure what you are referring to as an SPA problem but editors who contribute to a single subject can help improve the encyclopedia. I would concur that there is no consensus, source or solid policy based argument for characterizing McKenna as a philosopher. The two discussions in the talk archives provide none. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Pattern recognition can be a problem. WP:SPA is not necessarily a bad thing, but it seems to me to be a problem when I'm reverted by a claim of ad infinitum discussion. Anyway, the talking is proceeding, so, I'm happy. jps (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

2012 phenomenon theorists

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_3#Category:2012_phenomenon_theorists.

Please comment.

jps (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like an etymological/connotational issue: , , and the only solution is to live with it. I guess nobody would think of a scientific/academic theory when the context is "2012 phenomenon". Logos (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

New article, Biofrequency Chip

A new article Biofrequency Chip, clearly needs some attention as it describes the topic as if it were real medicine science with only hints that it‘s something out of alternative medicine, but the actual content and many of the sources indicate that's what it is.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 22:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It is WP:FRINGE, and the citations are not about biofrequency chips!

Ducking nonsense?

An essay has recently appeared, WP:COIducks which advances the case that COI-tainted editors may be identified by their behaviour alone. WP:FRINGE is invoked as a potential factor in making this identification, and so members of this NB may be interested. Note that the new essay is also currently nominated for deletion. Alexbrn (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn fails to note that one of the worst abuses of COI was dealt with by "identifying their behaviour alone": WifiOne. Please read about that important case here. Because of user anonymity there is no other way to identify COI, is there? David Tornheim (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly: doing the good work to assemble a convincing case—which is quite different from the lazy stunt of labelling editors who don't share one's (fringe) POV as "having a COI". This is a shitty essay in my view: almost a litmus test, in the support it attracts, of which editors hereabouts are worthwhile. Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Watts (blogger)

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

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

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

But you're not arguing that we should make use of high-quality scholarly sources, now are you? Anyone can Google "denial" and find the results that they are looking for. Please see Confirmation bias. What we need is an objective random sampling of high-quality sources to see what they actually say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

And no, it's not difficult to convincing some other editors. In fact, it's extremely easy. All you have to do is provide an objective random sampling of high-quality sources which backup this POV. But you have neglected to do so. Here's an actual example of an objective, random-sampling of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Why must it be either-or? In cases where there is not an overwhelming preponderance of one usage over the other it is best to state both. Something like "Some sources (A, B, and C) characterize the site as 'denialist' while others (D, E, and F) say it is 'skeptical', and G distinguishes 'skepticism' in this context from scientific skepticism." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not even close. I performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of reliable sources, including peer-reviewed journals, and here are the results:

• PBS - "skeptic"
• Scientific American - "skeptical"
• American Thinker - "skeptic"
• New York Times - "skeptics"
• Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
• PBS - "skeptic"
• LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
• Fox News - "skeptical"
• USA Today - "skeptic"
• The Telegraph - "science"
• BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. One could reasonably argue whether 10 sources is an adequate sample size (if so, just ask, and I can expand the sample size). But based on these results, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to Watts or his blog as:

1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
3. Science - 1 Source
4. Denier - 0 Sources

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

These sources are high-end mainstream sources but not "high-quality scholarly sources" as mentioned by Manul. Manul, can you give specific examples? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources are in the opening sentence of this revision. Searching through mainstream independent sources in Google Scholar -- even searching explicitly for "skeptic"/"skepticism" -- every one I've seen regards the blog as climate change denialism (again see this thread). We care about identifying the fringe view of climate change denialism, in whatever terminology it takes. Making that identification prominent is part of WP:NPOV.

In the past I have pointed to WP:RS, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." This is especially true for scientific topics. There is little indication that some editors have apprehended this principle, as we see e.g. foxnews.com being promoted over scholarship again. Note foxnews.com and others aren't necessarily in contradiction with scholarly sources; they just aren't discussing WUWT from a scholarly perspective. Manul ~ talk 02:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

What about a formulation like "typically described as 'skeptical' in the mainstream press but as 'denialist' in the academic literature"? I think AQFN is broadly correct about the press (though some of those sources are a bit dodgy, e.g., American Thinker) and this deserves mention alongside the academic view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems like key ideas are being missed. This thread I keep mentioning is about how even scholarly sources sometimes use "climate skepticism" to refer to climate change denialism. We care about identifying the phenomenon of climate change denialism, not about identifying a word. We have no independent sources saying that WUWT is just a science blog promoting scientific skepticism. Most likely none exist. We even have a source that explicitly divorces WUWT from scientific skepticism.

