This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Hello folks. I'd like to draw attention to our current coverage of cryptozoology and to four Wikipedia articles in particular: cryptozoology, cryptid, cryptobotany, and list of cryptids.

First, a little context: For those unfamiliar, cryptozoology is, plain and simple, classic pseudoscience. In short, cryptozoology is pretend biology with the pesky science thrown out while excitedly gazing at the folklore record—without any desire for an introductory course in folkloristics. This culminates to form a wrong-headed game of monster-hunting (was it a dinosaur?). Today cryptozoology only lives on the internet and, it would seem, is most notably (and most unknowingly) aided by Wikipedia's current lack of a solid crackdown. Academic institutions won't touch it with a stick.

And I'm sure this sort of monster hunting as a group activity is fun and all but academic it ain't. In fact, it's often presented at the expense of how this material should be handled: by folklorists. Instead of the why, how, and when a being or entity developed among a group of people and how academics have analyzed it from any number of angles over the past few hundred years, the folklore of myriad peoples is all too often reduced to some guy or girl writing an article about it with the key point of maybe-it-exists-and-we-can't-find-it-yet!.

Now, for years we've had cryptozoologists running amuck on Wikipedia, treating Wikipedia as their personal Pokémon database. This seems to be primarily due to a severe lack of folklorists contributing to Wikipedia (a folkloristics task force would have quickly nipped this in the bud). It's a bit like letting our articles on ghosts be guided by ghost-hunters ("paranormal investigators"—there was a cold spot!) or comparable to hollow earth theorists dictating the terms of our geology articles (no, no—there's another sun in there!). We don't allow it because a lot of people simply know a lot better.

Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff is obscure and not a lot of people around here are familiar with the study of folklore nor are they generally aware of what cryptozoology is. It's been a constant battle to keep this stuff at bay and often requires extensive explanation that, no, cryptozoology isn't a science (hey, but it could be a hidden dinosaur, right?). At various points, users—such as myself—have removed some of the most noxious examples of the situation from Wikipedia but there are still many articles on the site that claim that some entity or being from the folklore of some group or another is a "cryptid"—a monster waiting to be found (hiding dinosaur, of course). Where it still occurs, this is a pretty clear cut violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE that would be instantly zapped like a grocery store moth were it not for the obscurity of some of these articles.

My goal in writing this to you folks is to implore you to help me reign this stuff in. It's for too long been out of control and we need to do something about it. Maybe a good place to start is with our coverage on cryptozoology itself. Right now, we've got separate articles for cryptid (a term used exclusively by cryptozoologists and not, for example, by folklorists), cryptobotany (same history and same people as cryptozoology, probably obscure to cryptozoologists—in fact, it's just cryptoozology but with plants and only yields a few pages of Google Books results (!)), and list of cryptids. The last list is absurd beyond reason: literally every creature that someone on the internet decides could be a cryptid can go on this list. The list could simply be replaced with an explanation of what a cryptid is on the cryptozoology page—right now it's just a nonsense magnet.

Shouldn't all of that just be handled at cryptozoology? What do you folks think? :bloodofox: ( talk) 06:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I admit I was startled by how extensive list of cryptids was. In principle, I have no more objection to coverage of cryptozoology than to, say, Search for extraterrestrial intelligence. But the devil is in the details. Both monster hunting and UFO hunting are activities accessible to amateur enthusiasts, so there is a potential for a lot of material fueled more by enthusiasm and speculation than by fact. People contribute to what interests them and it's a heavy burden to see that things stay appropriately WP:BALANCEd.  —jmcgnh ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm certainly promoting coverage of cryptozoology—it's fascinating how this pseudoscience came to exist and its history and activities should be known (albeit they're so out-there that they're surely WP:UNDUE most articles). However, there's a major difference between search for extraterrestrial intelligence—biologists in fact already handle what cryptozoologists claim to search for: biologists regularly describe new species, some of which may have once been considered extinct. The difference is that they leave the analysis of the folklore to the folklorists and strictly abide by the scientific method, whereas cryptozoologists, well, simply don't.

As for list of cryptids, how is that we can have a list with no guiding principles that can stretch on infinitely without restriction? Literally any creature from the folklore record can simply be added by an internet passerby with its current setup. And why do we need this list at all—wouldn't simple mention of a few examples of beings that cryptozoologists have particularly gravitated before on the cryptozoology page be far more useful and informative? :bloodofox: ( talk) 07:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Short answer no. Long answer - there is far too much material to whittle down to one article, it would become bloated very quickly. As it stands, you have 4 relatively well organised (by wikipedia's standards) articles/list. And 4 out of 5 million does not seem excessive (even if you include all the individual cryptid articles) compared to some of the dross we have here. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, I invite you to take a closer look at these articles. The term cryptid is solely restricted to cryptozoology. So why is it a separate article other than the fact that some cryptozoologists have edit-warred for its existence? And since there are no restrictions on list of cryptids—any being from the folklore record a passerby decides should go on the list appears there—how is is that this article should exist rather than a summary at cryptozoology? As for cryptobotany, why is this an article at all—does this only even exist on Wikipedia and a scant few mentions in cryptozoology literature? A Google Books search for cryptobotany yields only a few pages of results, which indicates me that the term is beyond obscure. :bloodofox: ( talk) 07:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

See the guidelines RE Lists ( WP:STANDALONE). As the list has a defined content, and all its listed items are blue-links, its a perfectly valid list. Otherwise you could make an attempt to merge the other crypt-articles, but then you would have to gain consensus on what info to include, what to remove etc. Probably in the face of significant oppposition from editors interested in the subjects. I just dont think it is likely you will get anywhere. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and this is why I'm inviting others to get involved, such as yourself. Over the years, these articles have been monitored by a hive of cryptozoologists with vested interests in keeping the articles up and looking "legitimate" (as a promotional tool or otherwise). We could really use more people from this board—users interested in managing pseudoscience and fringe on Wikipedia—in keeping this stuff in check and associated articles in good condition. However, if the pages remain dominated by drive-by internet cryptozoologists, they'll never improve and the problem will continue to fester.

Your points regarding lists are taken but it does appear that the list fails Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria, however. :bloodofox: ( talk) 07:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Under 'common selection criteria' - "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers." - Its covered by this one. And in fact, if none of them were notable, it would be covered by the one underneath, as lists of non-notable subsets are a good way of preventing loads of one-reference stub articles. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The list lacks stated criteria. I'd have though something like "this is a list of supposed creatures that have been identified as cryptozoological in nature" might do it, if it was understood that any such "identification" has to be in RS. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh? The criteria is in the first line "This is a list of cryptids notable within cryptozoology" - notable in this context means 'has article'. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That's far too vague. For instance, notable according to who exactly? Random drive-by Wikipedia editors? Because that's what we've got there. And these so-called cryptids even lack references referring to them as cryptids on the articles they're linked to—and it would almost always be WP:UNDUE if they did. It's just a mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH without reliable secondary sources establishing notability (or even association). Without a solid criteria and referencing, the list is amorphous and is exactly how we got into the mess we're in at the moment with it. :bloodofox: ( talk) 11:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Notable to have a wikipedia article. You dont get into meta 'ok it has a wikipedia article but is it notable enough' discussions, which is precisely why the list guidelines have 'blue linked' as one of the valid criteria for organising a list. If its notable enough to have a dedicated article survive AFD, it is notable full stop. Although I do agree if any of the articles on that list do not have a source identifying them as cryptids they should be removed from the list. (which is how lists are normally curated, a list item must have a reference at the article to show it belongs on the list) Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no stated criteria, which would at least limit what could go there. And it's notable how difficult to source such a list would be with reliable, secondary sources—something that looks required. After all, we're talking about a pseudoscience here. These beings in folklore are only cryptids to cryptozoologists. And this list could be endless—literally any creature from the folklore record could be placed on this list without reliable secondary sources discussing their relation to cryptozoology. :bloodofox: ( talk) 08:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

OTOH so long as books like this exist, I think it's going to be an uphill struggle to keep this stuff out of WP. This shit is out there. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Eberhart's 2002 book came up at the cryptozoology talk page some time ago. He's a fairly apologetic cryptozoologist. Here's a little write up I did of some of the most commonly cited stuff that pops up on Wikipedia sometimes mistaken for reliable sources, including Eberhart's book:

• Budd, Deena West. 2010. The Weiser Field Guide to Cryptozoology. Weiser Books.

Comments: Published by new age and occult publisher Weiser Books. Budd's book does not attempt to present itself as at all scientific nor does it make the pretense of being an academic work. No mention that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience but that's probably not surprising given the nature of the publisher.

• Coleman, Loren & Jeremy Clark. 1999. Cryptozoology A to Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras and Other Authentic Mysterious of Nature. Fireside.

Comments: Rejects the charge of pseudoscience (p. 18), while stating that cryptozoology is a "small subdiscipline" of zoology (Ibid.). Consist of an introduction followed by various figures from folklore (and some entirely internal to cryptozoology). A sample look at "abdominable snowman" states "the real animal behind the name is neither abominable nor a true creature of the snows. These beasts usually appear to live in a quiet retreat in the steamy mountain valleys of the Himalayas, using the snowy passes as a way to move from one spot to another, leaving behind huge mysterious footprints. …" (p. 24). Book is very much internal to cryptozoology.

• Eberhart, George M. 2002. Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology. 2 volumes. ABC-CLIO.

Comments: Volume 1 discussed here. Similar in nature and format to Coleman's and Clark's Cryptozoology A to Z but willing to admit that cryptozoology is a pseuodoscience but apologetically claims that the field can assist science (cf. p. xi, xxi-xxii). Entries contain less fanciful comments than Coleman and Clark but still pseudoscientific nonsense internal to cryptozoology. Some discussion about zoology but the only mention of "folklore" in the book appears in footnotes (!). Not an academic work.

Might be useful to keep an eye out. :bloodofox: ( talk) 08:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The trouble is that contrary to Bloodofox wishful thinking cryptozoology is not "pure and simple" pseudoscience. Indeed not one of the many advocates of this position on Wikipedia have ever managed to produce a source that says that. Ignoring the pro-cz books, all the the skeptical books I have ever seen say something akin to "this is mostly rubbish but..". Also there is peer reviewed cryptozoology in mainstream zoology journals (e.g. Paxton, C. G. M. (2009), The plural of ‘anecdote’ can be ‘data’: statistical analysis of viewing distances in reports of unidentified large marine animals 1758–2000. Journal of Zoology, 279: 381–387. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00630.x, Michael A. Woodley, Darren Naish, and Hugh P. Shanahan (2008) How many extant pinniped species remain to be described? Historical Biology Vol. 20 , Iss. 4, 225-235) so it is clearly nonsense to state it is all pseudoscience. The best cryptozoology is using scientific methods that are different to folkloristics and unlike folkloristics cryptozoologists are interested solely in the zoological origins of particular reports rather than the wider origins so it is inappropriate to equate the two although I would happily concede there are overlaps. The cryptid list is less than helpful though. Tullimonstrum ( talk) 11:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that this user is a cryptozoologist and one of the pro-cryptozoologist revert warriors I was referring to. Sources referring to cryptozoology as a pseudoscience are indeed plentiful, as any search will reveal and, of course, no educational institution offers courses on the subject. It's cut and dry pseudoscience. While we have a bunch discussion about this on the article at the moment, we can always use more, particularly from folklorists (who seem to have largely just ignored the field from its inception until today). :bloodofox: ( talk) 11:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• If we substitute "cryptozoology" with "creation science" in the above paragraph by Tullimonstrum, it reads just like a standard creation science tract that sprays around smoke in order to create an illusion of legitimacy on par with mainstream science, when in fact it creates a false balance. "The best creation science is using scientific methods..." and so forth. The WP:PSCI policy along with its explanatory guideline WP:FRINGE were designed to prevent this kind of propaganda from getting into articles. Giving weight to the best sources that are independent can help move things forward. Tullimonstrum, as a purely technical matter, edits that delete content shouldn't ever be marked as minor. Manul ~ talk 12:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Bear in mind all four articles clearly note that it is pseudoscience. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Creation science doesn't have editors of Nature supporting it, a prominent blogger on Scientific American and advocates like David Attenborough and Jane Goodall..." Tullimonstrum ( talk) 13:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the reality of these claims (I'll leave researching them to those with more patience and time), something tells me there's a reason why no school in the world offers cryptozoology degrees. :bloodofox: ( talk) 13:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, you cant offer a degree in animals that dont exist, and all the relevant practical skills required are already covered by zoology/biology etc. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Universities offer degrees and certificates for all sorts of things, including folkloristics (the academic field that handles these beings "that don't exist"). The issue here is that what we're talking about here is a pseudoscience, something that the academic world rejects. :bloodofox: ( talk) 13:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A few years ago I came across List of cryptids filled to the brim with nonsense. I proposed a set of inclusion criteria, but didn't get much of a response. It's probably more conservative than I'd propose these days (might've been timid since I had no background with the page, and very little with the subject -- I just knew I saw a mess). So when nobody objected, I did some purging. Since then I've reverted now and again but haven't been diligent. I'd support something a bit more stringent (e.g. if there's no article, at least 3 sources or somesuch), but it's a notable list. The list might also be useful to serve as a home for some of the poorer articles. As for the other articles, I haven't looked at (and don't know enough about) cryptobotany to comment, but cryptid could just be merged into cryptozoology and list of cryptids as appropriate -- I don't see that that one really adds anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC) The section heading and "hidden dinosaur" made me laugh.

