Saw on today's "Did you know..." "that pharmacologist Li Lianda won a national science award for his research on the traditional Chinese medical concept of blood stasis?"
Uh... WP:MEDRS, please? The Sciencenet.cn is merely reprinting from the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, which exists to promote TCM. Bensky and Gamble's Chinese Herbal Medicine is from Eastland Press, a publisher of works on Osteopathy.
I just saw this. The China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences exists to research TCM using modern scientific methods, and is where Tu Youyou conducted her research on artemisinin which won the Nobel Prize. Tu Youyou, in fact, succeeded Li Lianda as chief scientist of the academy. In any case, the DYK only says Li won a prize for his research, which is completely factual, and does not make any medical claim. -Zanhe (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
"They’re among the nation’s premier medical centers, at the leading edge of scientific research. Yet hospitals affiliated with Yale, Duke, Johns Hopkins, and other top medical research centers also aggressively promote alternative therapies with little or no scientific backing. They offer 'energy healing' to help treat multiple sclerosis, acupuncture for infertility, and homeopathic bee venom for fibromyalgia. A public forum hosted by the University of Florida’s hospital even promises to explain how herbal therapy can reverse Alzheimer’s. (It can’t.)... Some hospitals have built luxurious, spa-like wellness centers to draw patients for spiritual healing, homeopathy, and more. And they’re promoting such treatments for a wide array of conditions, including depression, heart disease, cancer, and chronic pain. Duke even markets a pediatric program that suggests on its website that alternative medicine, including 'detoxification programs' and 'botanical medicines,' can help children with conditions ranging from autism to asthma to ADHD. 'We’ve become witch doctors,' said Dr. Steven Novella, a professor of neurology at the Yale School of Medicine and a longtime critic of alternative medicine."
As our article on Alternative medicine says, "The scientific consensus is that alternative therapies either do not, or cannot, work. In some cases laws of nature are violated by their basic claims; in others the treatment is so much worse that its use is unethical. Alternative practices, products, and therapies range from only ineffective to having known harmful and toxic effects." --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
And since when is Wikipedia a reliable source? That statement is ridiculously overbroad and shouldn't be in the article. Some alternative medicine fits that description, other things are simply unproven to date and need to be considered in light of best evidence to date, good or bad. Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying my best to think of a "thing" that is "simply" unproven "to date" that falls under the umbrella of "alternative medicine". jps (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Phage therapy, vitamin megadoses, grains of paradise… it's not hard to find treatments where the jury's still out on their efficacy. The corollary of "if alternative medicine is proven to work it's just medicine" is that on rare occasions, the alternative remedies do turn out to work. ‑ Iridescent 21:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Phage therapy is not an alternative medicine. Orthomolecular medicine speaks for itself as basically debunked. I'm not sure what jury has been even called to study (*squints*) digestive effects(?) of grains of paradise. Color me unimpressed with your list. jps (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I fear we're going to see a lot more of this until we see less of this. I recently had an e-mail exchange with the licensing board for acupuncturists in the State of Massachusetts about what standards they had for medical claims (as I was complaining about a practice that was advertising a cure for cancer through acupuncture). The answer they gave was that they had no standards at all. They claimed it was beyond the remit of the licensing board for acupuncturists if an acupuncturist made medical claims that were patently untrue. It was, according to them, up to the State Attorney General to determine when someone was practicing medicine without a license or engaging in false advertising. This is a governing board for the practice! jps (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Licensing boards are bound by statute, jps. They are given a certain level of authority and are just as vulnerable for doing too much or too little. Don't confuse practitioners who volunteer their time for a small stipend or non-specialist licensing board bureaucrats with scientists. If you have a beef, their advice was sound -- take it to their attorney general. Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Licensing boards are allowed (or, in some cases, required) to revoke licenses when fraud is demonstrated. By passing the buck, the board representative is exposing their racket for what it is and, by extension, setting themselves up for legal liability in the inevitable situation that someone who is harmed by these false claims ends up suing. jps (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
What do you want Wikipedia to do about it? TFD (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a good question. The best we can hope to do is to make sure that ALTMED topics stick to peer-reviewed journal articles in high-quality journals. This is has been harder and harder to do as of late. jps (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
WP has already got ARBCOM sanctions in place for ALTMED topics. It's enough. In fact, it's a bit too much, but it certainly doesn't need to be any more draconian. Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Welcome tot he weird and wacky world of quackademic medicine. Still, it could be worse. There could be a corrupt and aggressively incompetent narcissist in the most powerful job in the world... Guy (Help!) 01:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey! Quit talking about Jimbo that way! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I thought he meant Putin, but Putin is competent of course. EEng 01:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, there is no real person who fits JzG's description. Even from the wording, you can see it was a hypothetical dystopian scenario. Phew! --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to note: Peer review is no longer a good criteria for a RS for health related content. We now have and apply consistently WP:MEDRSLittleolive oil (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
LOLWUT?! Just to note that peer review is only described in positive terms in the MEDRS guideline, so it's unclear why you would claim that it is no longer a "good criteria". Of course, it's problematic if you get someone who is a true believer to review a paper written by another true believer, but that's why it's important to use high-quality journals and not to cherrypick sources. I tire of the game-playing by fringe advocates such as yourself jps (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Peer review in high quality journals on its own is not a criteria for inclusion in any article and such peer reviewed studies are a primary source. MEDRS rejects primary sources in most instances and prefers systematic reviews, academic and professional books, and so on which are secondary sources. MEDRS depends on the mainstream positions as established by these reviews/textbooks. Not sure why citing the Wikipedia position on MEDRS is a fringe position.Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I think you have confused "peer-review" with "primary source". jps (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Peer review studies on their own as in, are not part of say, a systematic review, are primary sources. As studies included in a systematic review they could be considered part of a secondary source. Per Wikipedia: "A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made." Littleolive oil (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it's worth emphasizing this or not, but I repeat, primary sources are NOT the same thing as peer review. jps (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