Suppose we juxtaposed them, ...a website that scientists and scholars have characterized as supporting climate change denialism, and that is also called "skeptical". What would this convey to the reader? There would be the implied suggestion that these are opposing viewpoints, when our sources say that they are the same. We might be suggesting scientific skepticism, which is contrary to at least one source.

There is every indication that this is only about avoiding the word "denialism". Apparently it is like the terms pseudoscience and pseudohistory -- scholars use them, but they are viscerally hated by proponents of works so labeled. If "climate change contrarianism" or "climate change renegades" were used everywhere in the literature then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. I once cited a Nature article that used contrarianism, but there were no takers. The offer is still out there. Manul ~ talk 06:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"Contrarianism" is not sufficient or accurate.

Here is a source characterizing the blog as "denialist", and I'm sure there are more.

And here's an even better one, by notable climatologist Michael E. Mann.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I now see that Mann's book had already been used, but somewhat strangely not for the material most relevant to this issue, which I've now added.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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

• IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
• The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
• Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
• Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
• Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
• Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
• Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
• Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
• The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
• Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".

Google Scholar Totals:

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

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

I think by excluding papers that are behind paywalls, you have effectively eliminated the most reliable sources. Remember there is WP:Resource request] for you to use if there are reliable sources you cannot get access to. Please try this again. We have, for example, a number of excellent sources that are mentioned on the talkpage that you don't include here at all. By contrast, it seems that you've included a number of sources in your "random sample" that aren't as good as the ones mentioned on the talkpage. jps (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with WP:Resource Request request, but I will check it out and report back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed resolution for Watts

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

No, sorry. We're not putting fringe viewpoints into the lead. This is a WP:BLP for heaven's sake. At most, it belongs somewhere in the article text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you clarify what in that statement is a "fringe viewpoint" and how you made that determination according to WP:FRINGE? jps (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like clarification as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to:

• First, in order to answer the question of what is WP:FRINGE, we need to examine what the mainstream viewpoint is. Based on two random samplings of reliable sources, the vast, overwhelming majority of reliable sources (i.e. the mainstream viewpoint) describe this blog as "skeptic", not "denier". Even if you combine both random samples, not a single source describes this blog as "denier". Now, I'm not saying that there aren't such sources, but the apparent majority of sources describe the blog as "skeptic", not "denier". Sources which describe this blog as "denier" are so fringe, that out of two random sample sets, not a single source makes such a claim.
• Second, according to Misplaced Pages guidelines, we don't describe someone as a "denier" unless it's widely used by reliable sources. There is no evidence that "denier" is widely used by reliable sources. But there is strong evidenice that "denier" is not widely used by reliable sources.

To put it another way, if we have 10 sources about something, and 9 say one thing, and 1 says something else, you don't cite the oddball source (i.e the fringe minority source), you cite the majority.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no way that your original research can be used to determine what is or is not fringe. You need sources to prove that. If you write a paper that is published and can be used to prove your point, then we can consider it. But your claim that your samplings were "random" and that this helps you figure out determine what is fringe or not is not how we determine what is or isn't fringe.

The majority of reliable sources, as demonstrated above, do describe Watts' blog as advocating what we at Misplaced Pages call global warming denialism. Even many of the sources you list do that.