Thank you for your efforts, @ Rhododendrites:! :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't help that you have pre-eminent wildlife biologists such as Jane Goodall who have expressed sympathy for cryptozoology as an endeavor. I get the impression it is more out of a romantic idealism than a true evaluation of what this morass entails. There is an excellent 2008 documentary called Not Your Typical Bigfoot Movie (clips here: [1], IMDB here: [2]) which shows in rather sympathetic detail how this subject is really one that transcends the simple pseudoscience being spouted and bleeds into questions of politics, economics, faith, and the conflict between cynical leeches and true believers. jps ( talk) 14:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Question: do any of the sources you mention actually mention cryptozoology by name or are they simply entertaining the idea that there might be or have been some bigfoot-like creature lumbering around out there? :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Following up, I see that cryptozoologists are behind the Not Your Typical Bigfoot Movie production but the subjects don't seem to be (unless I'm missing something). Of course, half-believing or entirely believing that a being from the folklore record may exist is a constant throughout time. A visit to the Pacific Northwest today shows huge amounts of bigfoot iconography, as well as a notable percentage of the population that is willing to entertain that such a being may (or may have) existed (think Harry and the Hendersons). Of course, this doesn't make them cryptozoologists (they're not likely to start coining faux taxonomies or to extoll the virtues of Bernard Heuvelmans anytime soon), rather it's simply everyday folklore. As for Goodall, I can't seem to find her making any mention of cryptozoology or employing the word cryptid? :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a useful 2012 write up from the Huffington Post regarding Goodall and bigfoot: [3]. It appears that she said that she was sure bigfoot existed in the past but that she's now only willing to entertain the possibility. However, she says nothing about cryptozoology nor does she employ the term cryptid, although she is undoubtedly aware of the existence of the pseudoscience. Had she mentioned either, we could write about it on the cryptozoology article but it appears she has intentionally ignored the field (like the vast majority of biologists and folklorists). :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It helps to remember that at the fringes (which is where cryptozoology lies), there isn't a clear demarcation between who is or is not practicing the fringe discipline. I would never argue that the subjects of the film were not cryptozoologists because, as you point out, there really is no protection of this term. On the other hand, they don't use the term in the movie to describe themselves either (I don't think the film uses the associated terms even once). In my opinion, it helps to have a wider view of the geography of ideas, though, because it is exactly this context that is the audience of Wikipedia. Crucially, it is not the context of the sources of Wikipedia. Keeping out Goodall's musings is worth doing to that end. Being very strict in our sourcing standards is laudable (while keeping in mind WP:PARITY). But, among writers and editors, it is useful to keep in mind the wider context of these ideas if for no other reason than it gives us tools to answer the inevitable critics who will complain about the treatment their pet subject received here on Wikipedia. jps ( talk) 16:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've looked at the List of cryptids & tried a few entries. All seemed to make it very clear what the status of the creature was. Perhaps it's a lot of work to keep things that way, but so long as it is I don't see a real problem, other than the work involved. Johnbod ( talk) 14:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more explicit? Given the WP:UNDUE nature of cryptozoology—the concept of the cryptid is limited to a tiny few out there, making this extremely fringe—I'm not following, I'm afraid. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I just read through this entire thread. First off: I'm fine with having a list of cryptids, though I think the word "cryptid" should be a link to our article, and there could stand to be a disclaimer that it's not a real science on that page. Second: I don't recall who said this, and I'm too lazy to check, but cryptozoology absolutely is a pseudoscience, and the claims that no reliable sources identify it as such are completely ridiculous. Full stop. The lead to the article here contains at least three sources which explicitly identify it as a pseudoscience. I find it extremely difficult to believe you don't already know this, and as a result, find myself immediately distrustful of anything else you say. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, isn't it better to have the list of cryptids than the list PLUS separate articles for each cryptid? IMO the majority of the individual articles could be summed up in a two sentence description on list. —PermStrump (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind rephrasing that? I don't follow. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, though obviously Bigfoot and 'Nessie and a number of others will still require their own article. Most can go, however. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If you guys are suggesting that we delete articles on beings from folklore and then only include them in a brief summary on the cryptozoology list, I think that's an extremely bad idea. Not only is this handing our coverage of beings from the folklore record entirely over the pseudoscientific definition but it's ignoring that just about every entity out there in the folklore record has significant secondary literature about it by scholars in folkloristics. If it's not on the article yet that's an unfortunate problem (another symptom of our lack of folklorists on board with the project) but I think turning people to a cryptozoology list instead is a very bad idea and plays right into the hands of the cryptozoologists. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. —PermStrump (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's a good point. I think it would be mitigated by by the introduction of much more information from folklorists on the articles that survive such a purge, as well as into the main cryptid article. But that's not a perfect solution, because it reeks of proscription with regards to the use of the word 'cryptid', when what we're supposed to be doing is description. The problem seems to be that 'cryptid' is the only widespread term used for these things, but that's a term from cryptozoology, not from folklore AFAIK. Can anyone with any interest in folklore see if there is a comparable term? If so, we can work on building up lists an articles based on that, then AfD the cryptid article and lists and redirect them. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe 'cryptid' is used by folklorists. If so, then we just need to work on getting more information from folklorists into the articles (and still pare it down, I mean does Adjule really pass GNG? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the term cryptid was coined in cryptozoology and it remains restricted to it (except where cryptozoologists are allowed to run amuck here on Wikipedia, it seems). Folklorists absolutely do not use the term cryptid and reject the premise that it's founded on (hidden monsters) and often simply use some variation of the Aarne-Thompson classification systems for classification purposes. The key is probably to do as the folklorists do: just report what they say where we can find it. It's a huge task but getting the pseudoscience out per WP:UNDUE is definitely a good first step. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Good luck trying to do anything about most of these "cryptid" articles. There's a host of sympathetic editors that seem to keep the articles in their current state. Many of them have atrocious sourcing though. They probably wouldn't survive AFD which might bring more eyes. Most editors are probably unaware most of these articles even exist. Capeo ( talk) 20:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I've unfortunately also ran into this problem a lot. My hope is that this post and these threads bring more fringe-aware eyes and hands to these articles. Currently there's a cryptozoologist edit-warring (and ping trolling) to have cryptid reinstated as a stand-alone article (I simply redirected it to cryptozoology once I realize all of the references were from cryptozoologists promoting the field rather than reliable secondary sources). :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It should be redirected. "Cryptid" is a silly word made up by cryptozoologists so you won't find it anywhere aside from cryptozoologist sources. Hell, cryptozoologist is a silly word (zoologists, biologists, etc. are already in the business of finding new species) but it's a notable enough fringe topic to support an article. Most of the cryptid stand alone articles shouldn't exist though mostly due to a complete lack of notability and reliable sourcing. A few that should exist are dealt with far too much credulity when they are completely legendary, mythological or folklore topics and should be presented as such. Most are just horrid though. There's an article for every piece of sperm whale blubber or basking shark skeleton that ever washed up on a beach or got caught in a fishing net. It's ridiculous. Some are complete fabrications sourced only to sensationalist paperbacks from the fifties and sixties or those books and websites that repeat the stories with no actual corroboration. A similar walled garden of crud is the whole suite of UFO related articles as well. Again, good luck to anyone who wants to go down that rabbit hole too. The only thing that would fix either area is an AFD spree that would hopefully draw a bunch of reasonable eyes to examine the notability and sourcing of a lot of these articles. Capeo ( talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's a nasty situation that's going to require significant work. There's an ongoing dispute involving a pro-cryptozoology user at the cryptid page that you are welcome to participate in as well (and the same goes for anyone else reading this). :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well perhaps you should stop edit warring then? You redirected the article without discussion then edit warred over it when it was justifiably reverted. When it was reverted once you should have either started a merge discussion on the talk page or nominated the article foe deletion. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 00:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the, uh, advice. Follow the situation and you'll find the item is under discussion at the AFD talk page and discussion has been underway all day at the talk page in question. If you want to help in some way, you're welcome to. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe someone has suggested this but I overlooked it in all the discussion: Yes, it's fringe. The proper way to present all this info is from the academic disciplines: anthropology, sociology, folklore studies, etc. If aspects of the crypto-x worlds (terminology, individuals, beliefs, etc) are notable enough to deserve their own articles, they should be presented with the proper context of the academic disciplines rather than the pseudoscience. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted an account for adding text such as "From her personal and non-scientific standpoint, she nevertheless" and an IP for removing sourced text they didn't like, both in the last few hours. I'd prefer not to revert again today. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've watched the page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Page now under semi-protection until 1 September. jps ( talk) 22:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd have got there sooner or later. - Roxy the dog™ bark 22:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Prophet_Yahweh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prophet_Yahweh - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhoark ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention this snow-keep from 2005 [17] Alexbrn ( talk) 16:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is a result of a cleanup at WP:RSN over the use of the website beforeitsnews.com in articles. Its being used in a variety of places, including some fringe articles. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• I am unimpressed by the original AfD. Giving it a second go around... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet Yahweh (2nd nomination) - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Well, I got to write a dissenting !Keep opinion. Releasing metal foil helium balloons and calling it "summoning a UFO" is illegal in California, though it might be said that Nevada is well known for being a place for doing things that are illegal in California. Roches ( talk) 15:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• I voted Keep as well. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 16:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI. If one of you FRINGE folks happen to be an AfC reviewer, and want to take a look at this small novel, that would be...uh...welcome. Seems obviously fringy, but I'm not really an expert. TimothyJosephWood 18:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I stopped reading before I got to the end of the seven paragraph lead. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was actually scientifically accurate, and well sourced, it would be a featured article! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the issue I was having is how to really elucidate a standard for declining it. TimothyJosephWood 22:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to go with "too much words make Grug brain hurt." Seriously. That article is a wall of text and should be at least rewritten from scratch to be actually readable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it fringe, though? There seems to be a few respectable sources on it from the APA: [18] [19]. "Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy", of which this seems to be a branch, gets more hits. I think we may simply be seeing a jargon-clouded window into a very niche branch of psychotherapy.

I've talked to the author a bit in the Teahouse and I sympathise with them, they've put a lot of effort into the draft including an effort to understand and stay with in policy (my personal gold standard for what separates the wheat from the chaff at AfC)... but they just don't seem to have grasped the difference between an encyclopedia article and a term paper. Joe Roe ( talk) 13:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I agree with this assessment. Although the article definitely gives off a fringey sort of vibe, I do not get the impression that the actual subject is fringe. (At least, not any more than any other modality for psychotherapy—but that's a whole other can of worms.) Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've accepted the draft. It's not an easy read but it's not fringe and it passes the criteria for AfC. Joe Roe ( talk) 16:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's not fringe, but the breadth and depth is more like that of a thesis on Fosha than an encyclopedia article. It's been noted the author is willing to make the effort to improve the article, so with some collaboration with editors in similar areas, it should be possible to take it down to a manageable length. Roches ( talk) 17:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Call me a cynic, but I wonder how often the original editor will tell customers to look it up in Wikipedia, knowing they won't understand a word? - Roxy the dog™ bark 16:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Google readily reveals the COI. I am personally uncomfortable with an article of this size created by a brand new editor with no other contributions whatoever, whose business is supplying the described service. Guy ( Help!) 09:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This BLP of a handsome chap (I googled him) never got deleted after an AfD " delete" result. There is some handwaving at the talk page. My interest was sparked by this entry at COIN.

Much Some of the sourcing is to a website by another handsome chap called Mike Adams, who seems a little confused about reality. The same ref appears three different times on the reflist, and is cited more than thrice.

What to do? - Roxy the dog™ bark 08:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is blatant advertorial and the latest puffery was added by an obvious sock of a banned paid editor. I have nuked it pending any actual Wikipedian writing a proper article. We have surprisingly few active good faith editors whose mission is to promote "wellness" gurus, but you never know. Guy ( Help!) 09:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That was quick. - Roxy the dog™ bark 10:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruggero Santilli (2nd nomination). Please comment there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Now closed as keep. (I think the result should have been no consensus, but it makes little difference in terms of what happens to the article.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should have been closed at all, since discussion was still ongoing. I also disagree with the outcome, but I won't lose any sleep over it. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Reopened again. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• it is an interesting case. I hope folks here consider the question. Jytdog ( talk) 19:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Recently, an editor removed the word "false" from the article Sherri Tenpenny in response to an edit request on the article's talk page. Prior to this word being removed, the article stated that "She supports the false beliefs that vaccines cause autism, asthma, ADHD and autoimmune disorders." Is it, in the opinion of other editors, a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:BLP to include the word "false" in this sentence? Everymorning (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a violation of NPOV, specifically WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, to remove it. I don't see how including violates BLP. —PermStrump (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It may be better to add context in a separate sentence. I think the body and the lead is lacking context. See "But Dr Tenpenny's opinions, while disproved by science and criticised by medical experts, are not against the law and should be allowed a forum." [20] QuackGuru ( talk) 02:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Autoimmune reactions to vaccines are a rare but documented phenomenon, whereas a connection with autism is a conjecture that's been totally rejected. Whoever this person is is probably vastly overstating the autoimmune risk, but it requires more careful wording. Rhoark ( talk) 04:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman has been aggressively (though, so far, within the bounds of RR) deleting [21] this section (titled "Specific claims") of content that notes videos and photos cited by conspiracy theorists who believe in the "Healther" hoax were manipulated or taken out of context. Some additional eyes would be appreciated so this doesn't turn into a pro-CT article. LavaBaron ( talk) 05:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, please see the discussion with the OP on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I commented at the talkpage. —PermStrump (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

An AfD that falls within the scope of this noticeboard -- interested editors are invited to participate. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by FourViolas on the one hand and Rhododendrites and MjolnirPants on the other, so I'm abstaining because I'm torn and don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said. I'm commenting here instead of at the AFD since it's already quite lengthy. I also wanted to say that I found a lot of the discussion interesting and constructive. :) —PermStrump (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You can cut and paste this: [[Category:Promoters of pseudoscience]]

Editors recommended to rename the cat. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 12#Category:People accused of pseudoscience. That's exactly what I did. The cat can be added to an article where a person is known to be a promoter of pseudoscience. Edit wisely, QuackGuru ( talk) 08:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me the decision was to delete, not rename, this cat. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Besides the actual CFD outcome being delete, there is already Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. But you already know about that category, making this new category doubly puzzling. Manul ~ talk 15:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see the extensive discussion about Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. I don't understand why it's not sufficient to have e.g. Category:Pseudoscience -> Category:Intelligent design -> Category:Intelligent design advocates, but I suppose it's already been discussed to death. Manul ~ talk 16:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 20#Category:Promoters of pseudoscience. - Mr X 16:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

What cat can be used for articles. I think Category:Advocates of pseudoscience is only a container cat. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of an article for which such a categorization would be a defining characteristic of the subject?- Mr X 19:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

See "In 2010, Shermer said that Chopra is "the very definition of what we mean by pseudoscience".[114]" QuackGuru ( talk) 19:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Links would have helped, but I assume you are talking about Deepak Chopra. Do you really think our policies would allow a living person to be labelled an "advocate (or promoter) of pseudoscience" based on a cherry-picked opinion of a single person? I think you need to read WP:CATDEF and WP:BLPCAT.- Mr X 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You asked for "an example". I will give another example from the same article. See "Chopra's "nonsensical references to quantum physics" are placed in a lineage of American religious pseudoscience, extending back through Scientology to Christian Science.[119]" Also see Vani Hari#Promotion of pseudoscience. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Your examples don't convince me that our policies (as I cited) would allow those subjects to be described as promoters or advocates of pseudoscience via categorization. Before you embark on a quest to RIGHTGREATWRONGS, I strongly suggest that you conduct an RfC at WP:BLPN or WP:VPP to determine if the community has an appetite for (possibly libelously) describing people as advocates or promoters of pseudoscience. - Mr X 21:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

See "Hari has been criticized by scientists and others for promoting pseudoscience.[14][15][63]"

Since you did not oppose or delete the specific text then I assume you think there is no problem with the text. The claim of "possibly libelously" must be shown not asserted. MrX, so what is the problem with the current text? If there is no problem then the cat is appropriate. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Categories speak in Wikipedia's voice. You can't use them to apply contentious labels to people based on the opinions of a few other people. For this same reason we don't use categories to label people as racists, fraudsters, pedophiles, homophobes, and other such pejoratives.- Mr X 14:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Put it this way, try and make a category 'Racist' and tag a certain US politician with it citing all the numerous reliable sources that have accused/outright labelled him as such, and see how long it lasts. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: The category has no benefit. While someone might get a one-minute warm glow after adding this category to declare someone is a promoter of pseudoscience, the only people who will notice are those on the other extreme—the rusted-on supporters of pseudoscience. The only result will be completely pointless bickering about adding/removing/deleting the category, and those who persist in adding it will have the battleground activity thrown in their face when some ANI issue blows up. There is an encyclopedic benefit from having an article make it clear that some claim is pseudoscience, but the category is an invisible distraction. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

