{
 "version": 1,
 "notes": [
  {
   "key": "10.1002/14651858.cd002766.pub3|List of pseudoscience topics",
   "doi": "10.1002/14651858.cd002766.pub3",
   "page": "List of pseudoscience topics",
   "status": "posted",
   "verdict": "The sentence quotes the review's conclusion directly, and the review was withdrawn by Cochrane over concerns about the data it relied on, so the quote no longer has a valid source.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-05",
   "section": "Retracted source: Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds (Pub 3)",
   "text": "The section \"Health and medicine\" cites ''Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds (Pub 3)'' ([https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002766.pub3 doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002766.pub3]), which was retracted on 1 September 2016 ([https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002766.pub6 retraction notice]). It is cited for: \"A recent review concluded that '[t]here is no evidence that [Therapeutic Touch] promotes healing of acute wounds.'\" The sentence quotes the review's conclusion directly, and the review was withdrawn by Cochrane over concerns about the data it relied on, so the quote no longer has a valid source. Suggest replacing the source or marking the citation with {{tl|Retracted}}; if it is cited on purpose to discuss the retraction, please disregard. (Disclosure: I found this with a tracker of retracted papers that I run.) ~~~~",
   "posted": "2026-11-05T19:47Z",
   "revid": 1383949510,
   "diff": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1383949510",
   "checked": "2026-11-06T17:46Z",
   "replies": []
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1007/978-3-031-94374-4_7|International Monetary Fund",
   "doi": "10.1007/978-3-031-94374-4_7",
   "page": "International Monetary Fund",
   "status": "approved",
   "verdict": "It is the only source given for this claim, and Springer retracted the chapter in March 2026 over problems with its referencing.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-05",
   "section": "Retracted source: Neocolonialism and Public Health in Africa",
   "text": "The section \"Impact on public health\" cites ''Neocolonialism and Public Health in Africa'' ([https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-94374-4_7 doi:10.1007/978-3-031-94374-4_7]), which was retracted on 3 March 2026 ([https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-94374-4_22 retraction notice]). It is cited for: \"Structural adjustment programs are considered a form of neo-colonialism by some academics due to their intensification of healthcare access inequality, and their promotion of external intervention and aid to meet health needs in developing countries.\" It is the only source given for this claim, and Springer retracted the chapter in March 2026 over problems with its referencing. Suggest replacing the source or marking the citation with {{tl|Retracted}}; if it is cited on purpose to discuss the retraction, please disregard. (Disclosure: I found this with a tracker of retracted papers that I run.) ~~~~",
   "wait": "Talk page is semi-protected; post once the account is autoconfirmed (about 2026-11-09 and 10 edits)."
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80804-1|Axon",
   "doi": "10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80804-1",
   "page": "Axon",
   "status": "posted",
   "verdict": "Cell retracted this paper in 2023 after an investigation found manipulated images.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-05",
   "section": "Retracted source: A Ligand-Gated Association between Cytoplasmic Domains of…",
   "text": "The section \"Extracellular signaling\" cites ''A Ligand-Gated Association between Cytoplasmic Domains of UNC5 and DCC Family Receptors Converts Netrin-Induced Growth Cone Attraction to Repulsion'' ([https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80804-1 doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80804-1]), which was retracted on 14 September 2023 ([https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.08.024 retraction notice]). It is cited for: \"When the UNC-5 netrin receptor is mutated, several neurites are irregularly projected out of neurons and finally a single axon is extended anteriorly.\" Cell retracted this paper in 2023 after an investigation found manipulated images. Suggest replacing the source or marking the citation with {{tl|Retracted}}; if it is cited on purpose to discuss the retraction, please disregard. (Disclosure: I found this with a tracker of retracted papers that I run.) ~~~~",
   "posted": "2026-11-05T19:47Z",
   "revid": 1383949524,
   "diff": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1383949524",