No they're not. Why are you repeating something no one said. Peer review alone is NOT a criteria for a RS per MEDRS. A peer reviewed study can be a primary source but no one said peer review equals primary source. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
MEDRS is just a perversion of NPOV to "mainstream western medicine POV". It would be nice if WP could also report on alternatives neutrally, but MEDRS doesn't allow that. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Fascinating contention, but we can leave the arguments over what "neutrality" actually means for another time. We fought some years ago over whether it was appropriate to include nutters beliefs in articles about cosmology, I recall. Thankfully, the radical "NPOV" crowd, of which you were a member if I recall correctly, did not win. It is best that Wikipedia ape the WP:MAINSTREAM for want of any consistent way to explain things "neutrally" that divorces themselves from an academic perspective (mainstream, western, or otherwise). jps (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Just as science is impeded by its closed-minded ban on making stuff up, Wikipedia is impeded by its closed-minded rejection of sources that make stuff up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
In my understanding, part of the historical background to what we have now was the Andrew Wakefield affair. That's a circumstance where indulging in WP:GEVAL has serious real-world consequences, given the reach of Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
"Mainstream Western medicine" is the term used to describe medicine which is tested and constantly evaluated using the scientific method, by people who sell "medicine" that isn't. It's truly bizarre that people allow superstition to stand alongside science in this way. Where are all the "alternative engineers" building bridges that don't adhere to mainstream Western reductionist science? Guy (Help!) 22:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
"Mainstream Western medicine" is also the term used to designate the practice of scientific medicine by those who do it. It's a completely neutral term. It is the mainstream, it is basically derived from Western science, and it is medicine. "Medicine" on the other hand is in practice a very general term for anything that people do that they think might help them. I'll just note that the term "Mainstream Western medicine" would also have been used 2 or 3 centuries ago for the practice of physicians at the time, who also thought that their practice was based upon science. Perhaps we should be rather saying "Current Mainstream Western medicine" DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Text/sources being removed re: "Scientists have unsuccessfully attempted to reconcile the flood narrative with physical findings in geology and palaeontology." Eyes needed on edit war. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Still having a lot of trouble with practicing acupuncturists who refuse to admit that they have a COI whitewashing the article. The whitewashing ranges from heavy-handed to subtle. Dealing with this is like *cough* being poked with tiny needles... :( More eyes needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Given that a majority of editors at the RfC do not think that practicing acupuncturists necessarily have a COI when editing acupuncture, I suggest focusing on undoing any POV-pushes rather than accusing people of COIs. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Given the policy concerns, which appear completely ignored by those voting for "no coi", I think it's good to remember consensus is not a vote.
Seek bans and blocks from ArbEnf if no one will do so because of the COI problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
In spite of posting about this subject every few months or so, again today I reverted more of the same apologetics that keep getting shoehorned into the AAH article (as well as a weird replacement of a scientist with a filmmaker).
It would be good to get some more people to monitor this page.
Not to mention this revert done. This is like a months-long slow-motion edit conflict with @Mvaneech:. I thought we had resolved this last year, but apparently not. jps (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I've got it on my watch list now. Thanks for keeping an eye on this one. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I am now watching it as well. In the spirit of "I scratch your back you scratch mine", anyone reading this is invited to weigh in on the discussions happening on my talk page. Besides, whoever dies with the most talk page watchers wins. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
If the Daily Express says aliens may have built the Great pyramid, it must be true, right?
Christians are persecuted in Denmark. This fringe opinion has been placed in the article "Persecution of Christians"(permalink). Attribution is given, but again the problems exist: A)too fringe opinion to be inserted, even with attribution B)Denmark, a safe heaven for religious freedom, is portrayed as a country where Muslims are oppressing Christian, which is a ridiculous pov. I did google-searched the term "persecution in Denmark" and the results are mostly related with (real) Jewish persecution during WWII. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm on it, but the Europe-focused islamophobes are a particularly frustrating subset of Wikipedia to deal with so I make no promises. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
You're "on it", meaning what, edit-warring like mad section blanking using this  as an argument? Khirurg (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Regenery is a fringe source. And Dr. K is over the 3RR brightline so just whom are you calling an edit warrior? Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Is Deutsche Welle a fringe source too? Also, no one broke 3RR, so slow down. You're not helping yourself by making wild accusations. Khirurg (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Did I say that? Also, it's "Regnery", not "Regenery". Khirurg (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Obviously some wild POV-pushing was going on there, with primary sources given undue weight to promote an agenda. Our articles need to be based on secondary sources, WP:REDFLAG is flying here, and remember WP:VNOTSUFF. Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It’s also outside the defined scope of the article, and should be removed, along with other contemporary content. Roxy, the dog.wooF 17:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Khirurg the two of you are tag-teaming and are over 3RR taken together. Furthermore 3 reverts is not mandatory to show edit warring. This is especially the case when you show battleground behaviour like slapping the edit warring notice on another editor's page after they perform a single revert. So I'd suggest you consider self-reverting the WP:PROFRINGE content out and then we can put this mess to bed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