What he said. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, the category does have a benefit: it allows a reader to see a list of all well-documented purveyors of pseudoscience on one page, rather than having to click through further categories. This would save time for someone trying to look up one of these people without remembering their name. That being said, there is a BLP issue with directly labeling individuals like this, as well as the political (WP politics, not government politics) issue of creating a category of people that 'slanders' all of its members. I was initially tentatively supportive of this idea, but the more I think about it, the less appealing it is. Is the time we save the reader worth the fight? No, I don't really think so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I can see the value, but can also see how it would be a continual PITA for everyone (same as any contentious category). Rhoark ( talk) 14:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Purveyors of pseudoscience

I know Jimbo Wales can resolve this issue if the cat is deleted. Wales speaks to the media, but editors on Wikipedia want results. See WP:QUACKS. Wales can start a new cat called [[Category:Purveyors of pseudoscience]]. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 21:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Or, and I know this is a really radical thought, you could listen to what people above have said and stop trying to label living people with contentious, argument-causing categories that cause more problems than they solve. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this initiative doesn't help. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

on the talk page, cut'n'pasted from the subject talk page. A combative advocate given to personal attacks. I originally thought it was a persistent driveby (what looked like sandboxing) (removal of criticism) so set the article to autoconfirmed, but the editor claims to be spearheading a call to action. More eyes needed - David Gerard ( talk) 09:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY MORE EYES NEEDED. That's the issue here. You hae a few people, like David Gerard, editing and essetially controlling various wikipedia pages to the world regarding transhumanism. With Zoltan Istvan's running in the top 6 or 7 presidential candidacies now for 2 full years, there's a lot of people looking. And his page, the transhumanist politics page, and the transhumanism page is way off. It's deliberately not repesenting him or transhumanism politics correctly. There's an enourmous amount of material out there to create accurate pages. What's needed is more eyes and more editors being honest. Endlessdaysagain

@ David Gerard: You should post about this on ANI as well. Having more eyes on the article is good, but WP:NOTHERE accounts should be blocked as well. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I did post a request for page protection, given the claim that this was the spearhead for a brigading - David Gerard ( talk) 14:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I left a note about civility, reliable sources and signing comments on the user's talk page. Hopefully, it will help. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Editors views are solicited on the talk page thread captioned Deletion of Rewards. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

An Rfc has been posted here. It could use comments by editors who are well-versed in sourcing and editing policy. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I normally avoid religious topics for the standard reason, but I'm running up against 3RR on Richard Carrier because of a Christian editor Gonzales_John ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who insists Christ Myth Theory is a conspiracy theory and keeps putting that phrase into Carrier's biography. He also has ripped out tons of text from the article with (IMHO) misleading edit summaries. I've restored most of that text and engaged with him on his talk page, but he's already trying my patience with super verbose replies to my requests ( footnotes on a talk page? really?). Doubting the Historicity of Jesus as a fringe theory has come up before on this noticeboard - here are just a few links to previous discussions: Feb 2013, Aug 2013 Sept 2014 and April 2016. Anyway, would appreciate a few eyes on what's going on over there. As I said I'm not super experienced on religious edit wars. -- Krelnik ( talk) 13:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

For your information, I'm an antitheist. And scholarly consensus determines whether or not a theory is a fringe theory, leading us to the conclusion that CMT is a fringe theory. Gonzales John ( talk) 14:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the supposed conspiracy about? Is it alleged by CMT advocates that academics are covering up the evidence of CMT? Or that CMT proponents are being silenced? Because, the thing is that there's a very big difference between a fringe theory and a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are not always fringe, and fringe theories aren't always about conspiracies. Also, why do Carrier's qualifications as a historian not belong in the lead? Isn't that pretty much the definition of stuff that belongs in the lead? Don't get me wrong, I think the CMT is complete bunk, but that doesn't mean I agree with edits like these, that seem to be very POV. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

.I went overboard back then. I didn't put those edits back anyway. I'll change "conspiracy" to "fringe" to avoid all possible negative connotations. Gonzales John ( talk) 14:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Related: there's currently an RfC discussion going on at Talk:Christ myth theory#Request for Comment. FRINGE-related claims abound, so it seems kosher to bring it up here? - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 15:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a conversation that has been rehashed numerous times on the article's talkpage and on this noticeboard (Additional archived conversations in no particular order: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]). The article is frequently edited by identified and unidentified socks and anonymous IPs. The discussions are so convoluted they make me go cross-eyed. Except for this comment, I haven't engaged in previous conversations and I've only come across them after-the-fact when I was looking into issues related to other articles that somehow led me there. I'm genuinely not accusing anyone participating in this thread of being involved as I can't make sense of who's who and what's what anyway. I just wanted to point out for anyone newly getting involved that discussions on this issue has been problematic in the past, so maybe we can connect the dots and break the cycle. —PermStrump (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Editors are invited to review and comment at Talk:Jill Stein#RfC: Should the article discuss a crowd-funded YouTube documentary or include a quotation from Chris Hedges stating that "the Democratic Party is one of the engines for ... proto-fascism," or include similar content?. Neutrality ^talk 19:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The theory that the natives of Britain were exterminated is generally considered highly unlikely by all sources, except for one source claiming the opposite. I do not think one source is enough grounds for accepting the theory as necessary for acknowledgement.

"Weale et al. is very recent scholarship and it claimed that 50% to 100% of English genetics derives from North Germany. Most other recent scholarship does not agree with this extreme view." - Urselius (on talk page)

An extreme view seems to be a fringe theory. Besides, Weale's study does not even give evidence to extermination unless the number was 100%. But the number is between 50 and 100 allowing a certain number of natives to survive. Thus, my case is that no contemporary source supports the extermination theory and should be edited for lacking sources. Gordon410 ( talk) 15:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There seems to have been an extermination theory that enjoyed popularity in the 1880s and was out of favor by the 1960s. The theory expressed starting with genetic evidence in 2002 is clearly not strictly a historical theory, and not pseudoscientific. [27] Rhoark ( talk) 16:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I realize that Weale is not fringe. But I am making a case that extermination is fringe and should be classified as a historical theory not a contemporary theory as it is now. Can we conclude on this? Thanks. Gordon410 ( talk) 17:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I say yes to the historical vs. contemporary thing, although if it were me, I'd offer the olive branch of mentioning that there are a handful of fringe sources who still buy it (one sentence, max). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What are the "fringe sources who still buy it"? You can't just state it without there actually being sources that support extermination. Gordon410 ( talk) 18:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Your first comment in this thread indicated that there was such a source. If you were wrong to suggest that there are sources still claiming it, then do not add any mention of it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Weale et al. don’t argue for the extermination theory at all: in fact they say “… our data do not allow us to distinguish an event that simply added to the indigenous Central English male gene pool from one where indigenous males were displaced elsewhere or one where indigenous males were reduced in number.” They do consider large-scale immigration—“an Anglo-Saxon immigration event affecting 50%–100% of the Central English male gene pool”—to be the best explanation of their findings (a pronounced ‘tide-mark‘ at the England–Wales border), while acknowledging even this hypothesis to be unproven. So if this paper is supposed to be the “one source claiming the opposite” mentioned in the first paragraph above, I would strongly dispute that characterization, regardless of the accuracy of the 50–100% figure, or whether or not it’s “extreme”. I haven‘t looked at the discussion, but from here it looks like someone trying to beat a dead horse with an overcooked noodle.— Odysseus 147 9 18:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I was only quoting what Urselius said who has obviously erred. I do not support his/her stance in anyway. This also doesn't solve the problem of the fringe theory. I can't find any source in favor of it now that Weale is out of the picture. Thus, my case is further strengthened by the lack of any sources whatsoever. Gordon410 ( talk) 19:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What about Thomas 2006? [28] Rhoark ( talk) 19:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What about him? Gordon410 ( talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a paper cited several times in the current article. The primary author was a co-author of Weale and cites Weale. He seems to concur that >50% of English Y chromosomes are of Anglo-Saxon origin. Rhoark ( talk) 20:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Scientists don't use primary sources like Thomas uncritically and as Wikipedia editors we cannot use them critically; we avoid them when writing about biology/medicine and they should never be cited in this kind of historical article. Ever. Jytdog ( talk) 20:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, policy says no such thing. Secondly, a 2006 paper is not a primary source with respect to history in the 7th century, nor in this case is it the primary source for the genetic population studies it cites. Rhoark ( talk) 20:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The paper is primary for its analysis of the genetic data and application to the historical issue; it presents the results of research and the methods they used to do it. Every policy urges us to rely on secondary sources and use primary sources with great care. Again, other scientists would not use this uncritically and we cannot use it critically. It has no place in an article about history. Bad things happens when people do what they can do, rather as they should, and fringe pushers will do as they will, ignoring best practices in pursuit of whatever their agenda is. Jytdog ( talk) 20:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources perform their own analyses. It may have been some time since you carefully read WP:PRIMARY. What you're suggesting is writing articles based on tertiary sources alone. That might result in higher trustworthiness, but would certainly leave gaps in knowledge. In any case, its not a policy or widespread consensus. Rhoark ( talk) 20:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Whatever, you are locating yourself more and more solidly outside the mainstream of WP. Not what I would choose to do, but you will do as you will, of course. Jytdog ( talk) 20:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Rhoark: I can't believe what I'm reading here -- have you actually survived on Wikipedia since 2014 with this as your sourcing philosophy? Yes, a 2006 paper on genetics is not a primary source for events of the seventh (fifth?) century, but it most certainly is a primary source for its author's own 2006 genetics research. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANALYSIS A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. That describes more or less what Thomas has done using the Domesday book and Weale's 2002 genetics research as primary sources. Rhoark ( talk) 13:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I don’t see anything in the Thomas paper about extermination. It argues for “differential reproductive success” due to socio-economic factors, suggesting that the indigenous British and Romano-Celtic men were squeezed out of the gene-pool over a period of a few centuries, rather than having been eliminated during the invasion. (I don’t agree with their use of “apartheid-like“, which to me suggests not only relegation of the colonized people to a low status but also avoidance of ‘miscegenation’, but regardless apartheid is not the same as genocide.)— Odysseus 147 9 20:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's where we're at. Extermination, as in 100% would be a fringe idea. Whether it happened directly at the head of an axe is fanciful. Neither Weale or Thomas seems to advance these ideas. What they do advance is that "differential reproductive success" took the Anglo-Saxon proportion of English population from <%20 to >%50 in less than 15 generations. It's apparently a minority view in scholarship, but not a fringe or pseudoscientific one. Rhoark ( talk) 20:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

So let's get off the subject of Thomas and Weale, and focus on sources that support extermination, and there appears to be none. Extermination is a fringe theory, full stop. Let's repair the article. Gordon410 ( talk) 02:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

What damage has been done to the article, exactly? - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 19:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The extermination/displacement hypothesis was the only widely-accepted theory from the mid 19th century (with even older antecedents), right down to around 1960. This is a very long time and it has taken firm root in the collective psyche. It has given way since then to acculturation scenarios. However, before I and another editor (who did the majority of the work) started on the Wikipedia article in question, the older theory was the only one truly represented in it. It looked as though it had been written c. 1955! The article needs to represent the full range of scholarly thought in order to be impartial, a major Wikipedia goal. User Gordon 410 would like the article to reflect his opinions (see the extensive discussions on the article talk page) as to what he thinks is the most-likely scenario. I also have quite firm opinions that the acculturation scenario for English ethnogenesis is probably much more likely than the extermination/displacement scenario. I, as Gordon 410 should emulate, do not push this viewpoint to the exclusion of differing possibilities in the article. Hiving off the extermination/displacement hypothesis into a 'historical/fringe section' is not at all a helpful suggestion, as retaining the Pryor view (virtually no immigration whatsoever - just acculturation due to cross-North Sea contacts) would create bias. We need the full range of hypotheses to be available to the reader, until such time as fully watertight evidence points to a particular scenario. This, of course, may never happen. Urselius ( talk) 09:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Urselius i fucking love what you wrote. Yes, when we don't know, we don't know. So much bullshit is generated from claims of certainty when things are actually unclear. Jytdog ( talk) 10:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's find sources that support extermination. You can say all you want, but unless you have a source to back it up, your case is useless - give it up. Gordon410 ( talk) 11:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not apply your evident zeal and industry to something constructive? Instead, you either construct huge swathes of own research synthesis, and expect this to be incorporated into articles, or you pick at minor elements and expect others to expend their limited time and patience defending to the minutest of degrees the bloody obvious. Urselius ( talk) 12:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Criticizing the way another spends his/her time is a miserable way to defend one's own case. Until a source shows up supporting it, extermination is a fringe theory and should be editing according to WP:Fringe_theory. Thank you. Gordon410 ( talk) 13:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time with these niggling hobby-horses, do so and I will return to my usual civility. Urselius ( talk) 14:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Urselius: If what you say in your above long comment about how the extermination theory was the dominant theory until around 1960 is accurate and verifiable, then I am in essential agreement with you. It should be discussed in a section of the article focused on the history of older scholarly views of the issue, but if it is no longer widely accepted then it should not be treated as though this is not the case. Can you cite sources that specifically verify what you wrote above? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The abstract from a typical review-type paper from 2007, I quote: "The nature of the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain c 450-600, and the survival of the incumbent Romano-British population, has long been an emotive topic. Traditional views represented the coming of the Anglo-Saxons as an invasion of entire tribes with large and aggressive warbands, and used vivid imagery of the Anglo-Saxons 'storming the earthwork camps ... slaughtering and driving away the Romanised Britons', and of the Romano-Britons being 'as nearly extirpated as a nation can be'.1 The last 50 years, however, have seen a growing trend towards representations of the Anglo-Saxon arrival as an elite settlement, in which the Romano-Britons assimilated with the Anglo-Saxons, adopting their cultural characteristics in order to fit in to a new social order. This paper aims to consider the process by which views of the Anglo-Saxon arrival have undergone this transformation, and to place this process in the broader context of England's changing position in the world, and its changing relationship with its Celtic neighbours." Grimmer, M. (2007) Invasion, Settlement or Political Conquest: Changing Representations of the Arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association, 3(1) pp. 169-186. See also: Brugmann, B. Migration and Endogenous Change in The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology (2011), Hamerow, H., Hinton, D.A. and Crawford, S. (eds.), OUP Oxford, pp. 30-45. The book is on Google Books as a preview, with the particular chapter readable, so this can be checked for my reliability of interpretation. Urselius ( talk) 14:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