   "checked": "2026-11-06T17:46Z",
   "replies": []
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.001|Stegodyphus dumicola",
   "doi": "10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.001",
   "page": "Stegodyphus dumicola",
   "status": "posted",
   "verdict": "Animal Behaviour retracted this paper in 2023 over duplicated data; it is one of the Jonathan Pruitt papers withdrawn during the misconduct investigation into his lab.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-05",
   "section": "Retracted source: Personality and morphology shape task participation,…",
   "text": "The article cites ''Personality and morphology shape task participation, collective foraging and escape behaviour in the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola'' ([https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.001 doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.001]), which was retracted on 20 September 2023 ([https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2023.09.004 retraction notice]). Animal Behaviour retracted this paper in 2023 over duplicated data; it is one of the Jonathan Pruitt papers withdrawn during the misconduct investigation into his lab. Suggest replacing the source or marking the citation with {{tl|Retracted}}; if it is cited on purpose to discuss the retraction, please disregard. (Disclosure: I found this with a tracker of retracted papers that I run.) ~~~~",
   "posted": "2026-11-05T19:47Z",
   "revid": 1383949539,
   "diff": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1383949539",
   "checked": "2026-11-06T17:46Z",
   "replies": []
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1002/14651858.cd003592|Trazodone",
   "doi": "10.1002/14651858.cd003592",
   "page": "Trazodone",
   "status": "dismissed",
   "verdict": "Cochrane withdrew the 2003 review in 2016 only to hand it to new authors; it is outdated, not discredited.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-05",
   "section": "Retracted source: Antidepressants for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD)",
   "text": "The section \"Other disorders\" cites ''Antidepressants for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD)'' ([https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003592 doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003592]), which was retracted on 10 March 2016 ([https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003592.pub2 retraction notice]). It is cited for: \"However, use of trazodone in anxiety disorders is off-label and evidence of its effectiveness for these indications is variable and limited.\" Cochrane withdrew this 2003 review in 2016, so it should not be cited as current evidence; the other sources on this sentence may be enough on their own. Suggest replacing the source or marking it with {{tl|Retracted}}; if it is cited on purpose to discuss the retraction, please disregard. (Found by [https://zombiefacts.org/ Zombie Facts], which tracks retracted papers still cited on Wikipedia.) ~~~~"
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1002/14651858.cd002766.pub4|Gary Null",
   "doi": "10.1002/14651858.cd002766.pub4",
   "page": "Gary Null",
   "status": "replied",
   "verdict": "This version of the Cochrane review on therapeutic touch was withdrawn over concerns about the underlying data.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-06",
   "section": "Retracted source: withdrawn Cochrane review on therapeutic touch",
   "text": "The section \"Career\" cites ''Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds'' (Cochrane, May 2016 version, [https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002766.pub4 doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002766.pub4]) for: \"Null has been also a supporter of touch therapy and magnet therapy, both of which have been long determined to not provide any tangible health benefits.\" Cochrane withdrew that version on 1 September 2016 over concerns about the underlying data ([https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002766.pub6 withdrawal notice]). The other citations on the sentence still support it, so only this one needs attention. Suggest removing it or marking it with {{tl|Retracted}}. (Disclosure: I found this with a tracker of retracted papers that I run.) ~~~~",
   "posted": "2026-11-06T17:24Z",
   "revid": 1384111584,
   "diff": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1384111584",
   "wait": "An editor agreed the citation can go (2026-11-06). The article is semi-protected; remove the ref once our account can edit it (~2026-11-09).",
   "checked": "2026-11-06T17:46Z",
   "replies": [
    {
     "user": "Slatersteven",
     "at": "2026-11-06T17:36Z",
     "said": "We don't need it, as there are other sources."