And I suggest you drop the wild unfounded accusations before you get WP:BOOMERANGed. Khirurg (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
You've already asked for that at the WP:AN/3RR thread. I'd suggest you won't get it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This is going nowhere. I'll reiterate my core point: the additions about modern Denmark are WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims which you are supporting with a WP:FRINGE source and an opinion piece from a conservative think-tank. My section blanking was not, as you described it, disruptive but rather to bring the article in line with WP:PROFRINGE and your subsequent WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct has been galling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The only thing that's "galling" are your wild unfounded accusations, and shrill uncompromising tone. Not to mention the hypocrisy of accusing other editors of tag-teaming, when one could easily accuse you and another editor of the same thing. Khirurg (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────┘ I feel the scope of this article should be defined as persecutions that have some level of official backing. What is described in those sources relating to Denmark is more properly considered violence against Christians by individuals. Writers labeling that sort of thing "persecution" are being tendentious imo. Denmark is an officially Christian country with a state church, saying persecution of Christians happens there is misleading.Smeat75 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
OK< do any RS say support the removed text?Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Not as far as I'm concerned; they're using a book about imigration from Regnery press, which is a fringe right-wing political press that mostly publishes the likes of Dinesh D'Sousa, and an opinion piece from a conservative American think tank that is operated by the Rand corporation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Then this may need taking to RSN, I am not sure that political bias disqualifies a source.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Except that's clearly not the case, as anyone who has ever tried to insert something from AK Press into an article can attest. Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This is definitely fringe stuff—appears to be the usual Fox News talking points dressed up as fact when discussing Scandinavia. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, on closer inspection, this whole article appears to need a serious audit. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there an article on persecution by Christians? That would be very long... Guy (Help!) 19:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I keep asking the same thing about whether there's an article on mass killings in capitalist countries but for some reason people seem to think Anti-communist mass killings is the same thing. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Is this edit justified? Does anybody know more about this? He seems to be at least a conspiracy theorist, but I could not find any good sources quickly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
It isn't on my watchlist, but spookily, I've seen that before. Experts in one field making huge and unevidenced claims in another are difficult, but this one seems clear enough. -Roxy, the dog.wooF 07:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the cited source, and it certainly doesn't call him an AIDS denialist - it's saying that would be a naïve interpretation of his views, and that really he was arguing that the search for a cure to AIDS had been politicised. I don't know anything more than that, but from the source alone it would appear that the edit is justified. GirthSummit (blether) 07:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The edit is a bit of a whitewash. The cited source may not call him an AIDS denialist, but he certainly was one. It's just a matter of finding sources. For example, in "Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy" by Seth C. Kalichman, Appendix B, p. 182, we read, "The late Serge Lang is a well-known and well-respected mathematician. He was on the faculty of Yale University and became a vocal activist for academic freedom. He also spent time at UC Berkeley and came to know Duesberg. Lang decended into HIV/AIDS denialism and protested what he saw as the unjust treatment of Duesberg. He conducted a flawed analysis of Duesberg's grant failings and called into question the entire NIH review process. He also caused a bit of commotion on the Yale campus when AIDS speakers visited. He protested the appointment of former Global AIDS Program Director at the World Health Organization Michael Merson as Yale's Dean of Public Health and launched a series of letter writing campaigns to Yale administrators about the role the university was playing [in] the global AIDS conspiracy." In Serge Lang's obituary published in the San Diego Union Tribune on 6 October 2005, , and in the New York Times obituary of 25 September 2005 identical passages note that "Controversially, beginning in the mid-1990s, Dr. Lang sided with skeptics who doubted that AIDS was caused by human immunodeficiency virus, arguing that the scientific evidence connecting them was weak and faulty. He criticized the denial of research money to Peter Duesberg, a skeptic on the HIV-AIDS link. He was never convinced otherwise. A week before his death, he mailed his latest file, a dozen pages of letters and e-mail messages about two papers he had written about the AIDS debate that had been rejected by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ." Our article goes on to say Lang (in 2006!) "maintained that the prevailing scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS has not been backed up by reliable scientific research" - a position which is pretty much the definition of AIDS denialism. - Nunh-huh 09:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Dingonek deletion review
A deletion review has been opened for Dingonek. Interested editors may join the discussion here. –dlthewave☎ 23:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
So was the opinion of the closer that local consensus (or in this case, lack of, if you're just counting heads) can override a guideline like WP:FRINGE? WP:LOCALCONSENSUS seems like it would apply there. --tronvillain (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't mentioned in the closing statement, but when I brought it up on their talk page they said that "a guideline doesn't override consensus" and "I think the way to progress this issue as it keeps coming up at AfD may be to try to get agreement on notability guidelines for these sort of subjects." This struck me as odd, since the existing W:FRINGE guideline represents agreement that has already been gotten. –dlthewave☎ 00:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I am uncertain if this is the correct forum, but the fringey Mutual UFO Network could use an eye or two. A new, SPA editor (plus an IP, likely the same person based upon the similarity of added content) has of late been making promotional additions to the page. For whatever it is worth, and as as I mentioned on the editor's Talk page, the editor's username suggests a COI with the organization. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Bibliographies of fringe writers
There have been some disputes recently about whether articles on fringe authors should include a "bibliography" of their fringe works. This is happening again at
