Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

message: Please see: Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing#POVFIGHTER.  Summary: A provision has been added to WP:TE that appears to have implications for this page and editorial activity relating to it. 15:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty moronic and should probably just be removed (I'll try that in a minute). But as it's only a supplement it has no WP:PAG weight and so is not too alarming. What is slightly alarming is how changes like this creep under the radar. Happy New Year! Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  POVFIGHTER 

message: This is next on my to-read list, I have read some related meta-discussions and a draft previously but not the final/current docs.  It's also somewhat controversial, but since it's also related to disinformation I thought I'd share it here (in case I'm not the only one who didn't read it)...
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
—PaleoNeonate – 04:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal code of conduct 

message: Hello 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)
thread_title:  FYI - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism]] is reactivated 

message: Does 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)
thread_title:  Passionate discussion 

message: @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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requesting eyes on [[Talk:Martin Kulldorff]]