In no way does this support extermination. In fact, it does quite the opposite. It shows that the extermination theory, in the last 50 years, (really 59 since the book is published in 2007) has decreased in popularity. And basically, the only reason people still believe the theory is that they are uninformed. Are we going to continue to uniform readers by acknowledging this fringe theory as a possible reality? Furthermore, if this source is really a good one, why is it not represented in the Wikipedia article? Gordon410 ( talk) 14:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It is - they are both referenced in the article. Urselius ( talk) 07:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The extermination/displacement view was the only show in town before c. 1960, but it is not a museum-piece and should be retained as one extreme of a wide variety of viewpoints, not hived off into a 'museum of ideas section'. It is the default position from which all modern discussions of the subject start, and to which all other hypotheses relate. It is of continuing importance and relevance in contemporary scholarship. Urselius ( talk) 14:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"It is of continuing importance and relevance in contemporary scholarship." Find a source that supports the theory. You cannot. Drop the case. Since a source is required and it is not common knowledge, the fringe theory must be edited. That is the position I am taking. Can we come to this consensus? Thank you. Gordon410 ( talk) 14:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no case. I have shown that contemporary reviews use the extermination hypothesis as the starting point of any scholarly discussion; therefore it retains contemporary relevance. Let me spell it out: because it is still prominently featured in current scholarship - even if the review/book then goes on to argue against it - it is still relevant. End of. Stop wasting my time! Urselius ( talk) 07:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Why does it matter to document a "starting point"? The theory is a myth. I appeal to the editors reading this page to help conclude this discussion and inform us of any Wikipedia policy of which we need to be aware. Thank you. Gordon410 ( talk) 14:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note that scholars refer to the extermination/displacement theory not as a 'fringe theory', not as a 'disproven theory', but as 'the traditional view'. A viewpoint that was the mainstream view, but was also virtually the only hypothesis available, for over a century is never going to be a 'fringe' viewpoint - by definition. If anyone can come up with a relevant source that states that this hypothesis has been entirely disproven I would be incredulous. If Gordon 410 can come up with a reputable source that states that the hypothesis is a "fringe view" (not merely an extreme or outdated view) I would be equally incredulous. Urselius ( talk) 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"While pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." - WP:Fringe_theory. In this case, the old hypothesis is taking prominence in the article to the new hypotheses. For the moment I am willing to compromise with you, however. Reverse the order of Freeman and Allen in section 6.3 so that the modern hypothesis will appear before the old one. Can we do that? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 ( talk) 19:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No it is not. If anything, quite the opposite. The article is in general terms more favourable to the acculturation hypothesis. The extermination/displacement theory is mostly raised in order that the opposite viewpoint, or at least a more moderate viewpoint, can then be examined. However, the extermination/displacement theory remains at the heart of all the discussions within the article. It is the fons et origo to which all other theories refer. I will not engage in any discussions with you on this matter again. You have a repetitive history where you suggest unsuitable changes to the article, the editors who patrol the page, who know most about the subject, invariably tell you that your suggestions are inappropriate and potentially damaging. Then you argue until everyone loses any patience with you (I think you are the sole person responsible for trebling the length of the talk page/archives of the article). Following this you appeal to some part of the Wikipedia apparatus (dispute resolution. fringe etc.) in order to try to gain backing from editors who, on the whole, know less about the subject than the editors who have just told you not to make the changes you have suggested. You are just a time-waster, wasting the time of everyone who is drawn into your wrong-headed schemes. I for one will not engage with you in any form of discussion again. Urselius ( talk) 07:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Lonnie Zamora incident (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Huge article, often editorializes in favor of the UFOlogy fringe view in Wikipedia's voice, and no independent reliable sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah -- way longer than justified by its marginal notability, and nowhere close to NPOV. DoctorJoeE  ^{review transgressions}/ _{talk to me!} 14:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

See Shearer, Christine; et al. (10 August 2016). "Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (8): 084011. Bibcode: 2016ERL....11h4011S. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011.

Being discussed here: Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#New_paper Jytdog ( talk) 04:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a good paper, and thanks to the authors for making it open-access. It contains a lot of information that can be used to combat the chemtrail myth. The one expert out of 77 who did say they had encountered evidence of a chemtrails project stated "high levels of atm[ospheric] barium in a remote area with standard 'low' soil barium'" as their reason. Not exactly a smoking gun, just an anomaly that wasn't explained. I'll look at the talk page linked above. Roches ( talk) 01:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe there is a false accusation of WP:FRINGE at Talk:Ürümqi#Demographics. Views expressed in an RS source by a University Professor, James Millward, are getting called fringe for no good reason. Rajmaan ( talk) 16:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

[29] [30] Professor of Chinese and Central Asian History James A. Millward

The book in question was published by Stanford University Press

False accusations of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are being hurled with no reference to any of the content of those guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmaan ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• The issue at the article isn't whether the material is fringe... But whether it is relevant to mention. What we have is a source which attempts to refute what it says is a "common misconception" about the topic cIty. That's all well and good... The problem is that the article does not mention this "common misconception", and so there is nothing to refute. The fact that the source contains a refutation is irrelevant if you don't mention what it tries to refute in the first place. Blueboar ( talk) 20:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It does mention what there is to refute- the refutation itself. Millward mentions both the misconception, and refutes it and that is basically all that is required. In fact, I believe if you have another source propagating the misconception and use Millward's source to refute it, that is a violation of WP:SYNTH. You need one source to mention both. But anyway I have a source propagating the misconception. Rajmaan ( talk) 02:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You got your answer above. Now WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Cite the exact guidelines from both WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE which apply to removing RS university published sourced content from an article and telling me to I have to commit a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS to include two points of view. Before lecturing other people on following them. None of the content under UNDUE or FRINGE says you need multiple sources to include points of view which are not disputed between scholars. You are wikilawyering by digging up policies and making up your own definitions. Rajmaan ( talk) 04:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer on the issue, I would just say that Lemongirl942 is wrong to to label the information as fringe. Rajmaan however is also wrong to add something that might be perceived as a POV edit into the paragraph. The demographics of the region have always been in a flux, for example there would have been ancient Uyghurs in the area given that Beshbalik was nearby, trying to impose a simple narrative is a POV edit. It would be better to simply say when modern Uyghurs moved into the area (and more recently influx of Han Chinese) rather than saying something about misconception which might be read as a pushing a POV. Hzh ( talk) 10:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The architecture and culture of Old Uyghurs was Buddhist and Manichean and built Buddhist Temples while the modern ethnic group are Muslims and use Central Asian architectural Mosques and Bazaars and follow Central Asian Muslim culture. All Mosques and Bazaars in Urumqi are not older than 250 years old and there weren't any before Qing rule. Millward mentioned people mistakenly thinking Han architecture and culture replaced (modern) Uyghur ones. Many Uyghur Mosquss in Urumqi were built recently and so were the Central Asian style Bazaars. Rajmaan ( talk) 19:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You are not saying I don't know or you haven't already mentioned in the discussion, and they are not particularly relevant to the point I'm making. If you want to introduce any content from any book, then consider its relevance and appropriateness to its topic, its significance (important enough to be included?), how you write them (e.g. in a tone that is as neutral a way as possible), etc. Read for example WP:POV which suggests careful use of words so as not to introduce bias. In the case of Urumqi where there is ethnic tension, introducing any idea or even a hint that the city belongs to any particular people is likely to be contentious and would introduce a bias that should not have been there. It would be better to simply state facts rather than opinions, and not write in such a way designed to refute any particular opinion. Avoid telling people what to think, the facts can speak for themselves. Your initial edit did introduce something that could be construed as an undesirable POV that was previously absent in the article. Hzh ( talk) 21:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Another one of Millward's books contains raw data on the Hui and Han majority population in Qing Urumqi. Saying the Qing founded the modern city and it was populated by a Hui and Han majority is enough? Rajmaan ( talk) 22:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem with presenting the historical demographics of a place if you have the proper data (which you can put under the demographics section). However, you should note that the page does not give any figure specific only to Urumqi, and only says that there were few Uyghurs in Urumqi, and that it had a large Han population for some time in the next page. You might want to look at the sources quoted. Note also that this is not the appropriate place to discuss this. Hzh ( talk) 22:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Rolfing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are some remaining unresolved issues with this article which could benefit from extra input. As I see it the issues include:

• Should the article be copiously tagged? I'm not entirely sure any more what this issue is here by those who want to keep the tags, but the description of Rolfing as pseudoscience/quackery has been objected to for example (it was proposed [31] we should say that opponents see it as pseudoscience).
• How should the question of effectiveness be dealt with? It has been proposed that we say some sources support Rolfing's effectiveness and some don't [32] - although as I see it the only WP:MEDRS we have appears to say there is no good evidence.

Alexbrn ( talk) 18:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

There isn't much controversy about MEDRS on the Talk page; there clearly aren't adequate studies to claim medical benefit. Any question on this topic is just about the exact wording of that phrase. Stating it succinctly works ("There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition" - as it is currently written is fine to me). There has been a line added about the lack of studies to determine safety or cost-effectiveness; if this is to be included, all of these unknowns should be stated in one simple sentence. We don't need to belabor these points; no evidence is no evidence.

The manner in which pseudoscience/quackery is discussed and the use of a number of weak sources (single-word mention of Rolfing with no specific critique or analysis of the method) is a problem, however. -- Karinpower ( talk) 19:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the lede currently reads:

"There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition.[6] It is recognized as a pseudoscience,[7][8] and has been characterized as quackery.[9][10] It is not known whether Rolfing is either safe or cost-effective.[6][11]"

The controversy as I understand it is that 1) the characterizations of quackery come from two sources that simply include rolfing in a laundry list of alternative health, all of which fall into the quackery category in the opinion of the authors. This seems like weak criteria to include in a lede statement. Granted, it's important to include criticism of a topic in the lede and to assure that the alternative nature is apparent. But this categorical statement is not made in the same way on other alternative medicine topics that are included in the laundry lists. 2) The first and third statements in this paragraph seem unnecessarily redundant.

Thatcher57 ( talk) 05:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence concerns safety and cost-effectiveness, which are not the same things as effectiveness for treating health conditions Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. That Rolfing not is known to be safe or worth the fee is kind of an essential point. It would seem a bit WP:PROFRINGE not to say this in the lede. As to the "laundry list" complaint, I don't see the point. It seems sources mention that Rolfing is quackery as a characterisation, much as they might say (on another topic) "the most beautiful tourist cities in Europe are: X, Y and Z". That doesn't make it any less sourced, or inherently call the source into question, though it does limit what Wikipedia can say about this which is WP:DUE. As I understand it the Rolf-enthusiasts want to remove all mention of the word "quack" from the article, right? Alexbrn ( talk) 05:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I propose removing the word "quack" from the lede, not removing it from the article. If the sources referred to rolfing as one of three or four types of quackery, it would carry more weight in my opinion. But it is included in a list of 24 in one source (Agin) and the list is longer in the other from what I can see online (Shapiro). Combining the first and third sentences is a reasonable way to address the effectiveness (or lack thereof). Thatcher57 ( talk) 14:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think whether quackery is due in the lede, is debatable. But we deffo need to have the (lack of) safety and cost-effectiveness knowledge mentioned. And we should also say the concepts of rolfing contradict medical science, per our sourcing. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały - the cost-effectiveness phrase comes from an Australian study on 17 Natural Therapies, so that the government paid only for services where a literature survey (2008 to June 2013) found lots of studies meeting highest criteria, and did not find that for any of the 17. I read it as one POV and better worded as "few studies" or "little evidence" or "insufficient evidence" rather than the article wording "no good evidence". In general, the study said about the 17 Natural Therapies "Very little literature exists". For Rolfing 2008-2013 it said in summary "The absence of evidence examining this technique (both in SRs published since 2008 and in RCTs) limits the ability of consumers, health providers and policy-makers to make an informed assessment regarding the effectiveness (and safety, quality and cost-effectiveness) of rolfing." and about overall completeness and applicability "The absence of evidence examining this technique (both in SRs published since 2008 and in RCTs) limits the ability of consumers, health providers and policy-makers to make an informed assessment regarding the effectiveness (and safety, quality and cost-effectiveness) of rolfing." Hope this explained the oddity of saying 'cost-effectiveness'. Markbassett ( talk) 13:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to the points raised above by Thatcher "The controversy as I understand it is..." Whether the statement is supported as stated was not part of the alleged "controversy". Minor disagreements about wording belong on the discussion page of the article, not here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with those sources (the ones that only have a list in which Rolfing is included) is that they give a drive-by accusation without supporting it with specific critiques, and the list of items is usually quite random, everything from colonics to iridology to past-life regression. So the reader leaves not knowing *why* the author included Rolfing on that list. Also we are unable to assess what research the author did on the many methods that are listed. So, it sounds like we have agreement to remove "quackery" from the lede, and we don't have agreement about removing it from the article itself.

Regarding how to handle those sources.... For over a year (from April 2015 until July 13 2016), all of those sources were grouped into this line: "Skeptics have included Rolfing in lists of alternative health methods that they consider quackery, based on a lack of scientific evidence as well as questionable assessment and treatment methods." To me that is an appropriate container for those sources - they don't give Rolfing enough detailed consideration to warrant quoting them or citing them otherwise. Since that wording proved to be very stable we should return to that. -- Karinpower ( talk) 06:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you wrote "Yes, I think whether quackery is due in the lede, is debatable." Are you willing to have quackery be removed from the lede (with it still remaining in Reception)? As you previously discussed, this would not affect "pseudoscience" or the cost/safety elements in the lede.-- Karinpower ( talk) 03:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't have a super-strong opinion on it, but the "RfC" was just closed and consensus seems to be to leave it there. It's harmless enough. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't my take on the consensus.... seemed to me that quackery in the lede was pretty mixed. Besides the editors that were completely on one side or the other, there were some editors who wanted to keep everything else as it was, but thought quackery in the lede was the one weak spot. Only a couple sources mention it, as opposed to pseudoscience, which has broader support. That's why I'm coming back to this topic now. Thanks. -- Karinpower ( talk) 03:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Meat?