And note also that the addition was by an account named JohnLauritsen so there may be a COI aspect here too. In general the approach we seem to take is to list fringe books only when there is coverage of them in secondary sources (roughly what happens at, e.g., Deepak Chopra). Maybe it would be good to codify this somewhere. Meanwhile, eyes are needed at John Lauritsen where a "bibliography" of AIDS denialism is now being edit-warred in. Alexbrn (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Is this biography even warranted? It seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG-level works are lacking. Mere mention that the person exists is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and we have only one of his books with an article currently. jps (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The unexamined assumption in Alexbrn's comment is that Lauritsen's books are all "fringe". I see no evidence of that. Lauritsen's books cover a range of different subjects and they are not all about AIDS. Lauritsen has received coverage for his work on multiple subjects and it seems obvious to me that we should have an article about him. This noticeboard is not really the place for that discussion, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
"I see no evidence of that" ← So, poppers cause AIDS and Frankenstein wasn't written by Mary Shelley. Right. Alexbrn (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You removed the list of all of Lauritsen's books based on the unsupported assertion that they are all "fringe" in some manner. You have at no time presented evidence that each of those fifteen books is "fringe". You are the one making the claim so you need to support it with evidence. Prattle such as your comment above doesn't qualify. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The section title is "Bibliographies of fringe writers". Which Lauritsen is. AIDS denialism isn't "prattle"; it's quite serious. Alexbrn (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, would you please present evidence that each one of Lauritsen's fifteen books is fringe? Your comment above is not evidence. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
No, because that is not what I am asking about. Read the section title. I might as well ask you to provide evidence that each and every work is respectable. Alexbrn (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The only thing your comments indicate is that you do not, in fact, have evidence that Lauritsen's books are all fringe. That being the case, you have no justification for removing mention of them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah I remember him. Frankenstein not written by Mary Shelley dude. I swear, if this turns into another Shakespeare Authorship Question-like battleground, I am going to set fire to my PC. But to address the point, if an author has multiple books that have been reviewed/commented on by others, regardless of the content, then like any other author they belong in a bibliography. If they have one or two books which have got attention, and the rest are self-published-disppeared-into-black-hole-without-notice. Then it very likely doesnt. AFAIK Lauritsen could go either way. He really is only noted for his AIDS-not caused by HIV theory, and the Frankenstein nonsense. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The "bibliography" (actually a list of titles) that has been added is largely of self-published stuff (the Pagan Press is Lauritsen's outfit). Alexbrn (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, I ask, are we sure he is widely known in WP:RS? I am trying to find mention of him as a person and am coming up short. Just because Camile Paglia favorably reviews a book of yours (rather off-handedly) does not mean you deserve a Wikipedia article. What prominent third-party works attest to his notability? jps (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
In this particular case the problem is there is probably something notable in this fringe morass. We've ended up with this article on the guy, rather than have an article on the fringe book(s). See here. Maybe this was a mistake? Alexbrn (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Unless notability is clearly established the article does not belong on Wikipedia. I could be missing something but so far nothing notable.Littleolive oil (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Well its two morass's. The HIV/AIDS rubbish and the Frankenstein one (which does have the benefit of having some evidence behind it, if not particularly compelling). There is an article on The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein which is about as good as its going to get. Only in death does duty end (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I tried an EBSCO search for "John Lauritsen". It produced some 36 search results, which proved to include 21 unique articles. While that is comparatively modest, it certainly shows that Lauritsen's work has received notice. Again, to be clear about it, the articles are not only about AIDS; they concern a range of different things, and they discuss Lauritsen's work over decades. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:LOTSOFGHITS is unlikely to be persuasive at any AfD. Has the guy himself (not one or other of his books) got any in-depth coverage in RS? A initial search is drawing a blank for me ...will keep looking ... Alexbrn (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
A disingenuous response. I didn't argue for keeping the article based on the number of hits. Rather, the articles in question suggest that Lauritsen is notable and "has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time", per WP:NOTE. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
And the RS for this "significant attention" given to the guy (as a person) is ... ? A search result is not an argument for notability. Still looking. Alexbrn (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't suggest that there was a single source showing that he has received "significant attention"; I suggested that the 21 articles I found on EBSCO taken together show that. Lauritsen is mainly notable as an author so the existence of multiple reviews of his books certainly suggests his notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────┘To write a biography we need sources which discuss the person, not just citing things the person authored. Are there any sources that attest to, for example, where this person was born, where this person was educated, what major influences in this person's life were? I think I might be able to dig up 21 articles that cite my publications. I am definitely not notable according to Wikipedia's standards. jps (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
After my recent digital book tour I probably have 21 articles about my book. I am also not Wikipedia notable (I sincerely hope). Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
... I don't understand. If someone is notable enough for an article, why wouldn't you want a bibliography? Even if the person's entire notability stems from writing books for crazy people, why wouldn't you list the crazy-people books that made that crazy author notable? ApLundell (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Because we are supposed to be a respectable encyclopedia reflecting accepted knowledge. If some crank has self-published a load of books in a way which no serious source would grant bibliographic treatment, then why should we? Even for "proper" scientists who typically publish scores or hundreds of publications, we do not give bibliographies. Alexbrn (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
If a person's books are what make them notable, it's normal for their article to have a bibliography. Or at least an abridged one if they're especially prolific. It is not normal to require the books to pass some kind of judgement of quality by wikipedia editors.