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1080/1462740500061160|North Koreans in Russia",
   "doi": "10.1080/1462740500061160",
   "page": "North Koreans in Russia",
   "status": "posted",
   "verdict": "Cold War History retracted this article in 2020 for plagiarism.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-05",
   "section": "Retracted source: 'Fraternal Socialism': The International Reconstruction of…",
   "text": "The section \"Students\" cites ''\"Fraternal Socialism\": The International Reconstruction of North Korea, 1953–62'' ([https://doi.org/10.1080/1462740500061160 doi:10.1080/1462740500061160]), which ''Cold War History'' retracted on 10 February 2020 for plagiarism ([https://doi.org/10.1080/14682745.2020.1724643 retraction notice]). It is cited for: \"During the post-Korean War reconstruction period of North Korea from 1953 to 1962, many North Korean students enrolled in universities and colleges in countries of the Soviet bloc, including Russia, and others came as industrial trainees.\" Suggest replacing the source or marking the citation with {{tl|Retracted}}; if it is cited on purpose to discuss the retraction, please disregard. (Disclosure: I found this with a tracker of retracted papers that I run.) ~~~~",
   "posted": "2026-11-05T20:28Z",
   "revid": 1383955248,
   "diff": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1383955248",
   "checked": "2026-11-06T17:46Z",
   "replies": []
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1126/science.1197258|2010 in science",
   "doi": "10.1126/science.1197258",
   "page": "2010 in science",
   "status": "posted",
   "verdict": "Science retracted the arsenic-life paper in July 2025 because its results could not be reproduced. The 2010 entry can stay as history, but it still reads as an established discovery.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-05",
   "section": "Retracted source: A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of…",
   "text": "The December entry \"2 December – NASA-supported researchers discover the first microorganism known to be able to thrive and reproduce using the toxic chemical arsenic\" cites ''A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus'' ([https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197258 doi:10.1126/science.1197258]), which ''Science'' retracted on 24 July 2025 ([https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adu5488 retraction notice]) because its central result could not be reproduced. The announcement is still part of 2010's history, but the entry currently reads as an established discovery. Suggest adding a short note such as \"(the paper was retracted in 2025)\" or marking the citation with {{tl|Retracted}}. (Disclosure: I found this with a tracker of retracted papers that I run.) ~~~~",
   "posted": "2026-11-05T20:28Z",
   "revid": 1383955251,
   "diff": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1383955251",
   "checked": "2026-11-06T17:46Z",
   "replies": []
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61590-0|2011 in science",
   "doi": "10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61590-0",
   "page": "2011 in science",
   "status": "posted",
   "verdict": "The Lancet retracted the SCIPIO trial report in 2019 after Harvard's investigation found unreliable data. The 2011 entry still presents it as a breakthrough.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-05",
   "section": "Two retracted sources (SCIPIO stem-cell trial; skin-to-neuron paper)",
   "text": "Two entries on this page cite papers that have since been retracted:\n* November: \"A study of heart failure patients treated with their own stem cells has achieved striking results...\" cites the SCIPIO trial report in ''The Lancet'' ([https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61590-0 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61590-0]), retracted on 14 March 2019 ([https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30542-2 retraction notice]) after a Harvard investigation found its data unreliable.\n* August: \"Bypassing stem cells, scientists have made neurons directly from human skin\" cites ''Directed Conversion of Alzheimer's Disease Patient Skin Fibroblasts Into Functional Neurons'' in ''Cell'' ([https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.07.007 doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.07.007]), retracted on 10 April 2014 ([https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.002 retraction notice]).\nBoth can stay as history, but readers should be told the results were retracted. Suggest adding a short note to each entry or marking the citations with {{tl|Retracted}}. (Disclosure: I found these with a tracker of retracted papers that I run.) ~~~~",
   "combined": "One talk-page section covers both 2011 in science notes.",
   "posted": "2026-11-05T20:28Z",
   "revid": 1383955265,
   "diff": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1383955265",
   "checked": "2026-11-06T17:46Z",
   "replies": []
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1016/j.cell.2011.07.007|2011 in science",
   "doi": "10.1016/j.cell.2011.07.007",
   "page": "2011 in science",
   "status": "posted",
   "verdict": "Cell retracted this paper in 2014. The 2011 entry still presents skin-to-neuron conversion from this paper as a result.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-05",
   "section": "Two retracted sources (SCIPIO stem-cell trial; skin-to-neuron paper)",