Also of concern here now is new accounts warping in with apparently WP:PROFRINGE edits - e.g. [33] [34] Recruiting or something going on? Alexbrn ( talk) 06:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

David Wilcock (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is just plain WP:SOAPy. It almost reads like a paid promotional piece. Are there any WP:FRIND sources available about this fellow?

jps ( talk) 00:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well, now there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wilcock (2nd nomination), so if you find some sources it might be worth mentioning there. jps ( talk) 07:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Could anyone please pay attention to the article on Soka Gakkai. To my mind it is in breach with a number of guidelines in place already mentioned in the talk page. I am not an active editor. -- Tonisana2 ( talk) 10:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Association of Health, Food, Nutrition & Dietetics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I seriously want to nuke this spammy article, but it may be a notable subject. Does anyone know? Guy ( Help!) 12:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You can't do that, they have interlinked with the different community after all. - Roxy the dog™ bark 13:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Diversified technique (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article was restored with two non-independent sources. There was a previous discussion for the Diversified technique page. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 50#Diversified technique. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Didn't we recently review Gonstead technique? I remember the article previously claiming the subject to be the dominant school within the Chiropractic healing movement. And now this article claims to be the dominant school. It sounds like both topics ought to be merged into Chiropractic. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Salimfadhley, it was merged to Chiropractic_treatment_techniques#Diversified_technique. I guess some editors like duplicate content on different articles. It must be one of those WP:IAR thing. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Heberprot-P (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a pretty bad article, but is it bollocks or ist it just that the stuff is mainly used in countries which are not part fo the medical mainstream? Guy ( Help!) 12:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Its bad, but there are studies into growth factors for treatment. Also Cuba is far from being a fringe medical system - in some areas they are at the cutting edge so to speak. I would expect them to have done some decent checking on it, but I cant find much useful info about the place ( CIGB) that created it except from themselves, as there is a naming conflict with another more international centre. It is a commercial product but appears to have solid research behind it. Might want to ping a Med specialist. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Many have pitched in; you can find what is left at Epidermal_growth_factor#Medical_uses. Thanks for bringing it. Turns out not to be not ridiculous if you search pubmed for the generic name, like this. Doc James did that. Jytdog ( talk) 08:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a pretty bad article, a sort of catch-all for all sorts of stuff. See Talk:Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting#Various issues: WP:UNDUE, lists of proponents, bad sourcing. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Michael_Greger#Request_for_comments_on_SBM_source Jytdog ( talk) 03:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The talk page for Diesel engine ( Talk:Diesel engine) contains a discussion and an RfC about the contributions of George Brayton. His Brayton engine used the Brayton cycle to do something similar to Rudolf Diesel's engine. I have some WP:FRINGE, WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns about the additions being proposed. I was invited to the RfC by the RfC service and there are only a couple of editors participating in the discussion. Roches ( talk) 03:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Joseph Pierce Farrell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A strikingly uncritical biography of a "pioneer in the field of integrative healthcare", virtually every word of whihc was written by one or other of two WP:SPAs, one of whose usernames clearly suggests a connection to the subject. Guy ( Help!) 06:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• If this is the guy then I think he may well be a tinfoil hat merchant. Guy ( Help!) 07:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Is he a pioneer? I have my doubts. Not enough mainstream exposure/identification by WP:FRIND sources to show that this is actually the case. Thus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Pierce Farrell. jps ( talk) 16:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This article now has an AFD. I expect that it will be deleted fairly quickly since all of the references are either self-published, irrelevant or garbage. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Food Matters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article could do with some in-depth sources, as it currently represents the fringe content of the film uncritically. Guy ( Help!) 11:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Activity-specific approach in temperament research (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was started by one of the main promoters of the term, Iratrofimov ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), discussion of whose work makes up half the article and whose primary research also dominates the references. That's a bit red-flaggy for me. Guy ( Help!) 11:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

here are the facts (stated within this article): the approach was initiate in 1976; the Rusalov's theory (= this approach in a complete formal print) was first published in his solid book in 1979 in Russian, then as a an article in English in 1989. The approach is totally a product of Rusalov. Trofimova's research simply used it, including in to her model (the model was first published only in 2007), but it didn't change Rusalov's idea of a separation between physical, verbal and mental traits of temperament. My (Trofimova's) model is therefore just an illustration of different applications of the approach offered by Rusalov who is likely still not aware of the wiki page describing it, at least I personally haven't notified him. Problem is that for English wiki it makes sense to cite English-language sources describing the theory (and not 200 Russian-language papers of Rusalov) - but most of paper in English on this matter go under my name. I agree, putting these references in is not a super-modest position, but frankly, I don't know how else we can present this useful and famous (in Russia) theory to English readers. I know this theory very well, as an expert third party. Besides, we are not talking about a promotion of a drug, song, or other consumer product - this is useful, but not easily accessible scientific knowledge. There is no harm in making English-speaking public more knowledgeable about a decades-long tradition. Iratrofimov ( talk) 16:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

According to you. Now I want to know the views of Wikipedians who are not professionally connected to the term. Guy ( Help!) 20:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a lot of WP:SYNTH in here. I'm not sure it is fringe, but, looking at the citation count for, say 'An investigation into differences between the structure of temperament and the structure of personality' I get 10. For 'Is temperament activity-specific? Validation of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire – Compact (STQ-77)' I get 8. For 'Temperament and arousal systems: a new synthesis of differential psychology and functional neurochemistry' I get 4. These are google scholar citation results. I'm not sure if it is Freinge, but it may fail GNG. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 22:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does Lake Tianchi Monster (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sound a little credulous? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems fine to me... Any specific gripes? 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 00:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it seemed to me like there was not anything resembling scepticism in the article, just people claiming to have seen it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 05:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thought Field Therapy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article makes it pretty clear that TFT is bogus, but an IP is edit-warring to include the following as the closing para of the lede:

Thought Field Therapy is listed on SAMSHA National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP) as an effective practice for improving personal "resilience/self-concept, self-regulation, and reducting trauma and stressor-related disorders. ^[1] Also, Thought Field Therapy is also listed for having promising outcomes affecting "depression and depressive symptoms; general functioning and well-being; phobia, panic, and generalized anxiety disorders and symptoms; and unspecified and other mental health disorders and symptoms. ^[2]

This seems to me to be WP:UNDUE, it is also WP:PRIMARY (to say nothing of special pleading). I suspect the article might need semiprotection to stop this, but someone here might feel that the content can be used in some form lower in the article. Guy ( Help!) 07:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Lew Childre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I sense that this person may be notable given the outside criticism of his institute, but I'd like others to consider this too. His father may actually be more notable than he, but alas, no article.

jps ( talk) 18:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Hamilton

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral City (2nd nomination)

Comment, please. jps ( talk) 20:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this another Integral theory (Ken Wilber) person? —PermStrump (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. jps ( talk) 21:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Both were relisted, so additional input would be appreciated. jps ( talk) 13:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This yet-another-radical-reworking of Christian origins by non-scholar Joseph Atwill has a rather peculiar article which cannot decide how to approach this conspiracy theory. Bart Ehrman of course savages it but we could use something a little better than his blog-post-before-he-had-even-read-it response. Mangoe ( talk) 02:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A couple of editors over at Ethereum repeatedly assert that this Ethereum page is WP:FRINGE (also making similar assertions relating to The DAO (organization)) and therefore delete large swaths of content added, asserting compliance is required with WP:FRIND. See a current discussion here relating at Talk:Ethereum#Coin_desk. I thought I would create this entry here at this message board and seek consensus if this is the correct venue and if this is in fact a Fringe article. This issue is currently manifesting in a discussion if CoinDesk (a cryptocurrency news site) can be a WP:RS on the Ethereum page, and if sources on this page much . Similar ad nauseam discussions has been going on for at least 6 months (many previous discussions archived) with much content deleted, reverts, and endless back and forth... So I thought I would shine some light on it here to see if the page is indeed Fringe, and also do a noticeboard posting to see if CoinDesk is an RS for this page located here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CoinDesk_and_CoinTelegraph_on_the_article_Ethereum. Is my approach correct? Thank you Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC) I have stuck some of my comments above to attempt to focus this discussion, as I think I have conflated the subject a bit. Apologies Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I posted this seeking a consensus on two issues.

1. Is Ethereum WP:FRINGE? I vote Not Fringe.

2. Are CoinDesk and CoinTelegraph considered WP:RS? I vote is RS

Above votes are if I am allowed to vote on my own nomination. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC) I have struck some of my comments above as I think I may be conflating the issues a bit. I will leave this page just to the Fringe discussion. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf. You said, above, "I vote Not Fringe.", but you provided no rationale for that opinion. (and moreover, that got a bit lost in the confusion of bringing the Reliable Source issue of a particular source, which is not in-scope for this board at all, which I see you have since remedied by striking that out.) Unfortunately, much of the discussion below got sidetracked to an off-topic discussion of that particular source, and we have very few editors who have yet weighed in on the "Is Ethereum a fringe topic?" question.

It would be helpful if you would provide your rationale somewhere in this discussion. Also, if you are new to noticeboard discussions, it is not voting that is done here. Rather, it is views expressed and arguments made, using Wikipedia policy to back up your arguments and views. So, yes, of course you can do that. But you are not voting. N2e ( talk) 21:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

+1 as an editor on the other side of this one from Jtbobwaysf :-) Eyes welcomed - David Gerard ( talk) 11:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Fringe using sources CoinDesk and such, these libertarian fantasy sites are not a good idea of reliable sourcing. They are being or were being used to a huge degree to pad the article. A lot of have now been removed and more should be removed. Using promotional advert sites is just a gateway to the crypto currency world of make believe money scams, hacking and future chaos of these schemes. They are primary promotional, all the coin ref sites talked about and being used to over source non important information. Kitco [35] is not used to source our gold articles. Kitco is a buying and selling semi conspiracy information site that promotes the buying of gold to mostly hedge against the collapse. These coin sites are similar. Stick with actual news worthy sources not promo rah rah sites. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 04:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Earl, read WP:NOTSOAPBOX Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• In my view there is some nuance here. I found some very good stuff at coindesk critical of The DAO and realistically identifying some of the risks in the model (like, it was not unlikely that there would be no corporate veil protecting investors from liability - yikes!!), and this was at the time when everyone was swooning over this "decentralized investment model". ( this ref which I used to add some of the first reality-based content to that article - dif). So sites like Coindesk can provide ~some~ useful "trade rag" insights into what is going on that the mainstream press doesn't get into. (many industries have similar trade rags). But I agree 100% that out-of-bubble sources (main stream, not trade rag sources) need to ground things and that if an article becomes too heavily drawn from in-bubble sources it floats off into la la land that is all hype and no substance... no grounding in reality. The walled garden thing is a real concern. Sorry that is not black and white. use with care. Jytdog ( talk) 05:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been finding them mostly okay for clearly factual claims, absolutely useless for notability (e.g. is a particular thing worth noting in a list of applications next to the NYT and Bloomberg refs) - David Gerard ( talk) 09:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The issue we are having on these pages relates to the "mostly okay" statement just you made above, hence subjective deletion of content which results in WP:NPOV problems on these articles and confusion of editors who attempt to contribute to this page. This noticeboard discussion started as Earl King Jr. felt it was ok to delete the launch date of Ethereum (a non-controversial fact) because it has a coindesk source (which is reinforced by your repeated claims that CoinDesk is not a news site and is in fact a blog). Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC) The main issue I want to address on this page David is if Ethereum is in fact WP:FRINGE and therefore WP:FRIND applies. I feel I might have conflated the issue a bit with my previous comments, I apologize. Thus I struck my comments as they are largely off subject. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No. As said the Times article [36] can be used to date the thing. Piling on four Coin Desk style Crypto promotion sites is totally ridiculous for sourcing somethingno real new stories hardly consider important and the date is in the info box there anyway so its a non starter from the get go. Lets not use this as an excuse to source four exaggerated coin blogs. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• The dating of Ethereum launch is not a fringe theory at all, it is a fact. Whether CoinDesk is an independent reliable source is a different subject matter discussed elsewhere. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 13:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the point of the walled garden theory; of course the date of launch is a fact. Jytdog ( talk) 20:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my statement that the date of launch is a fact. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 07:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• The issue with these sites is pretty clear: their agenda is not to neutrally document facts, but to promote an ideology. They may indeed be "mostly OK" for clearly factual claims, but a clearly factual claim that is actually notable will also be covered in mainstream sources, whereas a factual claim that is considered notable only by a site like CoinDesk is probably not significant for inclusion in Wikipedia. Guy ( Help!) 08:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me, please, inform you that the validity of CoinDesk as a source is discussed elsewhere. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Strikes me as an iffy source. However, this does not appear to be a WP:FRINGE area, but a good old weight/neutrality issue - so I'm not sure why it's at this noticeboard. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Iffy sources. They contain some press release non news and endless speculation on this and that about different aspects of crypto currency. Also there is an issue possibly of these different CoinDesk things being in competition with each other it would seem. Even the Mises economic talk forum and articles are iffy on this. Ether and Bitcoin are a bit at war with notability issues. That could be a side issue here that is manifesting with editors. The sites divide into different camps. Better to not use some abstracted promo educational stuff in general by industry mags. The real media mostly is not reporting on obscure issues such as their start date anyway but if looked around decent sources, more journalistic sources are available. Conflicts of interest from people involved in these coin blog industry promo mag things and Wikipedia editors making sourcing is an issue, or so it says at the talk page at the top of the article discussed here, so great caution must be used with not so good sources. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 10:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Not Fringe Ethereum is a notable software project, as well as a computer protocol, used today in a variety of applications beyond its use as a digital value token. It has been widely covered by media sources beyond the more narrow industry-focused media sites that cover that industry alone. Just looking at sources I've seen and used include Fortune, Forbes, Wired, TechCrunch, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, IEEE Spectrum, International Business Times, etc. in the article category, plus a book length treatment published this spring by a noted financial author ( Don Tapscott, who has written on the digital economy for something like 30 years); published by Random House's Penquin imprint (not a lightweight publisher). I'm flabbegasted that editors are seriously suggesting that this software/protocol is WP:FRINGE, with many larger conpanies now announcing products and initiatives using it ( Microsoft, IBM, Deloitte) and even a government science agency ( Innovate UK having just put a quarter million British Pounds into a prototype development effort). The Fringe allegation just does not hold water. N2e ( talk) 12:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Question — How do issues on this noticeboard get tied up/concluded. If one wants an uninvolved third party to come in and review the discussion, do we need to formally request that on Requests for Closure? Or is there some processs on this page that does that automatically? Or am I missing how this works entirely? Thanks. N2e ( talk) 19:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussions are not usually formally closed (and if they are, its usually to stop soapboxing rather than to declare a conclusion.) The purpose of the noticeboards is simply to find out what some uninvolved editors think. RfCs are another way to do gather opinions that is formally closed, though that closure is still not binding - just a summary of what the participants could agree on (if anything). Rhoark ( talk) 22:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This article recently survived, albeit barely, an AfD nomination. Subsequently a number of editors, acting I believe in good faith, have taken it upon themselves to edit this article in a manner that effectively has deleted it it in all but name. It has been reduced to a stub that contains exactly one sentence that can be connected to the title of the article. the rest is a nakedly anti-conspiracy theory essay. I am no fan of conspiracy theories and in fact agree with the views expressed in the article essay. But this is clearly an end run around an AfD that didn't go the way they wanted. And the result is an article that has been turned into an anti-conspiracy theory POV hit piece. Like I said, I oppose the use of the project for the promotion of fringe theories, but this is not right. I am reluctant to mass revert edits but if you want to delete the article it should be done in an above board manner. The last AfD ended in no consensus. I suggest restoring most of the redacted material and renominating it. Or alternatively editing it in a way that does not constitute de-facto deletion. (cross posting from the talk page - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In the olden days, stubs like this were allowed to develop into articles. The sourcing is fairly good and it reads like a promising set-up. jps ( talk) 00:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleting all the material in the article after failing to delete it in an an AfD and the close being supported in a deletion review is clearly gaming the system. I WP:BOLDLY restored the deleted material. (Note that I !voted for deletion during the AfD but there was no consensus for deletion.) I encourage some fresh and uninvolved eyes from the fringe theories noticeboard looking at the article, deleting anything that is [poorly sourced and retaining that which is sourced. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Just for clarification the article was effectively blanked before I renominated it for deletion. See the article talk page. Hopefully we can get some consensus from the new AfD. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I reverted before seeing this message. Guy, your edit summary seemed to say you were restoring it because it was removed during an AfD, which it was not. As I said in my own edit summary, I do not wish to opine one way or the other myself, though -- that's just not a factual basis. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I will say, though, that I've seen other instances of an AfD closed as no consensus despite there being no usable content in the article. Without consensus in the AfD, it becomes a matter for the talk page as to what content should stay or not. That the discussion led to the whole article being removed in this case suggests to me that those !voting keep simply didn't keep involved with the article (in other words, just as one side no-showing at a second AfD -- like Sandstein suggested there be in his close -- would tilt it in one direction, so too is the case if one side doesn't show up on the talk page). Not saying it's ideal, but the right way seems to be restoring appropriate content and engaging in discussion about it rather than restoring it simply because it looks bad (and, perhaps, is bad). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not an end-run around an AfD to be WP:BOLD after a "no consensus" closure and blow up the article and start over. I agree with Rhododendrites approach. Building the article up through reliable sources that actually address "conspiracy theories" seems like a fair approach. If "keep" !voters don't care enough to actually help writing the article, that's no reason to revert those who do actually care. jps ( talk) 11:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, but before they blow it up they should actually do the work of starting over, perhaps in user space. Regardless of any problems, there was a lot of reliably sourced and noteworthy claims to WP:PRESERVE. Rhoark ( talk) 22:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Belief–knowledge gap hypothesis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a monograph by a WP:SPA. It reads to me as WP:SYN or promotion of a non-notable neologism, but it's not my field. Anyone know if it's cromulent or not? Guy ( Help!) 20:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I just PROD'ed it. Fringe or not, this looks like someone just copy-pasted their essay on the subject onto wikipedia. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 00:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The section on topics for future consideration almost merits an entry in WP:NOT. It goes beyond original research to suggest future research... I would comment but the PROD is about to expire. Roches ( talk) 02:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Isolation tank (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I trimmed claims of the health benefits and altered states arising from immersion in an isolation tank, but the subject appears to be controversial. Additional fringe-savvy eyes will no doubt usefully inform consensus. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a good book about floating called "The Book of Floating: Exploring the Private Sea" which has a lot of information about scientific studes in it, which are not cited in my pdf version of it! I'll be sure to contribute some studies to this article. Please note this meta study, Flotation restricted environmental stimulation therapy (REST) as a stress-management tool: A meta-analysis ^[1]