(If this person's notability does not stem from the books he's authored, what does it stem from?) ApLundell (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
For HIV/AIDS, the notoriety of his views as expressed in his books and through other channels. In general what's been done in some similar cases is to (yes) abridge the bibliography to include only works which have garnered some decent secondary coverage. We know what to do with "proper" writers, but for fringe proponents there is no guidance ... hence this section. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd say that his notoriety arises from his role as a gay activist in the 1970s. And the books by and large spring from that. He's not famous as a writer, he was a writer because of his politics, and wrote because of his activism. Like all politically active people, he had some good ideas (needle exchanges), and some bad or ridiculous ideas (AIDS doesn't exist). I don't think the article as it stands makes his activism very clear and it probably should pay more attention to his politics. I would think a list of works would be informative rather than in any way promotional. - Outerlimits (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Since it appears the list was added by Lauritsen himself, I suspect there is a promotional aspect. Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It was a perfectly reasonable addition and it's irrelevant who made it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
What we need is some way to decide what books are notable enough to list, some authors write many books, and we don't list them all, only the ones that are notable (we should use RS to establish the notability of the books, not OR). We also must not engage in OR and POV by selectively including books based on a judgement of the particular books. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I'm looking for - perhaps to be enshrined in WP:FRINGE; bibliographies in these cases should be selective according to some criteria (covered in RS e.g.). Alexbrn (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Whats FRINGE got to do with it? mainstream writers also publish long lists of books that would be clumsy to list, can't we use the same notability criteria regardless of the book' content? Tornado chaser (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
For a writer recognized as a proper writer (say J.D. Salinger) I think it would be perfectly proper to have a comprehensive bibliography, mirroring the approach RS would take, which could include even obscure works. The issue is more with figures who are (fringe) advocates first and who just happen to write books / produce videos etc. as a means of advocacy. So do we want a complete filmography for all David Icke's videos for example? At the moment I don't there think there is any guidance on how to treat these kinds of situation. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
...mirroring the approach RS would take... so couldn't we just base the notability of the books on RS? Having different criteria depending on the content of the books seems inconsistent with NPOV. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That sounds sensible, but the problem we have (coming back to the start of this thread) is the dumping of complete bibliographies into the articles of fringe figures on the argument that they're a "writer" so deserve to have a full bibliography. Alexbrn (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Well can't we just remove any books that are not discussed in RS? regardless of how fringe the writer is? Tornado chaser (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes... nothing says we must list every book an author has ever written. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate facts. The issue here is relevance. For an author known for writing books on fringe topics, we can (and should) focus on those books that are relevant to what he/she is known for.. (ie the books about fringe topics). If a book has never been discussed by reliable sources (even to debunk it), we don’t have to mention it. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable step, Tornado chaser. If a book/article/whatever is not a RS because it is self-published, away it goes. Regarding Alexbrn's larger issue, removing all SPS will eliminate the "full bibliography" concern, and I suspect that would apply to a great many other fringey "writers" as well. I recognize it would/will take a fair amount of mundane editing work to parse such lists...but that's why we get paid the big money, right? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I just removed the SP items from the bibliography, with the result being a list of one. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@JoJo Anthrax: I think you misinterpreted what I was saying, I meant we only include books that RS talk about regardless of whether the books themselves are RS. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Outerlimits: I think your argument is so far the most compelling. Do we have good sources which document this person's activism so we can focus the biography on that? jps (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Lauritsen's life and career as an activist are discussed in "Gay Liberation in New York: Year One", published in Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide; Jul/Aug2009, Vol. 16 Issue 5, p27-29. Note that while the article is by Lauritsen himself, it is published in a gay journal independent of him. The article is available through EBSCO. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
No, we aren't in the business of using articles written as self-promotion to source biographies. jps (talk)
You have no evidence of any kind that the article was written as "self-promotion". It would obviously be wrong to base a biographical article on sources written solely by its subject; there is no reason why we cannot use such sources in addition to others. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure AfD readers will see through your ruse. As to why you are working so desperately to promote this person, I can only guess. Perhaps you've got some vested interest? jps (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Nope. You might want to consider that false accusations of COI can be considered harassment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Though that doesn't seem to have actually been an accusation of COI, that kind of speculative question doesn't help anything. --tronvillain (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It would help if people could explain their motivations for content curation. In this situation, it seems that FKC seems particularly attached to sources written by Lauritsen. jps (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
While I don't have to explain my motivations for doing anything whatever, I will in this case: my motives are to improve the encyclopedia. In general, people's motives for making edits are irrelevant; what matters for those of us concerned with improving the encyclopedia is whether the edits are any good or not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Leaving aside histrionics and impossible standards of rightness for the time being, the problem as I see it is that FKC is arguing for inclusion of content on the basis of a lot of sources which make mere mention a person rather than being about the person. The absolute best reference that was offered here was to a two-page autobiography. The current article is written as a review of his writing, not about his person. I think the issue lies with whether the encyclopedia is better off with an article that is sourced only to reviews. jps (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
In addition, one can note articles about Lauritsen's activism related to AIDS in Body Politic and the New York Native. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Not very extensive ones. I'll wait to see if Outerlimits responds with some new sources, but this response makes me think it is unlikely that this article would survive an AfD. jps (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Not what I said. I said it should have been deleted then. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Frankenstein authorship contd.
(I've started a new section on this because it's distinct from the above general question about bibiographies). Digging around a bit further it seems we have quite a bit of iffy Frankenstein authorship stuff. I've trimmed Shelley Unbound: Discovering Frankenstein's True Creator but this looks awfully fringey. Alexbrn (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, there is on Wikipedia. I don't believe it's a "question" that exists in academia. Alexbrn (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
WP has articles on many things that don't exist in academia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I seem to recall hearing about this concept back in the 70's.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Knew it [] "novel actually had dual authorship in that "Shelley worked on Frankenstein at every stage", though oddly I thought it was Byron I had read about.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Misogynists be crazy I guess? I mean I only minored in English but I took every course that touched on the history of SF/F and had Frankenstein on my syllabus about five times back in University. The "question" of whether Shelley was the author was never raised. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It's a "question" in the same way there's an "Obama's nationality question" or a "Moon landing authenticity question".Sure, proponents exist - but this is classic WP:FRINGE stuff not really treated properly here. Alexbrn (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, but as I said this has been around awhile, and I cannot answer for why your course did not cover this. Its not as if its unknown [], [] Now I have not seen here what exactly the issue is, how are we not treating this as a fringe theory?.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
There's also The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein, and yes, this is clearly a fringe theory and that Frankenstein authorship question article has terrible parts. In Wikipedia's voice we have: "Authors have examined and investigated Percy Bysshe Shelley's scientific knowledge and experimentation, his two Gothic horror novels published in 1810 and 1811, his atheistic worldview, his antipathy to church and state, his 1818 Preface to Frankenstein, and his connection to the secret anti-Catholic organization, the Illuminati. These revelations showed that the novel was based on Shelley's life, background, his readings such as John Milton's Paradise Lost, Ruins of Empires (1791) by Constantin François de Chassebœuf, comte de Volney, which also informed "Ozymandias", also published in 1818, Sir Humphry Davy's Elements of Chemical Philosophy (1812), a textbook which Percy Bysshe Shelley owned, and the works of Dr. Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin, whom Shelley had earlier cited as a major influence in Queen Mab (1813), his views on religion, his poetic style, and his themes and ideas." --tronvillain (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Yikes - yes! The article is mostly original research based on primary sources, advancing a fringe POV. It's a monster. Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
But who is the real monster here? The article, or the people who created it? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Proposal - Storm the Castle.
An Angry Mob is being organised, Admins have authorised a donation of six groats for weaponry, specifically flaming torches and pitchforks. Acupuncturists welcome (they have their own specialist weapons.) The Baron gets home from work at 7:30, could members of the mob please make their way to the castle by 7:45. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog.wooF 18:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
A book which seems to have been received with snorting contempt by serious scholars - which fact is getting push-back from reverting editors here. More eyes might help. Alexbrn (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Again. I'd take it to RfD if the article is under question as notable. I'd note the publisher and author seem reputable enough. If we took out every publication on WP that receives poor reviews we'd have a lot fewer articles. I don't think Fringe enters into this. What matters is notability. We write about much that is fringe to the mainstream. Fringe does not disqualify an article from WP; lack of notability does.Littleolive oil (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Still wondering if it's notable, but we don't want a WP:PROFRINGE article that misrepresents scholarly sources, which are dismissive of this non-scholar's work. Alexbrn (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
To clarify my point above: The neutrality of the content is a second step; first concern is whether the article is notable to begin with. Whether fringe or not does not decide notability. Scott D. de Hart: "Ph.D. (Philosophy, Theology, Law) Wycliffe Hall, the University of Oxford Collaborative Research Programme Coventry University, England. Professor of Philosophy, Theology, Humanities, English Literature Professional Experience: Lecturer, Credentialed teacher, Conference Speaker, Consultant for radio, television, newspaper contributor, and Contributor to professional Journals. Co-author and researcher with Dr. Joseph P. Farrell.Littleolive oil (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Just having a Ph.D. doesn't make one a scholar - I was thinking of Duncan Wu's (who is a scholar) comment: "Lauritsen may be a failed scholar and de Hart no scholar at all, but ..." (see: Duncan Wu . 30 Great Myths about the Romantics. WIley-Blackwell. p. 216. ISBN 978-1118843260). Alexbrn (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
All scholars are not created equal. The question is, is he scholar enough and given his education I'd say he is. Further, academics criticizing other academics is pretty common place. I don't place a whole lot of credence on such criticism. Looking for one academic to determine the worth of another is somewhat risky and not likely to give a clear picture of the situation and its not up to us as WP editors, seems to me, to look that way to determine quality of the scholar simply because most editors are not capable of making those kinds of distinctions. You may be, but most others are not and I'm not sure we can take the word of one editor in such a situation. I'll leave it at that with no further input here and leave this to you and others to decide. Littleolive oil (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
In point of fact it is absolutely for us to consider these matters in assessing source reliability and whether something is fringe. We have multiple eminent scholars with solid publication records pooh-poohing the work of these guys. Alexbrn (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not talking above about determining whether something is fringe or not, I was talking about determining whether someone is a scholar. I actually don't consider fringe a dirty word. Most information is fringe in its beginning and we can determine fringe based on sources as they appear in the mainstream. The simple fact that Mary Shelley is considered the author by most in relation to those who don't is enough to determine the alternate theory is fringe. In most cases we can determine fringe content just by determining what the mainstream is. Littleolive oil (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
And part of that is looking at the proponents of the views to see whether this is a disagreement within academia, with respected views in opposition, or whether the counter view is coming from a true "fringe". If the "Frankenstein's a man's work" position was held by respected scholars then we'd not call it fringe, the fact that it's coming from advocates apparently with no esteem from within academia is useful for letting us know this stuff is indeed WP:FRINGE.
If one scholar held one position and twenty scholars held another we'd be hard pressed to not label the single scholar's position fringe to the mainstream. In fact, determinations of fringe and sources are more interwoven than what anyone is saying here so this discussion really has no solution as an end. The solution is in the actual determination within an article and its content. And I said I'd leave this alone and so I will...Ack.Littleolive oil (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
An article on wellness in today's London Times is provoking heated debate on whether it's a parody or not. Whatever, it does air some fringey article topics which might be usefully checked out here for compliance with WP:FRINGE. I have for example just found we have an article on the Pomodoro technique and learned about the "secret UFO base" under Es Vedrà. Alexbrn (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi I am Myron
I have five blogs. The key link is LENAPE LAND.
LENAPE LAND is the first stanza on the Norse history (AD 800 - 1600) and links to other posts in the five blogs.
The five blogs are:
LENAPE LAND, The Catholics who spoke Norse called them selves, LENAPE, which means “abide with the pure.”
LENAPE EPIC, which is a page of links to posts of information about North America before the Norse began to paddle their boats into the Mississippi River basln.
LENAPE LEARNING (INDEX), which is a page of links to posts about events after the English invaded.
PARADIGM SHIFT, which are posts that present evidence that the English suppressed the knowledge of Norse in America by omitted all evidence of the LENAPE.
WYNLAND OF WEST, which are posts of the Norse settlement in Minnesota. Minnesota was settled by Norse because the land is the lowest elevation between the Christian Sea (a.k.a. Hudson Bay).
Mydavidpaine (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Mydavidpaine. Please post below the post you're replying to, and not together with the header, as that ruins the header code. I've moved your post and restored the header. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC).
What is going on here? I keep making edits that I believe are valid. Those edits appear on other devices. I am citing the evidence that the English Crown attempted to remove Norumbega from existence. In the right hand column, you should be able to read that the “High and Mighty Prince Charles” did replace “Norumbega” with “New England” in 1616. So Norumbega is NOT a “legendary” settlement. It was a Norse settlement that had its name changed by the English in 1616.
The previous Wikipedia author did NOT reference evidence that Norumbega was “Legendary” or a “somewhat mythical name.” In fact the name Norumbrega is on the map in two places and as valid as any other name.
Another name on the map is “COR TEREALIS” which is authentic because Wikipedia has a reference to “Gaspar Corte-Real.” (Corte-Real and Columbus were Portuguese observers in boats rowed by Norwegians. The English in 1616, who were planning to conquer America, did not want anybody to know that Norse were in America. Thus they called the “Norumbega” map a map of a Mythical Island.”)
By continuing the MYTH, WIkipedia continues the suppression of factual history.
Wikipedia has a LONG TERM PROBLEM.
The 17th century English created a MYTH by suppressing all knowledge of Norse in America, like they did he 1616 map of John Smith.
In the right hand column, you should be able to read that the “High and Mighty Prince Charles” did replace “Norumbega” with “New England” in 1616.
The previous Wikipedia author did NOT reference evidence that Norumbega was “Legendary” or a “somewhat mythical name.” In fact the name Norumbrega is on the map in two places and as valid as any other name.
Another name on the map is “COR TEREALIS” which is authentic because Wikipedia has a reference to “Gaspar Corte-Real.” (Corte-Real and Columbus were Portuguese observers in boats rowed by Norwegians. The English in 1616, who were planning to conquer America, did not want anybody to know that Norse were in America. Thus they called the “Norumbega” map a map of a Mythical Island.”)
By continuing the MYTH, WIkipedia continues the suppressing of factual history.
Wikipedia has a LONG TERM PROBLEM.
The 17th century English created a MYTH by suppressing all knowledge of Norse in America, like they did on the 1616 map of John Smith voyages.
We, all, learned the English MYTH. Nearly every one in the world believes the MYTH.
So, Wikipedia authors do NOT have to provide evidence of statements of “somewhat Mythical.”
Those, who believe the MYTH, will defend the MYTH by taking actions such as re-editing Norumbega to the original text.
Is that what is going on?
If so, please introduce me to the author who keeps suppressing history by omitting it.
We need to settle this editing.
Right. Wikipedia doesn't have "a long term problem". The problem is that you, Mydavidpaine, aren't familiar with the editorial policies aimed at ensuring Wikipedia has quality content. You have a conflict of interest and should not be linking to your own blog. See WP:ELNO and WP:COI. At most, you can suggest such links on the talk page. Unless you are a recognized expert in the field, we cannot use your blog as a source. We can use the secondary sources you cite, but not for the purpose of synthesizing conclusions that those sources don't make themselves. See WP:SYNTHESIS. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
A series of 21 edits to the article on a Texan antivax group which, for example, removed the sourced fact that it started off as a Facebook group (normal for antivax, so not sure why it would be controversial), removed the sourced fact that they are linked to increased levels of unvaccinated students, removed the PMID sourced fact that they engage in fake news and half truths (again, normal for antivax so not a surprise and not controversial), removed the sourced backing of an (unsuccessful) hard line antivax candidate for state senate and so on. Please watchlist this article, experience indicates that this will result in an extended argument. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I was just about to post here, asking for help with the ensuing dispute, but I see JzG beat mo to it. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I dispute parts of JzG's characterization of my edits but this is an issue for the article talk page, as I am trying to avoid starting 2 parallel discussions. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
It is what you do TC. They are not the only ones who see this, as you know. -Roxy, the dog.wooF 16:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
"In the USA, UK and Germany, hundreds of women have been followed through active surveillance since the 1970s. This includes 293 who were vaccinated with rubella-containing vaccine within 6 weeks of their last menstrual period. None of the babies had permanent abnormalities compatible with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) . A small number of babies (around 16) had evidence that they had been exposed to the weakened vaccine virus (from blood tests) but there was no sign that the vaccine had affected the development of the infant."
"Very large measles-rubella vaccination campaigns, run between 2001 and 2008, have targeted women of child-bearing age in South America and Iran     . Comprehensive, prospective surveillance of pregnant women during these campaigns has provided further substantial evidence of the safety of measles and rubella containing vaccines in pregnancy. During these campaigns over 30,000 pregnant women inadvertently received MR vaccine. The vaccine had been given either during pregnancy (the majority were less than 12 weeks pregnant) or up to 30 days before these women had conceived."
"In the above studies about 3000 women were susceptible to rubella, meaning they were not already immune and so at potential risk of the virus passing to the baby. Extensive follow-up of the outcome of these pregnancies was very reassuring. Whilst a very small number of babies were shown to have been exposed to the weakened vaccine virus in the womb, no babies developed Congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). There was also no increase in the risk of miscarriage or stillbirth in pregnant women who were susceptible (non-immune) when they were vaccinated when compared to those protected by prior immunity."