   "text": "Two entries on this page cite papers that have since been retracted:\n* November: \"A study of heart failure patients treated with their own stem cells has achieved striking results...\" cites the SCIPIO trial report in ''The Lancet'' ([https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61590-0 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61590-0]), retracted on 14 March 2019 ([https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30542-2 retraction notice]) after a Harvard investigation found its data unreliable.\n* August: \"Bypassing stem cells, scientists have made neurons directly from human skin\" cites ''Directed Conversion of Alzheimer's Disease Patient Skin Fibroblasts Into Functional Neurons'' in ''Cell'' ([https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.07.007 doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.07.007]), retracted on 10 April 2014 ([https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.002 retraction notice]).\nBoth can stay as history, but readers should be told the results were retracted. Suggest adding a short note to each entry or marking the citations with {{tl|Retracted}}. (Disclosure: I found these with a tracker of retracted papers that I run.) ~~~~",
   "combined": "One talk-page section covers both 2011 in science notes.",
   "posted": "2026-11-05T20:28Z",
   "revid": 1383955265,
   "diff": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1383955265",
   "checked": "2026-11-06T17:46Z",
   "replies": []
  },
  {
   "key": "10.2147/cmar.s210845|Non-coding RNA",
   "doi": "10.2147/cmar.s210845",
   "page": "Non-coding RNA",
   "status": "posted",
   "verdict": "Cancer Management and Research retracted this paper in 2021 over duplicated images. Other citations on the sentence still support it.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-06",
   "section": "Retracted source: MicroRNA-876 is Sponged by Long Noncoding RNA LINC00707…",
   "text": "The section \"Cancer\" cites ''MicroRNA-876 is Sponged by Long Noncoding RNA LINC00707 and Directly Targets Metadherin to Inhibit Breast Cancer Malignancy'' ([https://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.s210845 doi:10.2147/cmar.s210845]) for \"Linc00707 is upregulated and sponges miRNAs in ... breast cancer\". ''Cancer Management and Research'' retracted the paper on 18 September 2021 over duplicated images ([https://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.s339426 retraction notice]). The other citations on the sentence still support the gastric-cancer and stem-cell parts. Suggest replacing the source or marking the citation with {{tl|Retracted}}; if it is cited on purpose to discuss the retraction, please disregard. (Disclosure: I found this with a tracker of retracted papers that I run.) ~~~~",
   "posted": "2026-11-06T17:41Z",
   "revid": 1384114244,
   "diff": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1384114244",
   "checked": "2026-11-06T17:46Z",
   "replies": []
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1353/sho.2011.0038|Maus",
   "doi": "10.1353/sho.2011.0038",
   "page": "Maus",
   "status": "posted",
   "verdict": "Shofar retracted this essay for plagiarism. It is listed in the article's list of scholarship on Maus.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-06",
   "section": "Retracted source: Art Spiegelman’s Maus: A Survivor’s Tale: A Bibliographic…",
   "text": "The list in \"Journals and magazines\" includes ''Art Spiegelman's Maus: A Survivor's Tale: A Bibliographic Essay'' (''Shofar'', [https://doi.org/10.1353/sho.2011.0038 doi:10.1353/sho.2011.0038]). The journal retracted this essay for plagiarism in 2011, and its publisher page marks it as retracted. Suggest removing it from the list or marking it with {{tl|Retracted}}. (Disclosure: I found this with a tracker of retracted papers that I run.) ~~~~",
   "posted": "2026-11-06T17:24Z",
   "revid": 1384111600,
   "diff": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1384111600",
   "checked": "2026-11-06T17:46Z",
   "replies": []
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1002/ajpa.24139|Douz",
   "doi": "10.1002/ajpa.24139",
   "page": "Douz",
   "status": "posted",
   "verdict": "The American Journal of Biological Anthropology retracted this study in March 2026 over a lack of ethics approval.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-06",
   "section": "Retracted source: Berbers and Arabs: Tracing the genetic diversity and…",
   "text": "The section \"Demography\" cites ''Berbers and Arabs: Tracing the genetic diversity and history of Southern Tunisia through genome wide analysis'' ([https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24139 doi:10.1002/ajpa.24139]) for \"The majority of inhabitants of Douz are from Arab descent (Banu Sulaym)\". The ''American Journal of Biological Anthropology'' retracted the study on 4 March 2026 over a lack of ethics approval ([https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.70226 retraction notice]). Suggest replacing the source or marking the citation with {{tl|Retracted}}; if it is cited on purpose to discuss the retraction, please disregard. (Disclosure: I found this with a tracker of retracted papers that I run.) ~~~~",
   "posted": "2026-11-06T17:25Z",
   "revid": 1384111609,
   "diff": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1384111609",
   "checked": "2026-11-06T17:46Z",
   "replies": []
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1016/j.amc.2007.03.011|SCIgen",
   "doi": "10.1016/j.amc.2007.03.011",
   "page": "SCIgen",
   "status": "dismissed",
   "verdict": "The article cites the paper to explain that it was removed as a joke paper. That is the right use.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-05"
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1002/14651858.cd006348.pub2|Idiopathic chronic fatigue",
   "doi": "10.1002/14651858.cd006348.pub2",
   "page": "Idiopathic chronic fatigue",
   "status": "dismissed",
   "verdict": "The article already tags the citation with an update note pointing to the newer version of the review.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-05"
  },
  {
   "key": "10.1080/01436597.2017.1369037|Bruce Gilley",
   "doi": "10.1080/01436597.2017.1369037",
   "page": "Bruce Gilley",
   "status": "dismissed",
   "verdict": "This is the author's own biography and it discusses the retraction.",
   "reviewed": "2026-11-05"
  }
 ]
}