Probrooks ( talk) 14:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Mainly primary sources,reads at least in large part like something they might distribute as a primer. I haven't looked at the related articles. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Boy, you weren't kidding. I've watched the page, and made a rather comprehensive edit to the opening paragraph. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

http://bjoern.brembs.net/2016/01/even-without-retractions-top-journals-publish-the-least-reliable-science/ Rhoark ( talk) 18:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I think they make the wrong conclusion; low-impact journals also publish unreliable science. Lots of it. So do high-impact journals. It's become a serious problem, serious enough that I think in 50 years scientists will still consider work done in the 1950s-1990s to be more reliable than that done from the 2000s to whenever they get around to fixing the problem, Science is like democracy, in a way: not perfect, but the best we've got. Unlike government, though, we know the right way to do it and choose not to. There are good scientists, lots of them, but there's a lot of bad ones now as well.

Soapboxy, yes, but it's relevant here. A peer-reviewed journal article is no longer the gold standard, even if it's in a high impact journal. There still is a mainstream scientific consensus and that is still mostly correct. Research that is at odds with that consensus is usually wrong. As far as I recall Wikipedia editors are not supposed to scrutinize sources, but we can agree that a "breakthrough", especially on the fringes, should not be discussed on here until multiple, independent researchers confirm the work. Roches ( talk) 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The article focuses mainly on biomedical topics. Over the years I've come to the view that medical-related science has its own special problems that preclude any findings being generalized to "science," though people do that all the time. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Most academics these days dismiss offhand pretty much any journal article written and peer-reviewed exclusively in China, so I'm not surprised by this at all. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 01:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

My experience is in chemistry, though I see what you mean about research in medicine. For me, the most interesting part of the article is point 5, about papers that could be objectively verified. The shape of the plot is just about what I would expect: a significant cluster of unreliable papers, and a roughly normally distributed level of quality among others. I don't know how things are in physics, but in chemistry there is a minority that cheats to win.

In medical papers, the problems are often flawed methodology, and so can be discovered by careful reading. In chemistry, it's usually necessary to repeat an experiment to see if it can be repeated. This is based on my experience, and it is by no means a generalization. It is an uncommon occurrence, less than 5% of papers, but it cannot be tolerated especially because the papers often sound very promising. Roches ( talk) 02:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• MEDRS takes this into account - see the last paragraph of the WP:MEDREV section; it is one of the reasons why we are so intentional about using secondary sources to generate biomedical content. I belabored this in a (too long) essay I started that is now in main space, WP:Why MEDRS? see especially the section Wikipedia:Why_MEDRS?#Primary_scientific_literature_is_exceptionally_unreliable_in_biology Jytdog ( talk) 02:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd say WP:MEDASSESS speaks more to the issue that the type of study and statistical design is not always commensurate with the prestige of the journal. Rhoark ( talk) 01:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It is proposed that the Journal of Scientific Exploration page be merged into the Society for Scientific Exploration page. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

An IP is adding their view of when this Indian mythological battle happened using a slideshow they uploaded to a random website and appears to be extremely persistent. Additional eyes and comments would be helpful. Ravensfire ( talk) 12:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Came across Amy L. Lansky and thought I would bring attention to it here. Some really terrible sources are used (Mercola, Natural medicine, Homeopathy.org etc). Was originally going to trim it back, but seeing as most of the remaining sources are primary ones and not much appears in google (a few reviews of her book and more of the same dodgy sources) I was thinking it was a good candidate for deletion. Does the AAAI Classic Paper Award add any notability and is Psycology today at all reliable. I wouldn't have thought so after reading [37], but they apparently have a lot of experts [38]. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks entirely single sourced and self promotional. Came across an article of his on "Spirit Science" and wanted to see if he was an actual doctor. Please take a look at this article. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 16:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged this, but I think it would be a pretty sure-thang for an AFD. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 18:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I forgot the procedure to do that. Anyone else up for nominating it? If not, when I get some time, Ill look it up again on how to do it. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 19:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

He is listed here as a volunteer

http://psychiatry.unm.edu/Community/Volunteer%20Faculty/index.html

He is definitely a doctor and his work is very signficant as he was the 1st person to undertake legal psychedelic studies for many years and his DMT studies are considered groundbreaking. Probrooks ( talk) 14:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

He was also a professor of psychiatry for 11 years!

http://www.wasiwaska.org/organization/rick-strassman/

Probrooks ( talk) 23:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• John A. McDougall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some discussion [39] about whether a source's description of The McDougall Plan as a "fad diet" can be reflected in Wikipedia. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• And now fresh IPs are blanking critical content. [40] Alexbrn ( talk) 10:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I notice that the March Against Monsanto page doesn't seem to discuss the organization's stance on various topics, even though they are commonly brought up on the group's Facebook page and official website. They are anti-vaccine and promote belief in chemtrails. See here and here for examples of those on their Facebook page, though there are plenty more such posts. They also have an official article on their website about their anti-vaccine stance, which you can see here.

Isn't this the sort of topic that should be discussed in their article due to it being one of their primary topics of discussion (and targets, I guess one could say)? The problem is that this pseudoscience side of the group is not really discussed by secondary sources. The best you get is other pseudoscience-esque pages like Collective Evolution covering it. So, only primary sources from the group themselves exist. Is that good enough to include their stance on such things in their WP article? Silver seren ^C 01:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If there's something from a person or source that's clearly an authorized mouthpiece, and the claim is not too self-serving, I don't see a problem with using primary sources to get their views from the horse's mouth. Rhoark ( talk) 01:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the website is based on user posts, so the article I mentioned should count as a primary authoritative source, at least for the vaccine topic. The chemtrail one will be a bit harder. Silver seren ^C 01:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There once was a discussion of such on GMO conspiracy theories, but I think it was removed for lack of adequate sourcing. Not many are writing about the connections between conspiracy theories and anti-GMO activism, but it is undoubtably there. Good research project/journalism piece waiting to be done, actually (outside Wikipedia). jps ( talk) 03:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It's kinda weird that none of the skeptic writers like Steven Novella have written about MAM's connection to other conspiracy groups. I mean, they've been flaunting those connections for years at this point. Silver seren ^C 06:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure I read recently that MaM is now moribund, as the heat has gone out of the GM debate. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, this thread reminds me that we don't have an article on anti-GMO activism which, I think, would be useful. jps ( talk) 12:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

started working on this - if anybody wants to work on it too fine by me.. Jytdog ( talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Bump. More eyes would be great. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Detoxification (alternative medicine) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've never looked closely at this article, and I'm wondering if it would be best to get some more eyes from here. The article doesn't look like it follows FRINGE in the lede or body. Rather it appears to weigh alt-med sources and pov's over others. I don't recall seeing vox.com discussed as a source for alt med topics, but http://www.vox.com/2014/12/31/7438565/detox looks like a fairly good introduction including the history. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Took a pass at the lead and "Criticism" section. Didn't touch the rest. Still some poor sources (and in fact many or most probably don't meet MEDRS), but the statements I'm seeing on the subject are pretty crystal clear. I only did a quick search for an additional source or two -- the rest was mainly based on what was already included. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey! I used a detox product, and it performed every bit as well as desired! It made me pass the drug test for my first job, despite my (then current, but now former) habit. And it didn't work by detoxifying anything, but by loading me up with enough B12 to make my urine yellow, and enough creatine to make it pass the screening, despite being diluted to the point that it was probably just water. I think my personal experience is strong enough to warrant re-writing every detox article to say that they work exactly as advertised and are the best thing for anyone, really. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

What is this about? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mother%27s_Agenda&type=revision&diff=739979564&oldid=655587251 Doug with no PC Internet connection who hates his ipad

Not good when you look at the user's contribution, click on what you think is their name, and get their WP article instead— edited by themselves, of course. Words will be had. Mangoe ( talk) 12:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

New article about a fringe author claiming Muhammad lived in Petra. Needs work. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Whilst idly following some breadcrumbs, I came across this article. "Milton Wainwright (born 1950) is a British microbiologist who is known for his research into what he claims could be extraterrestrial life found in the stratosphere." (I'll note that the original text when first created was "Milton Wainwright is a british microbiologist who became world famous for his discovery of the particle of alliend and therefore proving the existence of the alien life.")

The references and support look awfully thin to me. Is he "world famous" enough for an article? -- Calton | Talk 12:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't recognize the name (though I recognized the claim), and since I'm more than a little bit of a science and science fiction geek (my heart's fondest desire is a hard sci-fi remake of The Next Generation), I think that's a good heuristic for whether he's world famous or not. In ten seconds of google searching, I also found this source, which I think should be added (I'll get around to it soon enough). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Fringe author writing on the history of Islam. Seems to be some OR here and too much dependence on his work. When I get my replacement modem/router and am off my iPad (useless for Goole Books for some reason) I'll try to find time for it. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Posted about this yesterday, sorry. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Russell Targ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Heads-up: a brand new user has decided to "help" us by making the article on Targ more "neutral" (by which I mean that he casts the reality-based view as being held only by a handful of those evil science shill skeptics). Guy ( Help!) 10:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That guy's username might be a WP:IMPERSONATION violation, since Jim Weiner is a known advocate for paranormal stuff who has appeared on podcasts and the like. -- Krelnik ( talk) 19:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Category talk:Violence against men#Which version is better?.

Note that the fringe theory being pushed is the MRA proposal that domestic violence against men and domestic violence against women are categorically equivalent.

jps ( talk) 18:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sounds too much like CANVASSING to me. Also, in what ways is this a MRA proposal? Could you please explain? I do not intend to be rude or unpleasant, I merely wish to understand. I agree with you on other things, but on this issue I disagree. 79.66.16.141 ( talk) 17:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

He's a former Russian Orthodox monk, formally condemned by the church. According to the independent sources, he seems to be a promoter of anti-Jewish conspiracies and was a local street activist/preacher in Summit County, Colorado. Most of the article is sourced to primary sources, or not sourced at all. The article needs a complete rewrite from the secondary sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"Brother" Nathanael's name brings cries of Боже мой! and Господи помилуй! in every Orthodox forum I have ever frequented. He was never really a monk; he was very briefly a novice at (I would guess) the almost-as-notorious Bishop Gregory's ROAC monastery (which itself was roughly overhauled when Metropolitan Valentine visited the US and saw what was going on), but apparently even Gregory could tell that he had as many screws loose as a freshly opened Meccano/ Erector set. Kapner in reply said some extremely nasty things in return.

It's questionable whether he is really notable. The hard thing is that from what I can see the only places where you will get a story which didn't come from Kapner himself is in these fora, and possibly from the ROCOR hierarchy (who object to him trying to sail under their flag). Mangoe ( talk) 23:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, he was never a monk. He claims to have been, but the sources indicate otherwise.

I think there's enough coverage of his street preaching/dancing to meet BIO. He also gets a great deal of attention from his conspiracy theories. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Бог спас нас! Agree that this article needs some revision with an emphasis on better sourcing. But in general what's in there is consistent with what I have heard about him. I am reluctant to edit the article substantively out of deference to WP:COI as I have been involved in some fairly contentious online discussions about this xenos. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Official theme song for this thread. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Pgbrux ( talk · contribs)' blocked before for editwarring on this, has hit 3rr, violating our sourcing policy and NPOV. But I've reverted him twice and am about to turn off my light! Doug Weller talk 21:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I can see where Pgbrux ( talk · contribs) is coming from. I don't think it is appropriate of wikipedia to presume tell people the Atacama remains are human in the first line, considering the skeleton has 10 ribs, is so tiny and looks ALIEN to anyone's eyes. How many 8 inch humans are there anyway? Is it an aborted fetus? did it really live to 8 years old? Probably there are more questions here than answers. Sure the "answers", theories and science that has been carried out can be communicated, but it seems greatly assumptive to simply default to communicate that this skeleton is human, when it is such an anomaly, and surely it is worth just accepting it as a mystery, worthy of further research as to HOW it came to exist and look the way it does. If this is a mutant human, perhaps it can show us how humans mutated or evolved ala Darwinism?

