Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fringe theories/Noticeboard page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 6 July 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus, defaulting to keep. |
| This page was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2010. The result of the discussion was WP:SNOW keep. |
Proposed template change
editI'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz talk 13:13, 5 January 2008
FYI - Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism is reactivated
editHello fellow Wikipedians interested in Fringe topics - wanted to let you know that some of us are attempting to revitalize Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. If interested add your name to the participant list and dive in. We just finished 3-month project rewriting skepticism stubs, and we finished 22 pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). We are friendly and happy to work with all skill levels. Sgerbic (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Passionate discussion
editDoes Jilly Juice fit in Kombucha#See_also? Your opinion is welcome at Talk:Kombucha#Spurious_tagging. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Requesting eyes on Talk:Martin Kulldorff
edit@Bon courage has recommended I post here for additional eyes on the topic. I previously posted on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard but don't believe it attracted anyone's attention for additional overview.
Summary: I agree with the overall content of the contested text within the article, but in my opinion it is unencyclopedic and not inline with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy regarding tone and neutrality. This has come up many times on the talk page in separate discussions, but rewording has been blocked in favor of status quo ante bellum repeatedly. My proposed revision was not perfect and can be improved, but I believe that the current text, specifically the first sentence, should be re-written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate, disinterested tone. As multiple editors have had issue with the wording in the past, I believe effort should be made to improve it's overall tone.
You can see the discussion here Talk:Martin Kulldorff#Neutrality and tone on disputed section "Views on COVID-19"
Text in question:
In December 2021 Kulldorff published an error-laden essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he falsely claimed that influenza was more hazardous to children than COVID-19, and on that basis illogically argued against children receiving COVID-19 vaccination. In reality, influenza had been responsible for one child death in the 2020/21 season, while public health mitigation of COVID-19 was in place – COVID-19 had, in contrast, killed more than 1,000. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear the editor who principally made a fuss about this was indef blocked for disruption. Science is not an opinion, so we don't attribute scientific facts per WP:YESPOV. Your various proposals are seeking to attribute reality, which has the unfortunate effect of making this seem like some kind of legitimate dispute where they antivaxxxers have a thoughtful point. Bon courage (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I came across the page Ecoism during new page review. I am not sure what to do about it, if anything. Is it fringe, fluff or perhaps even notable. Comments please. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)