. Yet another antivax trope. I don't actually blame TC for this, I think he just gets his information from the wrong place and is learning slowly that bullshit is not tolerated on Wikipedia. I do blame him for digging in so very often (e.g. at talk:Rope worms). Guy (Help!) 17:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I was not aware that there had been studies of rubella vaccine during pregnancy, in that case let me rephrase my belief on vaccines and autism: There is no credible evidence that vaccines cause autism, and many arguments that they do have either been proven wrong or have no evidence to support them in the first place, autistic enterocolitis, thimerosal, antigenic overload ect have all been refuted. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, the original issue was sourcing in JzG's edits, what I personally think about rubella vaccines is really irrelevant. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Tornado chaser, since you've accused JzG of making ad hominem attacks whenever he points out that your editing pattern shows that you are sympathetic to the anti-vax movement, I would say what you personally think about vaccines is very relevant. Bradv🍁 17:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Well I think they don't cause autism and are safer than the diseases they prevent. JzG has been saying that what I say should just be discounted because of my past edits, that is a bogus argument. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
OK. I can solve this. Here is my official ruling as the King Of Wikipedia:[CitationNeeded] As of midnight tonight (UTC) nobody is allowed to make any reference to any of tornado chaser's previous stated opinions or edits regarding vaccines. We will all WP:AGF and accept his claim that he now believes that vaccines don't cause autism and are safer than the diseases they prevent. For his part, tornado chaser is hereby directed to be very careful to avoid writing any words that even his worst enemy could construe as supporting antivax. This is my official ruling. Anyone who does not abide by it will Face My Terrible Wrath.
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You disobeyed the King Of Wikipedia's[CitationNeeded] ruling. Prepare to be talked to death." --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The WHO should not be encouraging eds to edit Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You have GOT to be fucking kidding me. THAT'S your takeaway? --Calton | Talk 13:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as I am under the impression that off wiki canvasing to encourage (what is in effect) advocacy (and a kind of canvasing) is against our polices.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Encouraging new editors to edit (in accord with the WP:PAGs) is great! That's why the "guerilla skeptics" initiative is so admired (despite its unfortunate name). More neutral editing of fringe topics will only help advance The Project. Alexbrn (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, that article says absolutely nothing about encouraging eds to edit Wikipedia. It just identifies anti-vaxxers as a top health threat. --tronvillain (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
So what has this to do with WP, WP:notaforum? My problem is this sort of thing plays into the hands of those who want to portray Wikipedia as biased, "do not do as a do do as I say" is never a good way to appear fair and balanced, in most peoples eyes. We do ourselves no favours when we treat the other side by a different set of standards as we do ourselves.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The difference is that Wikipedia is a source of information for millions of people, and very few of those are going to read WP:MEDICAL. You can talk about "bias" on political articles or whatever all you wish, but if there are editors arriving here to insert information that (for example) "vaccination causes autism" then our response to them should be very very quick, and very final. We cannot have situations where Wikipedia, through bending over backwards to be "fair", ends up with articles that suggests that there is even a 1% chance that anti-vax propaganda has any relation to the real world. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I am talking about using this noticeboard as a general forum about things that have nothing to do with Wikipedia.15:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
From the top:"Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles of improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories." --tronvillain (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I think SS ought to read posts better to check what they do and don't say, before making silly sweeping statements. It makes him look a little foolish. Oh, and sign your posts. -Roxy, the dog.wooF 15:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
If that is what you think OK, I will bow out now. All I can do now is the very thing I have criticized you lot for doing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
While you are bowing out, could you please stop citing WP:NOTAFORUM when that page clearly says that it applies to articles (article talk pages are also covered by the rule about only discussing improvements to articles) and that is does NOT apply to user talk pages, the reference desks, the help desk, or noticeboards? The top of this page says "Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles of improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It definitely does have something to do with Wikipedia. It gives the reality-based community that hangs out here an obvious watchlist priority. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
DYK: Solfeggio comes from the musical pedagogy of Guido d'Arezzo, who came up with a mechanism for teaching music based on initially hand positions, with the name of each note in the scale based on the first syllable of the stanzas of a hymnus in Ioannem (hymn to St. John) known as ut queant laxis (which all experienced choristers knew by heart, as part of the Gregorian chant):
Ut queant laxis resonare fibris Mira gestorum famuli tuorum, Solve polluti labii reatum, Sancte Iohannes.
The first syllable morphed to "so" rather than "ut", hence solfeggio. Guido was able to demonstrate a choir singing a piece of music they had never seen before, at the Vatican. This was, to put it mildly, a revolution in music. When combined with neumes you had starting note and trajectory, and this became the genesis of Western musical notation. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
JzG, I did not know that, and did not expect to learn about it on a fringe theory noticeboard in a thread about electronic harassment tinfoil hats. Fascinating! Bradv🍁 18:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I learned it from a very interesting programme by Howard Goodall. Given my interest in early music, it stuck with me :-) Guy (Help!) 18:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
We even have an article on it: Solfège. Seems to be the origin of the "do re mi" scale that vocalists use. But I'd like to know what "Solfeggio Waves" and "Solfeggio Energy" are, in that advertisement above. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Watch this video  and WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Arezzo was a hotbed of UFO activity (Aliens Reside Zzo = the sound of a raygun) and Guido composed a chant that could be muttered continuously to jam the mind control frequencies. His musical notation was originally used as a way to share the technique with others without raising suspicion. –dlthewave☎ 20:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Longtime board watchers may remember this person who took extreme umbrage to Wikipedia's use of sources that identified her as a vaccine denier. Well, she hasn't let up with the vaccine denial. I note that our articles haven't really caught up to dealing with this new round of nonsense.