Probrooks ( talk) 13:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No, we go with the reliable sources. Not editors' opinions. The fact that there are still questions as to what problems caused it to be as it is doesn't make it less human. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"Both Nolan and Lachman emphasized that their research is not complete, as they proved that the specimen is human but still cannot explain all of its unusual characteristics."

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/05/20/professor-debunks-theories-of-skeletons-alien-origins/

Ok, I've inserted a link to this Stanford article after the word human, as when I first read it struck me as being extremely pre-emptive, and I think that claim needs backing up and explaining to people. I certainly don't think it should rammed in people's throats in the first sentence, as it is clearly stated to be only prelimineray research and only 90% of the DNA is actually considered human.

Probrooks ( talk) 23:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

AFAICT the researchers didn’t claim the remaining 10% was non-human. Isn’t the most likely explanation that it was degraded? I have no expertise to say how much DNA can be expected to survive intact in a partly mummified or fossilized specimen, but 100% would seem rather optimistic. I think the old saw that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence applies here. Only 90% is human and 90% is identifiably human have different connotations.— Odysseus 147 9 01:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You can read Dr Nolan's analysis here (which I will link on the wikipedia article)

http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Chile-Specimen_GPN-Summary.pdf

A quick read through this will make clear to anyone reading it that this analysis is highly inconclusive. I think to just say they are skeletal remains would be more open ended, and not shotgun bolt in the word "human" makes more sense, but it seems to me a lot of people resist uncertainty and would prefer to rush to conclusions based on one man's preliminary research.

Probrooks ( talk) 05:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

please don't add that, it fails WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 05:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Could use some additional eyes on Climate Hustle, which has seen several pov additions in the past few days and a lengthy new talk page message. I've responded, but something tells me my response won't effectively assuage their concerns. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A related article, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, could use better sources and more "fact based" content. See for example, this diff. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The article Wireless power transfer has been a battleground for years due to extremely persistent efforts to insert an alternate theory that around 1900 Nikola Tesla transmitted electric power around the world using something called a Zenneck wave. This has been mentioned previously on this page: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_44#World_Wireless_System The conflict is heating up again. Would be very helpful to have editors take a good long look at the recent Talk page discussion and express their opinion. Hope to have some editors watchlist this page and participate in future discussions, as it looks to be a continuing thing. Cheers! -- Chetvorno ^TALK 03:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Morgellons. Interested in folks' thoughts there. Jytdog ( talk) 07:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Zerona (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New AfD up for discussion: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Zerona. The article is a very promotional about a laser device that "busts fat." Delta13C ( talk) 06:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I am wondering if this theory should be mentioned in any way this draft. I am generally of the opinion that articles should be comprehensive, but it's clearly a fringe theory and I am leaning towards not mentioning it at all. What is the common practice for such things? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I also found https://books.google.ch/books?hl=de&lr=&id=conmlB95wbwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=%22tauca%22+lake&ots=30RG4pX8A2&sig=sDSoZgaqf4UVzfiYovCWbLCXWb4#v=onepage&q=tauca&f=false, not that it looks much better. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW nearby Tiwanaku has been a target of Atlantis-related speculation for a long time (not to mention the extraterrestrials)—see e.g. Edmund Kiss—but that article doesn’t mention any of it. The above version is more focused on the former lake &c. than any others I‘ve seen, but unless there are more sources than the self-published book & website it’s probably best left out.— Odysseus 147 9 08:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Would someone also take a look at Location hypotheses of Atlantis - my reversion of an edit which seems to be pushing a particular person and inappropriately discussing a forthcoming National Geographic program (IMHO of course). Doug Weller talk 09:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Can_article_titles_be_used_as_sources.3F Jytdog ( talk) 04:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Voice stress analysis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lkr3515 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit summaries like "Page returned to original state with listed references following attempt to alter it with deleterious statements. This page was started to inform readers about voice stress analysis. Start another page if you wish to write negative and onesided comments" do not inspire confidence. VSA is, of course, distinctly fringe. Guy ( Help!) 17:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I looked into the CVSA marketed by the NITV after Zimmerman took one, when I was working on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article. And I found this - a top executive from the National Institute for Truth Verification admitted under oath that the machine is not capable of detecting truth or lies. I see CVSA is hyperlinked to the NITV in that section of "Voice stress units", this admission by a company executive should be included.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that the editor making the edits Guy referenced above, Lkr3515 was originally linked after the article in this section, but removed their name. Just over 100 edits and exactly one edit to the article talk page. Perhaps guiding them to the article talk page and mentioning the 3RR policy could help - they are at or over, but no warnings about it on their talk page. That all said, there's a whiff of WP:COI here. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Also note that the other editor, Stringfellows is brand new and right there with Lkr3515 in the excessive revert count. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Stringfellows will be the IP that's been reverting. Blocked both 21h for rampant edit-warring, and sprotected the page, but I suspect it will need full protection and long term blocking to stop the problem. Guy ( Help!) 22:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The anti-CVSA content is much better written than the pro-CVSA content. That's a frequent problem in fringe articles, but it's especially noticeable here. I'm not sure what action can be taken on that; protection may be the only way to go. The sources used for the pro-CVSA content are very weak, so it may be the case that the neutral point of view is simply that CVSA doesn't work. Some of the content explains why pro-CVSA sources are flawed; that shouldn't be necessary to do in the article, because it implies that the source is not a reliable one. That's a talk page issue, not an article issue. Roches ( talk) 05:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The article Joachim Helbig has been nominated for community GA reassessment as per WP:GAR.

The discussion will take place at GAR:Joachim Helbig, with the goal to reach a consensus whether the article satisfies the good article criteria. Any input would be welcome.

I believe that this GAR is within the scope of this noticeboard due to the use of what I'd describe as fringe sources, including Franz Kurowski, two works published by a German right-wing publisher, and a self-published source.

Any input would be welcome. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@ K.e.coffman:, I disagreed with you on the Knight's Cross articles, but here I am in agreement. I'm still not convinced that pro-Nazi material is per se fringe. Racial theories, Nazi archaeology, antisemitic propaganda, and so on would be fringe, and Holocaust denial is fringe, but I see this as an NPOV issue rather than a fringe issue. Nevertheless, I commented on why I believe Helbig should be GAR-delisted based on the neutrality criterion as well as the RS criterion. Roches ( talk) 21:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

some more eyes would be useful. Jytdog ( talk) 06:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• John Bastyr (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article for Deletion: A fringe practitioner (naturopath and chiropractor) who does not appear notable beyond the naturopathic community, since Bastyr University bears his name. Delta13C ( talk) 08:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just came across this today and am trying to figure out what to make of it. Pubmed search for reviews here (more expansive here). Seems like an effort aimed at correcting a perceived sexism in medical theory and research about the HPA axis and the fight or flight response (with an equally catchy name); just not sure if this is a real thing or a pet theory.... and when I say "not sure" i really mean "not sure". Jytdog ( talk) 16:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A team of AAH proponents are removing mentions of "pseudoscience" from the article, and argueing that the theory has been met with greater acceptance in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, based on a BBC proigram in whiuch David Attenborough (a non scientist and ling time proponent) states that the theory is now gaining acceptance. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Its fringe certainly, but is it pseudoscience? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

(This clearly falls under "fringe theories" as the notion that a reenactor web site can be used for an encyclopedic citation is clearly out of the mainstream. :-) )

I would appreciate additional attention to the article, where I was reverted twice due to the editor's insistence on using a Wehrmacht reenactment web site as a source for a citation. Please see: Talk:11th_Panzer_Division_(Wehrmacht)#11thpanzer.com. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I came across this article via the edits of an IP editor ( Special:Contributions/94.60.196.117) inserting neo-Nazi publications into articles. The article is in need of a cleaning up and could use some RS. I cleaned up the lead, but it was a drop in the bucket due to the amount of neo-Nazi fancruft. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding Jonathan Bowden to the far-right cluster, where Southgate was used as as source: diff. More eyes on this article would be appreciated. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• There's been some editwarring over these articles by User:Nicole Sharp who states that "Ufology is a valid science", hence my bringing it here. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ufology is not a fringe theory, and is actually not a theory at all, but rather a scientific inquiry into unexplained aerial phenomena, which encompasses interdisciplinary knowledge from fields such as meteorology, astronomy, and aviation. The goal of ufology is to provide scientific explanations for rare and currently otherwise unexplainable aerial phenomena (UAP a.k.a. UFOs). Ufology is often misconceived in the mass media as being pseudoscience or the pursuit of extraterrestrial spacecraft, which is not true. However, ufology has very little to do with either astropolitics or exopolitics, which are synonymous terms for the very mainstream and relevant study of the politics of outer space (the Space Race, international space exploration, etc.). Nicole Sharp ( talk) 08:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • "exopolitics" is a coinage by Alfred Webre, who argues that the events of September 11, 2001 were a false flag operation employing secret exotic technologies developed by DARPA and CIA including Tesla-based time travel that permitted Donald Rumsfeld to have images of the events at the World Trade Center on 9/11 30 years in advance in 1971. [41] It might be possible to turn the word to sensible non-fringe usage, but nobody does - David Gerard ( talk) 10:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @ Nicole Sharp: Ufology is a fringe theory, plain and simple. (From the article on Ufology: Ufology is characterized as a partial ^[1] or total ^{[2] [3]} pseudoscience). ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
      • This is something that can be debated interminably, again largely due to misconceptions popularized in mass media. J. Allen Hynek is arguably the individual responsible for turning ufology from a collection of wild stories into a serious field of science, where the scientific method can be applied. A UFO is by definition an unknown phenomenon (i.e. not a spacecraft, unless later identified as such). The goal of ufology is to eliminate UFOs as IFOs (identified flying objects) instead. "UAP" (unidentified aerial phenomenon) is currently the more correct term, since not all UFO sightings are physical objects (e.g. mirages, gases, ball lightning, etc.). The largest difficulty in ufology is the rarity and randomness of events, which is a problem present in other disciplines, such as astronomy or particle physics, where extremely rare transient phenomena can occur, that often cannot be easily repeated for observation (e.g. the Cabrera monopole). " Rogue wave" is an excellent article on a rare transient oceanographic phenomenon that was for a long time believed mythical. Once a rare phenomenon is scientifically identified, it becomes easier to study, and observations can try to be predicted with adequate theoretical development (though if there are intelligently-piloted extraterrestrial craft, the zoo hypothesis would likely make that impossible). Nicole Sharp ( talk) 18:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Nicole, first and foremost, please read and understand our basic rule about writing articles: WP:CITE, WP:RS and don't write unreferenced personal essays. May be your topics are valid, but you are not convincing anybody with your personal views on the subject. References in the articles, please, which directly discuss the term in the title of the article you are editing. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please read " talk:politics of outer space" for the discussion on sources, and current uses of the terms "astropolitics" and "exopolitics." Regardless of the origin of the terms (e.g. your Webre citation), the term "exopolitics" has become mainstream enough to be included in a number of major publications such as Astronomy magazine. The etymology is fairly simple and uncontroversial, with "exo-" simply meaning "outside the atmosphere," which does cover both Terran and any hypothetical extraterrestrial spaceflight (e.g. technically "astronauts" are really "exonauts," since Terran astronauts do not have the technology yet to visit the stars [astra]). The usage of "exopolitics" in UFO conspiracy theories has already been addressed on the discussion page for the "politics of outer space." Nicole Sharp ( talk) 18:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't care what talk page says. I have no time to read all irrelevant chats. We have an article. It is unreferenced. Period. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

An WP:ACTIVIST editor included Communist propaganda outlets (for the germane WP:PAG see WP:BLOGS) and the viewpoint of Voice of Russia stated in Wikipedia's voice at [42]. He believes that WP:NPOV means being mid-way between independent, reliable Western sources and Communist propaganda. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

<-- I included content related to: (i) impeachment proceedings against former president of Romania, Traian Basescu; (ii) deindustrialization of Romania (closing of factories) due to privatizations after 1989 and (iii) protest against Rosia-Montana exploitation and Chevron 2012-2014. All of these pieces of information were widely disseminated by Romanian media outlets and authors and there exists a significant number of online sources. I quoted some of the top ranking ones in Google, which include newspaper Jurnalul, DCNews and Voice Of Russia, yes. The events themselves are basically undisputed (the fact that Basescu was impeached by parliament, the fact factories were closed after 1989 and the fact there were protests against exploitation of resources at Rosia Montana or fracking by Chevron) and if the references quoted are considered by some - for what ever reason - to be not qualitative enough, they should then add other references, not remove content. Mircea D. ( talk)

I suggest that you seek sources much less hysterical, much less paranoid and much less WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

<-- Sources are not hysterical. They show an inconvenient fact with due emphasis. Again, what are the statements you claim are not sourceable by anything except WP:FRINGE? If they are sourceable, why not really identify other less 'hysterical' sources and cite them also?? I have added another source btw, to an article by a Geography researcher. But still, if one searches one finds numeros such sources. Again, improving Wikipedia is in incremental effort IMO. Therefore if you have a problem with the references for content that IS sourceable, please improve the references, not remove the content. Also the singular claim that due to the phrase "economic lyncing of Romania" that article were 'a paranoid conspiracy theory' is a Catch22: any article making such a characterization of the facts by your standards would then be a WP:FRINGE, would it not? Given the facts on which the characterization of "economic lynching of Romania" are based (deindustrialization), I would find the brief syntehis accurate, if grave indeed. Mircea D. ( talk) 20:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It's inflammatory talk aimed aimed at extremist readers. That's why I called it "hysterical". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Your edits have to comply with WP:VER and WP:IRS, you cannot simply quote whatever blog in order to make a point. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Romania#NPOV Dispute. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

dcnews.ro is an "online journal" with a redaction consisting of three people, see http://www.dcnews.ro/redactie/ Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

<-- So? It is valid. Mircea D. ( talk) 08:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The Pro-Nazi leader Ion Antonescu, executed by the Communists long ago, is listed as one of the writers of art-emis.ro, see http://www.art-emis.ro/autori.html Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

<-- Fine; reluctantly I might be willing to concede this particular source as self published. Although I don't think that Ion Antonescu himself published on this website. given he is long dead; and the fact a source has political opinions should not be grounds for disconsideration - just proper attribution. But the other references should stand! Mircea D. ( talk) 08:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The claim of "economic lynching of Romania" is a hysterical claim of a paranoid conspiracy theory. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

<-- Please see my comment in the paragraphs above. Mircea D. ( talk) 20:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

http://www.dailybusiness.ro/despre-noi/ does not claim having editorial control or fact checking. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

<-- The content on the "Despre Noi" section actually says they strive to be a top supplier of news and analysis. They do not claim to be an aggregator or a blog. And also, btw, I added another source for that particular claim. Mircea D. ( talk) 20:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That's standard marketing puffery without stating any positive facts. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

At http://psnews.ro/despre/ there is no mention of fact-checking or of any editorial control. Not even a mention of having a redaction, just a statement that the articles are written by "professional journalists". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

<-- Given what is written on their About page ("Despre noi") I would include both DailyBusiness and PSNews as sufficient quality sources. Also DCnews. The last two are amply present on the Romanian news stage. Lack of an explicit statement saying "We fact check everything" is insufficient grounds for eliminating them, especially given that they imply this from the rest of the about us description. Mircea D. ( talk) 08:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no mention of fact checking, nor of any editorial control, nor of having a redaction (excepting the three people from dcnews, two of them being director and manager), nor are public the names of the redactors. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

They are popular news websites, that's all we know about them. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't know how they get their news, we don't know where they get their news from, we don't know if they even check those news, we don't know who checks those news, and so on. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Nano brain (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This looks like WP:SYN to me, hence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano brain, but others may know more about ti and actually be able to identify a source that's (a) rel;iable and (b) about the subject as stated. Maybe the title is wrong, I don't know. Guy ( Help!) 09:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Came across this article via the Troy Southgate cluster. The article has potentially problematic POV as its using Southgate as a source and quotes him extensively. Possibly created as a (neo-Nazi) tribute, although it uses some RS. However, it's difficult to untangle the two. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Also cites Nick Griffin as a source, which is a bit of an issue: if Griffin said the sky was blue I would feel the need to go and check it. Guy ( Help!) 00:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Mindbogglingly, there is actually such a thing as "National Anarchism". It's pretty much "nazis who don't like being told what to do". They've actually come up with an "anarchism" that makes actual anarchists hate them even more than they hate ancaps. The RationalWiki article has some non-Nazi paper sources that might be useful if someone can find them and look them up - David Gerard ( talk) 10:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

An IP keeps deleting a couple paragraphs calling it pseudoscience. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks for watching out. IP was blocked by Bishonen. Jytdog ( talk) 21:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey folks. So, I think I've found a use for the inane list of cryptids article: identifying articles from folklore and zoology that cryptozoologists have hijacked over the past several years and cleaning them up.

For those following the sad saga of Wikipedia as a former cryptozoology playground, exactly how bad the situation is with many articles can be seen with some of the articles I haven't gotten to yet. Essentially any article regarding an entity from the folklore record appears to have been fair game to internet cryptozoologists, whether it's an obscure entity from regional Japanese folk belief or a half-read report on a potentially new canid species as reported by a biologist.

Anyway, enforcing WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:UNDUE is going to be a time-consuming process but it's the first step to getting our folklore coverage to a decent step. The process could use some more hands and eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 02:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see Jytdog ( talk) 04:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I was recently made aware of urban acupuncture. I get the feeling it needs a bit of scrutiny, but I don't really have time to delve into it right now. Thought it might interest some folks here. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 16:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit my first reaction to the term was to imagine practitioners in white coats and hard hats, carefully driving sharpened lengths of steel rebar into structurally-unimportant parts of building exteriors. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we already have an article on this. TimothyJosephWood 17:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The term has nothing to do with acupuncture (except metaphorically); and as a theory, it doesn't seem to be particularly fringe, although I know less than zilch about urban planning, and thus have no sense of what constitutes "mainstream" in that field. Agree that it probably does need some scrutiny, but probably by an expert, and probably not under this umbrella. DoctorJoeE  ^{review transgressions}/ _{talk to me!} 18:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Might also want to take a look at Marco Casagrande#Third generation city. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 17:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Many of the references are not RSes. Some are blogs or websites of groups invested in the concept. The Guardian coverage is fine, but I have the impression that overall the article should be squished into the main article on Urban design. Delta13C ( talk) 19:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• I went through the first set of refs and made appropriate tags: lots of blogs, deadlinks, and references that do not even mention the subject. The article should be looked at by some others, and probably just nominated for deletion. Delta13C ( talk) 08:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• David Emerson Root (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Purification Rundown (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was drawn to this by a reference to the Townsend Letter, which is a bit of a red flag. Apparently Root was responsible for "pioneering the medical application of the Hubbard Purification Rundown to treat occupational chemical exposure injuries and advancing its mainstream medical acceptance". The Hubbard in question is L. Ron Hubbard, and the Purification Rundown is the core of Scientology's fraudulent Narconon programme. The article seems to me to contain some dodgy sourcing and the lede is definitely an issue. Guy ( Help!) 09:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I recently undid an edit made by Roland zh, adding cats such as Indian scientists to one homeopath Mukesh Batra. I'm not sure what's the exact reasoning but I think more such alternative medicine practitioners who got the Padma Shri have got similar edits. The Indian government puts all of those under medicine, thus we have such people in Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in medicine. If Roland zh does not re-check them, it would be hard to check among the numerous categorisations or use external tools like Catscan. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 18:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: I do not understand that there's really a need to rehash that tiny topic, again: i'm definitely not interested in homoepathy, or want to talk about it's scientific worth, or what ever :( I just categorized Indian pharmacians related sub-categories during a one-night-categorization task, and pointed to (Padma Shri awarded individuals) at Talk:Mukesh Batra on Oct 11 after been undone; and btw no need for 'rechecking and wasting time for enganged Wikimedians like us, Roland zh ( talk) 19:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding interest, nor do I...but the categorisation is wrong. I'll probably have to revert your some of your other related-edits then when I get time. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 12:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Then, I came across Category:Indian medical doctors which contained Category:Indian homeopaths, Category:Ayurvedacharyas ‎ and Category:Ancient Indian physicians. I've just removed them and it turns out it has been there for years.

I've never made many edits to such topics, so posting here for help. I mainly did it linking WP:FRINGE/PS. Such categorisation will probably be a recurring issue and I wonder isn't there anything else to cite while making such edits? Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 18:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. This is a real problem because Indian sources are generally utterly uncritical of homeopathy, and several of these quacks seem to have been given high civilian honours without attracting an ounce of reality-based coverage. Guy ( Help!) 13:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like if someone can have a look and help verify this supposed "Baron" who, according to one tabloid report, is actually an internet fraudster. I'm unable to find reliable sources. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 18:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

New IP at article wants it to say rock structures rather than rock formations, and from the talk page I don't think they like me! Doug Weller talk 16:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Now this is interesting, first the IP calls me a wikitaliban, then an account complains about wiktalibans at Talk:Gornaya Shoria megaliths, referring to the Yonaguni Monument]]. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Link. [43] As it's just a general complaint I deleted it, gave the editor a notaforum message. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This article currently expresses in Wikivoice that racial differences in intelligence are an open question. To my knowledge and reading of this subject in the world, this is a fringe theory with racist overtones and import promoted by a few infamous sources like The Bell Curve and the unfortunate and weird statements by James Watson and otherwise by White Supremacist groups and the like.

I am no fan of the whole idea of "fringe" within Wikipedia for i think that all the goals can be achieved better through the policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV but if there's going to exist the idea of fringe then does it apply here in your estimation? Why or why not? Should this article ( Race and intelligence) be updated to make it clear that hypotheses about racial disparity of intelligence are bogus? Why or why not? SageRad ( talk) 12:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article (after reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence to avoid shooting yourself in the foot). You did note that it questions the validity of IQ as a measure, didn't you? Guy ( Help!) 22:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

JzG/Guy, thanks for the link to the arbitration saga on this topic. Very enlightening. SageRad ( talk) 00:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably easier if you start at Category:Race and intelligence controversy. Spanning Ashkenazi to Spearman. Good luck. -- DHeyward ( talk) 02:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. That topic is a fucking cesspit. Guy ( Help!) 14:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is a description of Black Brain, White Brain: Is Intelligence Skin Deep? by Gavin Evans, a source that refutes the premise that there are inherent racial differences in intelligence. This source is over one year old and is not cited in the article yet. This source refutes, for instance, the Nicholas Wade articles. We need to integrate this source and its content in the article. To quote Evans:

And yet the widespread combination of misplaced faith in the immutability of IQ and misplaced faith in the ability of genes to determine behaviour has allowed their claims to fester away, unchallenged in the public arena. The problem in not challenging these bad ideas promptly and vigorously goes way beyond their flawed science. If the public and its opinion makers come to accept notions like Wade’s – such as that Africans are, by nature, none-too-bright tribalists – we’ll be in danger of returning to the dangerous mentality that formed the ballast for colonialism and slavery.

SageRad ( talk) 20:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverted Mikemikev again - he's posting from London libraries and museums, The Cloud ISP, and others (this isn't from CU data, you can find this out by clicking the links on an IP's page). Sorry, that also removed a couple of responses. As other Admins have done before when this socking happens, I've semi-protected the page. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

oh gawd, him. Though I must admit "Stalinist Lysenkoist" is a slur for non-racialists I hadn't seen before ... - David Gerard ( talk) 14:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I had to look the second part of that up. Innovative. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Lysenko is an interesting one in terms of racism, since there is one ethnic group much targeted by racists who have conducted a millennia-long experiment in Lysenkoism that has robustly failed to demonstrate heritability. Guy ( Help!) 22:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Off to a murder mystery dinner, but this needs attention. Chinese in Canada before Columbus nonsense. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit of work on it. One thing I did do which I knew would be reverted was remove the detailed content of his new book, but not the fact of the new book. And before I could mention that here, it was reverted. [44] Until the content is discussed in independent reliable sources this is just promoting his fringe ideas. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, even if this is factual (It's not), Leif Erikson would have been 2 or so centuries ahead of them, so he can't claim for them to have "discovered America" . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

We all know Madoc was there before Columbus and the Chinese anyway... Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

No, Barney Hendrickson got there first. Guy ( Help!) 16:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI DYK there is a Russian stand-up comedian who has a skit that America was in fact discovered by Uzbeks, and "America" etymology is amir- aka. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Bioregulatory Medicine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Freshly minted article written from whole cloth by a WP:SPA. "A new type of pharmaceutical companies have been developing, based on the Bioregulatory concept, such as Heel gmbh." Heel are a homeopathy manufacturer, bit of a red flag there. What's not advertorial looks to me to be synthesis, replete with accusations of reductionism and claims for the holistic woo. But is this notable bollocks? Guy ( Help!) 23:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

from [45]: "The scientific foundation is published in August 2015 in Frontiers in Physiology, Systems Biology section, a peer-reviewed journal.". The principal question, as usual, are there any non-brSM sources? Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I moved the article under the decap title and immediately detected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioregulatory medicine and lots of socks. Is this a recreation? Can anybody of admins to compare the contents of this version and the deleted one? Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioregulatory medicine (2nd nomination) Jytdog ( talk) 04:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Having a dispute over this edit with another user. Discussion is at Talk:David_Wolfe_(nutritionist)#.3F. Classic sort of issue. Please comment. Thx Jytdog ( talk) 03:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Jytdog: Nice job fixing the article! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I dont think you need to elaborate on his biography that detox is bunk. Given its followed up with a wide range of obviously batshit stuff (as opposed to the non-obvious pseudoscience). You could put a perfectly scientific and rational belief in between 'flat earth' and 'mushrooms have thoughts' and it would look crazy by association. You could just re-word the sentence to include pseudoscience before 'detoxification' and that would be all thats required by policy, since detoxification goes into it in detail. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Jytdog:The content you are discussing creates OR; an implied connection between Wolfe and the source you are advocating. The source must refer directly to the topic-Wolfe- and it doesn't. I don't think, though, that we need to hit the readers over the head with this content, either. The article makes it clear Wolfe's business and health suggestions are questionable.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC))

This is what fringe advocates often say about actually implementing PSCI with respect to positions held by people. Like I said, classic issue, and that stance has generally failed to gain consensus. Jytdog ( talk) 18:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

So identifying OR is something only fringe advocates do and suggesting the article in question describes questionable health practices is a fringe advocate position. Really? ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 19:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC))

No. Anybody can identify OR. While fringe advocates often try to dismiss criticism based on purely formal grounds, which is called "wikilawyering" in context of wikipedia. Now, your accusation is "creates OR". You say "the source must refer directly" - not necessarily. The source may be used to support any statement in the article. For example: "Sun is a star.[ref1]" "Stars are made of fire.[ref2]" Ref2 does not introduce OR. Therefore please be specific which kind of OR you are talking about. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Although stars are actually made out of plasma, making that sentence false..... ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually even yours is false. :-) Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not what I said; a misrepresentation ( dif). Jytdog ( talk) 20:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The source you are referring to does not mention Wolfe. The section the source is added to is discussing Wolfe's view of raw food and detoxification. The OR is the connection you are making between general detoxification and Wolfe's detoxification which he asserts arrives out of using raw food. You are making an implied connection which is not in the source about FDA /nonsense and Wolfe. Now I suspect that there are lots of sources that describe Wolfe's work as nonsense in which the connection between Wolfe and nonsense are explicit in the source. We cannot make the connection you did, where you did, either here or in fact in any kind of academic setting. Finally, I find it unfortunate that you had to take this discussion to a place where you labelled editors, where you made assumptions about motive. In fact, this was such a simple situation. Was this OR or not? In a purely formal way I would say it is and formal is what we want; a formal use of our policies and guidelines while assuming good faith. You have two editors suggesting this is OR. Do what you want with that but I do wish you could stop lacing your comments with disparaging remarks about editors which side tracks discussion and complicates beyond what is necessary.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC))

Hm, your edit note said "reply Jytdog... soory for confusion". Has nothing to do with what you wrote here and you continue to misrepresent what I said. Almost enough diffs now. Jytdog ( talk) 22:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• I went through my contributions and see that phrase is used twice which would cause confusion. I think that the edit summary was automatically generated after its first use and in the second case, and I missed it. Sorry for the confusion.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 00:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC))

Litleolive oil: Do you have any well-referred reasons to believe that Wolfe's detoxification is something different from "general detoxification" ? If not, we have to take words for their common meaning. Otherwise there is no way one can recognize generic concepts. Every tree is unique, you can never enter the same stream twice, my Snake Oil (TM) is better than other peddler's snake oil, etc. etc. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

SL, the actual WL is there is to the alt med notion of Detoxification (alternative medicine) which is exactly what Wolfe means. (not Detoxification as after an actual poisoning) Jytdog ( talk) 22:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Jytdog:No it doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote here which was a further discussion and explanation of OR and a concern with editors who are personalizing and labeling. It was a response to this edit summary and change in indentation which reads," Im assuming thats in reply to Jytdog rather than me, as I am not advocating using any source.)" It is mind numbing though to see you take a perfectly innocent and neutral comment and turn it first into a reason to label, and second to attempt to threaten me. And Jytdog I am not afraid of you or anything you threaten to do.

@ Staszek Lem:. This is a simple discussion of OR. What I "reason" has nothing to do with how OR works. Now, since I've responded to the initial request, have explained OR, have nothing more to say, and since both of you have sidetracked this discussion and used it both to threaten and personalize, I'll leave you to it.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC))

It seems we disagree on how OR works. You cannot claim OR without reasonable proof. You provided an argument. I contested it. If you have nothing more to say, they you lost. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This wasn't a competition.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC))

You lost the argument. Wikilawyering in its best, isn't it? Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)