I call shenanigans and ask you to stop misusing wikijargon in POV-pushing agenda-driven ways.

jps (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@jps: I'm afraid that you don't seem to understand what WP:OR is, and the claim that "The majority of reliable sources, as demonstrated above" is laughable given all the above sources support the exact opposite of what you claim. As for "POV-pushing agenda-driven", I'd love to know what agenda you think I'm pushing. Here's my agenda: I believe that we should follow WP:NPOV and treat fringe claims per WP:FRINGE. Again, if 9 sources say one thing, and 1 source says something else, you go with the mainstream viewpoint, not the fringe/insignificant minority. And I'm sorry, but if you can't actually put forth a rationale argument why should ignore reliable sources, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, there's little more I can say here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the problems is that in the academic literature "skepticism" and "denial" often are used synonymously with regard to climate change. So trying to draw a distinction between the two is artificial. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Good. Then perhaps you will back off your insistence to violate WP:WTW by not using a contentious label unless widely used by reliable sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The attempt to use "random samples" and other arbitrary measures to dismiss the scholarly consensus on the matter is not compliant with policy.

Unless an exhaustive survey of sources is carried out in order to determine WEIGHT, DUE/UNDUE, etc., it is readily apparent that climate change denialism or the like is a frequent characterization applied by scholarly and scientific RS. Accordingly, including said characterization clearly does not violate any Misplaced Pages policy; in fact, it is practically compulsory according to RS and NPOV. I agree that it is a question of style rather than substance.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 08:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by AQFK's unwillingness to acknowledge that the sources point to global warming denialism as being the primary ideology that the blog supports. WP:Source counting is not the right way forward. Reading and understanding the sources is. jps (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@jps: I don't think you've read WP:Source counting very carefully. It's just an essay (which carries no weight) and you've mistaken the horse and the cart. Specifically, it cautions against using sources to bolster an argument. It does not caution against using sources to form an argument. Surely, you see the difference, right? Let me be perfectly explicit:

• If you form a conclusion and then try to find sources that validate conclusion up, that's bad.
• If you find empirical evidence first, and then base conclusions on the evidence, that's good.

Surely, you see the difference, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Can you please tell me where there was an "attempt to use "random samples" and other arbitrary measures to dismiss the scholarly consensus on the matter"? This is a very bold statement, so I hope you have evidence to back up such a serious accusation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@AQFK: You have used the random samplings in a manner such as to impart authority thereto, and ignored the peer-reviewed book by a bonafide climatologist, Mann. Arzel has referred to a personal dispute between Watts and Mann, but has not responded to my query for specifics or sources, and PG has arbitrarily stated that Arzel is correct. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice a specific request. However, it is duly noted. Mann has made specific attacking statement against Watts, it is in his book. Watts has made specific statements about Mann, there is really no reason to go into depth as it is pretty clear. Arzel (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You are continuing to avoid the main point which is that WUWT is a blog that is sympathetic to global warming denialism. How we explain that to the reader is what we need to decide. jps (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

October Surprise conspiracy theory

October Surprise conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The idea that Reagan struck a deal with the Iranians to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran. While there are plenty of reliable sources discussing this theory, our article could use a few extra eyes to weed out some of the questionable sources. - Location (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears as though this may have been discussed previously here. See "Consortium News" at October Surprise conspiracy theory. - Location (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The Day After Roswell

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

Per Misplaced Pages:Notability (books), yes. The story of the book (not necessarily the book itself) is quite interesting, not that this supports notability per se. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The book attracted some notable criticism , which probably belongs in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A couple news blurbs regarding Strom Thurmond being duped into writing the forward: . -Location (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Men Who Stare at Goats

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

Yosef Ben-Jochannan

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

Ages in Chaos

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

John Lear

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

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

Ironically the first external link has some of the best info (though it's a bit unclear whether it qualifies as an RS) but there are plenty of book hits too. Obviously the current version is UFOlogist trash. Mangoe (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

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

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

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

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

Yeah I mean this NB is for fringe theories of different fields, and the only thing fringe about this debacle is that AIG supports creationism. But that doesn't seem to be the problem here. What exactly is your stance, though? This section should be removed per WP:UNDUE? I've heard of this exchange/lawsuit elsewhere outside of wiki, I'm pretty sure it does have coverage. Let's see if I can find any...Yep! Here are some WP:RSes that cover the passage above, maybe it should be cleaned up, made coherent, etc., but it definitely is WP:Notable, in my opinion.--Shibbolethink 13:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

References

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution