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

Another promotional fringe article. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A one-line sentence in the article claims that Flowers has produced a number of translations from other languages. This may be his actual claim to fame. Dimadick ( talk) 19:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello all. A while back (actually, now that I look, it was over 2 months ago!) I submitted an edit request to remove the humorism link from template: alternative medicine sidebar, which was swiftly rejected as I had not established consensus before making my request. Fair enough, that's the procedure. Now I'd like to see what the consensus actually is, and this place seems as good as any. You can still see my original request here, but it's a little overwrought, so I'll just state my thoughts plainly right here:

• Humorism is more of a history of medicine subject than a fringe one. It was entirely mainstream thought in a large part of the world for a long time, and then mainstream thought moved on and left the four humours behind.
• The article behind the link actually deals with the topic in that manner.
• Humorism is a part of several fringe/traditional systems, but those articles are already part of the template, and they link to humorism and cover their own concepts as necessary.
• Humorism doesn't really have any existence independent of its original context(s), in the same way that something like acupuncture might.

Of course, if everyone disagrees with me, then I won't raise a fuss about it staying, but at first glance it seems pretty out of place to me. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 19:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough to me, and I'm a rabid contrarian ass. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with this. Neutrality ^talk 02:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons listed by 65.234.252.11.- MrX 02:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable. I find the description of humorism as primarily historical sound. I note the possible contention that it is a part of some current alternative medicine is addressed and that seems fairly accurate. I support this proposal unless an argument is brought forth opposing it. MrBill3 ( talk) 05:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Likewise seems fine to me. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Fringe novel with fringe science claims in the article. I've already deleted a quote that was very misleading (about the Maurya empire being anti-science). Doug Weller talk 11:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Despite the fringe stuff, the book was an interesting read! Winged Blades ^Godric 16:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"Fringe novel"? Fiction works present all kinds of "secret histories" to add some excitement for their audience. We are not using them as sources for the history articles. Dimadick ( talk) 19:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I just thought it is too promotional. I did remove one quote from the author which was flat out wrong, it seemed cherry picked. …………

India's own DaVinci Code. Oy. I guess we should remember the rather revolting level of credibility Brown's novel was given at the time and that more than some people took it's statements at face value. If anyone in India is giving this the same level of credulity we might find some of the sources alleged or discussed in the novel maybe used by the guileless somewhere around here. John Carter ( talk) 20:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The problems in the article were in the "Development" section where the author's claims that his fictional constructs were backed up by hard core science were being treated credulously. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The DaVinci Code made similar claims which were treated very creduously by even major TV networks. That being the case this might maybe have gotten similar support in parts of India, maybe. I have recently been told about a novel about Judas Iscariot which the person talking about it treated much the same way he would treat an academic treatise. We should be rather watchful for such purportedly reliable novels. John Carter ( talk) 19:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Enneagram of Personality (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It would be appreciated to watchlist this. I added some information about the lack of validation which was unceremonious removed for lack of a page number. I put in the page number. Let's see what the next excuse is. jps ( talk) 04:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I know this is a little bit of a tangent, but page numbers should not be necessary for a 300 page book. Books have these wonderful things called an "index" that allows you to locate where in the text key words are found. The argument that a citation doesn't meet WP:V because it lacks page numbers is rooted in laziness and ignorant of WP:OFFLINE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but sometimes indexes aren't very good, and sometimes paraphrasing means it's hard to known which word to look for - I can remember somebody getting criticized by arbcom for not using page numbers (admittedly as part of a POV-pushing pattern where sources didn't really support claims). Alexbrn ( talk) 06:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

When there are other complicating factors, like an editor who has a history of controversial edits, I can understand warning them to include page numbers. But the suggestion that something isn't verifiable because it doesn't include page numbers... Well, how long does it take to read a 300 page book? A couple of hours, max. Anyone who really wanted to verify the claim could -at the very least- pick up a copy and just read the whole thing. I get that not everyone has the time to do that, but assuming that because you don't have the time to complete a task that it's an impossible task? That's just ridiculous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that won't do. If no page reference is given, but it's easy enough to find the material, that's one thing. So what if you can't find it? Then you get blown off because you didn't look hard enough. It's one thing if there aren't page numbers, but if there are, it's reasonable to expect them. Mangoe ( talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, it's reasonable to expect them. It's also reasonable to expect new editors to make personal attacks and completely loose their shit during disagreements. Just because something is reasonable doesn't mean it's required. Sometimes, it's downright prohibited. But what's not reasonable is to say "this is unverifiable because there are no page numbers". Again: 300 page book. It would take at most 3 hours to find it, even if there's nothing that can be looked up in the index, and to be clear: the vast majority of the time, edits should contain words that can be looked up in an index. Any edit that entirely lacks proper or at least definite nouns (which are almost always indexed) is either a grammatical edit or vandalism, and doesn't need a source. If the index doesn't contain the proper or definite nouns (or obvious synonyms of them), then 99.999% od the time, the source is being misrepresented. And in this particular case: "Enneagram" would absolutely be an indexed term. Indeed, in less than 60 seconds of googling, I found this perfect verification of the edit. So 2 minutes with the book, or 60 seconds of googling is all it took to confirm it, without me ever even seeing what the page numbers were, and the worst case scenario is that it takes you a couple of hours to verify it from the book.

My point here is: If you can't be bothered to try to verify something, then you have no business whatsoever declaring it unverifiable. I don't care if a citations consists of nothing but the author's last name and the publication year: if you can't be bothered to look, you have no business claiming a result. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That gets it backwards I think. WP:V policy states "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)". Obviously common sense applies but if I felt something was damaging/dodgy and was imprecisely cited I'd not hesitate to remove it on the basis that the text failed WP:V; for cases where the claim is more mundane there are templates like {{Page needed}}, if one can be bothered ;-) Of course if you've got hours spare you might want to read the entire source, but this time commitment can't be expected of editors. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, if you can't be bothered to try to verify it (I'm not sure why anyone would question the verifiability of anything that wasn't dodgy in some way), then you have no business editing under the assumption that it cannot be verified. Just like we should not add information based only on our gut feelings or best guesses, neither should we remove information based on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think requesting a page number is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Give the other writer a chance to provide it. However, removing a statement that is sourced to a book because it doesn't have a page number, such as what was done to me, is indicative of a different kind of cynicism that it is very hard to assume is done in good faith. jps ( talk) 13:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with all of that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been asked if I know one by someone from the website Hall of Ma'at. [1] Doug Weller talk 14:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgot, the request originated from Association for Skeptical Enquiry. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"...look at a paper on the construction of Baalbek..." It would be a lot easier to look at the paper if you told us where to find it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Input requested at Talk:Goop_(company)#Relevant. thx Jytdog ( talk) 23:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I was looking at the use in our articles [2] of New Dawn magazine [3] and came across this dreadful article. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"awakening of spiritual energy in the heart" What the heck does this signify? Dimadick ( talk) 19:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I like a bit of gnood gnold gnostic gnonsense. There is a lot of wrong going on there for one short article. The alleged website used to reference it all is dead. There is no real claim to notability. I'm not sure there is anything anybody can do to save it. I have removed the chunk that was basically just the index of self-published articles on her (alleged) website. The whole thing looks eminently deletable to me. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 12:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's see where this goes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria LePage. jps ( talk) 18:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Gateway belief model (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes welcome to ensure that this is not fringe POV-pushing in disguise. It seems to me that it suggests that climate change and vaccines are "gateway beliefs", with consensus being "obedience", rather than acknowledgement/understanding of working science, etc. I'm still catching up with my holyday watchlist backlog and admit not having read it all yet. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 15:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It is such a word salad that it is hard to tell. If I had to guess, I would say that it is just doing a bad job of getting its point across, and that the phenomenon described refers to how the denialists have been inordinately successful in convincing whole groups of people (right-wing Republicans, soccer-moms, ) by misleadingly claiming that 'not all scientists accept this' in spite of overwhelming consensus, rather than pushing the opposite, but I can't really be bothered to read all of the sources (of which there are too many - I don't care what it is, you don't need 9 citations to document one sentence). Agricolae ( talk) 18:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• The article is saying that, according to the model, your belief/perception regarding the scientific consensus around an issue is a gateway for your other thoughts and beliefs on that issue, and that clarifying / obscuring the consensus has an influence on public opinion. The controversies over vaccines, tobacco, and climate change are presented as social ills. It's probably a mistake for those three to be lumped together in one list, they should really be contrasted since the consensus is negative in one case (vaccines don't cause autism) and positive in the others (smoking causes cancer, climate change is happening). The obedience thing is just pointing the reader at relevant concepts, but maybe it should only link to social influence#obedience instead of both social influence and obedience. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 21:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This fringe publishing house is cited an astonishing 148 times ( Special:Search), often for fringe promotion. Does anyone want to assist me in lowering this number? Neutrality ^talk 04:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

127. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 05:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"A few veterinarians hold views about pet vaccines that have stirred concern among their peers. Rosemary Manziano, a homeopathic veterinarian in New Jersey, advocates that in lieu of vaccinating your dog against distemper, you can simply take your pet to the park..." [4] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

WCCasey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be pushing some sort of weird pseudohistory concerning the California Republic. His most recent attempts have been on the José Castro page.

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 December 27#Help me stop fake California history

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

From reading some of the edits and talk pages on José Castro and Juan Bautista Alvarado, I think some of this editor's edits are related to claims in this articles of another California Republic, one that existed in the 1830s, separate from the Bear Flag Republic of 1846. The Jose Castro article claims that he was president of an independent California in 1836. None of the sources seem to support this - they say that Castro and Alvarado led rebellions against the Mexican government and overthrew the appointed governors, but did not achieve independence (instead they gained some degree of autonomy for California, but they still recognized Mexican authority). If that's what this editor is attempting to change, it's probably for the best. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 06:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up. (Barbie voice) dates are hard. :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought they were denying the existence of the Bear Flag Republic also, when I read the helpdesk request. In any case, it's probably a good idea to keep an eye on José Castro, Juan Bautista Alvarado, and related articles, in case someone is pushing the idea that they successfully revolted and led an independent California in 1836. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 07:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is pretty hard not to come to that conclusion when someone writes "For several years I've been battling efforts to plant a false historical narrative - that an independent "California Republic" (similar to the one in Texas) existed prior to the Mexican-American War (or at any other time)." [5]

Looking at Alta California#Flags that have flown over California I see a flag that seems to repeat the claim that there existed an independent California in 1836. At first I thought that the "Flag of California" wikilink pointed to the wrong flag, but then I saw Flag of California#Lone Star of California. Our Juan Bautista Alvarado article contains more details. Do the sources support this claim?

First shot at a timeline: California Republic: June 14 1846 to July 9, 1846. Mexican–American War: April 25, 1846 to February 3, 1848. Alvarado's rebellion (is that the right name?): April of 1838? (I am having trouble finding a start and end date.)

BTW, has anyone ever called the entity that existed from June 14 1846 to July 9, 1846 the "bear flag republic"? I was under the impression that "the bear flag revolt" led to the formation of "the California republic". See [6] as one of many examples that use those names. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Guy Macon for finding an appropriate forum for this discussion. Yes, there are two different "California Republic" narratives. One is that an 1836 coup in Monterey succeeded in creating an independent California. Repeated edits to several pages, including Jose Castro Juan Bautista Alvarado and List of Governors of California before 1850#Sovereignty, attempt to promote this narrative, but the Alvarado-Castro coup was unsuccessful as an independence movement. California remained part of Mexico, but Alvarado became the next appointed governor. Castro also remained an important figure.

The problems with California Republic have been different, arising from occasional attempts to portray a local rebellion, a declaration, and a homemade flag as an established independent Republic. Some editors have attempted to fuse these two stories together into an independent California that lasted from 1836 until the Mexican-American War. The California Republic article is good right now (I hadn't looked in a while) - my thanks to the editors who have cleaned it up. WCCasey ( talk) 00:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a starting date and an ending date for the attempted Alvarado-Castro coup? Our current articles lack properly sourced dates. A paragraph explaining the attempted Alvarado-Castro coup would be ideal; could you recommend a source? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A bit hard to tell whether this is a notable woo idea or not. Mangoe ( talk) 15:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what Doug has to do with it? - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Inventor of the "Multiple Wave Oscillator" that he claimed could treat cancer. There are a number of Russian references, so fluency in Russian would be helpful. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some paid editing or socking of some sort going on as well. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"CBC under fire for documentary that says first humans to colonize New World sailed from Europe". This discusses some of the racist users of the hypothesis. It's likely to bring new editors to the page who have little understanding of the subject or Wikipedia, plus hopefully some who do. I see the Haplogroup X argument is in the documentary, although you'd think they might have given up on that. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Frisland reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs)

Woke up this morning to discover that an IP posted fpdeath threats (which Duncan Hill kindly redacted and reported for oversights) to my talk page, evidently in relation to this as the IP posted twice to the RSN thread. Doug Weller talk 07:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Edzard Erns't recent piece prompted me to see whether we had a Dorn method article. We do. Oy. Alexbrn ( talk) 22:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This is about [7], namely verifying the dating of the Bible to a book by Richard Carrier, who peddles the fringe Christ myth theory. We had a longer discussion about it at User talk:Tgeorgescu. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Other participant here,

The book in question: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus, is a peer-reviewed scholarly publication from respected academic press Sheffield Phoenix Press, which specializes in biblical literature. In short, it is not some crazy rant, it's part of the scholarly literature in the field. The presence of peer review and acceptance for publication by a scholarly press on its scholarly merits makes it reliable by definition. That should be the end of the discussion right there.

The material that it (and its citations of scholarly literature) were cited for is not original research by the author, but a scholarly survey of existing academic literature (as he specifically says on p260) with extensive citation of that literature.

The book is not being cited for material directly related to the Christ myth theory.

If there had been substantial omissions or misrepresentations on a basic factual question, the experts in the field who peer reviewed the book would have caught them and insisted they be corrected. That the cited data was published as it is suggests that the reviewers were comfortable with Carrier's use of the evidence and his portrayal of the state of knowledge.

Portraying Carrier as 'peddling' the Christ myth theory is perjorative and inaccurate. He has done a Bayesian analysis of the likelihood of historicity and mythicism based on the evidence as a scholar. The book does not advocate for any particular Christ myth theory. And it's trying to be as generous to historicity as it can be within the constraints of the evidence, by the author's explicit methodology, which includes the dates of the new testament books. So he's not 'peddling' or 'pushing' any such theory, he's analyzing the likelihood relative to historicity of that class of theories as a scholar. And at the end he's explicit - this isn't a firm conclusion, it's a call for better arguments and better methods and to have a scholarly discussion in the literature. That's not peddling anything.

Regardless, none of those arguments about the Christ myth theory are what is cited in this case. If Carrier was incapable of properly handling the scholarly literature, it never would have passed peer review and been published by a scholarly press.

By comparison, the citations on the page in question are a mess. Some of them are apologetic works. Many of the ones I checked (and could check) cite no sources when they give their dates for various books. Carrier's treatment of the subject is substantially better in terms of pure scholarship. So not only is the book reliable, but it's comparatively more reliable than the material that is already cited.

I should also note that I could just cite the scholars Carrier cites, but I have not personally read the works myself, and so I cite Carrier *and his sources*.

-- 2602:306:CFEA:E360:987C:301:C455:C8EE ( talk) 22:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If you're interested in what I feel: I have sympathy for later dating of the books of the Bible, but it has to be done according to WP:PAGs. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(Carrier) has done a Bayesian analysis of the likelihood of historicity and mythicism based on the evidence as a scholar. This attempt to use "Bayesian analysis" on the question of Jesus' existence met with widespread ridicule by academic scholars. Carrier does not hold a professorship or any academic post. Scathing review of Carrier's book by Christina Petterson of the University of Newcastle, Australia, in the academic journal Relegere- [8] - says his methodology is "tenuous", was "shocked" by the way he uses mathematics,and that he uses statistics in a way that seems designed "to intentionally confuse and obfuscate", statements in the book "reveal Carrier's ignorance of the field of New Testament studies and early Christianity", etc."Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception is a journal dedicated to the study of reception history, broadly conceived, in the fields of religion and biblical studies. Relegere is published online two times a year and is open-access. All articles undergo blind peer review". [9]. Carrier is 100% fringe, the "Christ myth" which he does indeed literally peddle, has zero academic credibility. Smeat75 ( talk) 00:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict)In short, it is not some crazy rant, it's part of the scholarly literature in the field. You mean to say it's "...barely not some crazy rant." Carrier's views on the historicity of Jesus have moved him to the furthest fringes of scholarship, and he has a crap reputation, except with parts of the Atheist movement. And for the record: books like that are not subject to a peer-review process unless and until they are reprinted in a journal, which to my knowledge, this work has not. You keep claiming it's peer-reviewed, but his peers only reviewed it after it was published, and they did not have very good things to say about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The book was specifically and formally peer-reviewed. Among other places Carrier specifically mentions that, see here ( https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9085). "... On the Historicity of Jesus, which was published by an academic press and did pass formal academic peer review." I mean, I suppose someone could query Sheffield Phoenix Press about the matter, but it seems like the kind of thing that would be hard to lie about publicly. -- 2602:306:CFEA:E360:987C:301:C455:C8EE ( talk) 05:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this part: Portraying Carrier as 'peddling' the Christ myth theory is perjorative and inaccurate Congrats, IP: You've just eliminated any remaining vestige of credibility you once possessed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll excuse me if I'm commenting on the work itself. I don't know the man. I know what the book says. Attacking the man over a book which makes arguments is regardless a fallacy (generally known as ad hominem). -- 2602:306:CFEA:E360:987C:301:C455:C8EE ( talk) 05:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I honestly think it's kinda fun when random people on the internet start talking about fallacies, because they usually get something wrong. So let me lay this out and you can tell me if you can spot the problem with it:

1. Richard Carrier's reputation is built entirely upon his work, including that book. Other historians and textual critics don't base their professional opinions of Carrier on his personality, looks, or that he has a bitchin' Camaro and knows how to be the best wing man.
2. Carrier's reputation is pbbbt.
3. Therefore, Carrier's work is of low quality and minimal value to this issue.

If you would like a more explicit explanation, then what I am saying is that the scholarly consensus is that Carrier's work is extraordinarily sub-par, and at times seems to be almost willfully dishonest in the pursuit of advancing a fringe theory that has no academic support, but which (coincidentally?) reinforces deeply held beliefs of Carrier's.

If you were referring to my response to the quote I pulled from your comment above, then you should follow the same general reasoning. Also, be aware that I'm not condemning you personally; only on the qualities of your argument. Your suggestion that Carrier doesn't peddle the CMT is factually inaccurate (Carrier is one of the most prominent peddlers of the CMT), and your suggestion that the claim is "perjorative[sic]" is also factually inaccurate (the CMT has virtually no scholarly support because the arguments in favor of it are anything but compelling, hence it requires "peddling" to the masses to survive). So much so, in either case, that it strongly suggests that you will be unable to participate in a discussion about this subject in a helpful manner, as those inaccuracies strongly suggest a very low level of familiarity with this subject.

Ad hominems are not always informal fallacies, either. They are often a form of statistical syllogism, as many arguments require a degree of credulity for the acceptance of their premises. A non-fallacious use of an ad hominem argument generally conveys the meaning "we cannot trust that your conclusions are sound because we cannot trust that your premises are accurate." In the case of Carrier; he's demonstrably ignored evidence that didn't support his conclusions, provided incorrect numbers, used methods that are inappropriate to the problems he was attempting to solve and failed to follow the historical method when doing so would undermine his points, while treating arguments and evidence that supported his view with much greater care and more professionalism.

Don't get me wrong: Carrier is very intelligent, very knowledgeable and generally qualified to make uncontroversial statements about (his area of) history, academia and Atheism. For example, he is one of the most notable secondary sources for the thoughts and feelings of Anthony Flew, surrounding his re-embracing of religion. But when it comes to the historicity of Jesus and closely related subjects (which were not at all a focus of Carrier's until much later in his career, and never the primary focus of his training), he is on a level similar to entirely unqualified authors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

First, the relevant bit - I'm not trying to cite his book regarding the historicity of Christ (or the contrary). I'm citing his summary of the scholarly literature on the dating of the new testament, which includes ample citations of other experts in the field. Can we both agree that peer review would have caught obvious errors in his text here? Or that citing the authors he cites would also be valid, and since that dictates his specific conclusions in this case, then citing him is no different than citing his sources, because he's only doing a review of the scholarly literature on this point? I mean, you concede he's a qualified historian, that means he knows how to review and summarize scholarly literature, right? (Nothing I cite him for is original research, as, among other reasons, that would violate the need to use secondary sources. But a summary of the state of scholarly literature is clearly secondary). Nor should any of this be controversial *to an academic biblical historian*.

Second, ad hominem is always a fallacy when deployed against someone making argument. It is only not a fallacy when deployed against testimony. (If you need a citation, I can offer without looking something up: Bruce Waller. 1988. Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict.)

Third, as to peddling, I think you actually need to read the book. He claims he has not conclusively proved mythicism is true (preface p.xi). And that aligns with the result: his conclusion a fortiori on historicity is not certain enough to say it is conclusive, merely that the balance of probability is against historicity. The book, as argued, is that mythicism deserves more scholarly attention, to lay out a proper methodology for answering the question, and to survey the evidence that does exist and make an attempt at following the method. The end is quite open to being wrong, and new evidence or arguments reaching a different conclusion within the methodology. That's hardly peddling. (I say it's pejorative because you're using it as such, and to imply he's shilling it as god's honest truth, irony intended, when the book at least is not).

I'd love to hear your claims about evidence ignored and so forth, but this is hardly the right place for that.

-- 2602:306:CFEA:E360:987C:301:C455:C8EE ( talk) 07:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"He is not reputable enough" may be an ad hominem upon your turf, but it is how we do things around here. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This whole discussion is frankly bizarre. "Fringe" applies to *ideas* not *people*, and I'm not citing Carrier for any fringe belief (like Mythicism). Consider one of the elements I cite him for: "Consensus is that Luke and Acts are written by the same author..." That's not a fringe belief at all - it's completely mainstream in NT studies. (Not unquestioned, but definitely the consensus). This whole conversation is going off the rails - it shouldn't be about whether Carrier holds any fringe beliefs, it should be about whether what he's being cited for is fringe or not, and whether the *book* (not the person) can be considered reliable for accurately summarizing the scholarship in that particular area. (Which, given the book is peer reviewed, and the material it's being cited for is purely scholarly review of the relevant facts, not original research by the author, shouldn't have any problems in being found reliable *on this limited question*). I agree, if I was trying to cite Carrier's arguments for mythicism (in a section not devoted to that), then it would qualify as fringe. But I'm not trying to do that. -- 2602:306:CFEA:E360:987C:301:C455:C8EE ( talk) 08:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The assertion is credible, but source/author aren't. Here we do arguments from authority big time. If we remove the appeal to authority, Wikipedia will crumble like a house of cards. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't matter of Carrier gives good info in part of his book; the book advances a fringe theory, is discredited by the scholarly community and thus cannot be trusted. If we can verify that the info is good, then we can use whatever resource we used to verify it as a source; instead. Carrier is not an RS for any claims related to Jesus or biblical history, except where his opinion is WP:DUE and it is written explicitly as being Carrier's opinion. As for the dating of the NT; Carrier's been criticized about that by reputable scholars, as summarized in Did Jesus Exist?. So you're trying to cite a fringe work, by a fringe author, for a claim that's been subject to mainstream criticism. Even if you wanted to use it to cite a consensus that Carrier is disagreeing with (eg, he presents the consensus then explains why he thinks it's wrong), you can find much better sources for that consensus, and there will always remain significant doubt about the accuracy of Carrier's claim. Any time Carrier claims "this is the consensus" he should be viewed with suspicion, even if that level of suspicion is much less than we would use for someone with no credentials. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure how Ehrman's book criticize's Carrier's book on dating, when it predates it by 2 years, unless you're proposing Ehrman foretold the contents of the book by prophecy. To the best of my knowledge, On the Historicity of Jesus has never had its dating criticized, and the one academically published review which even mentions that part finds nothing wrong with it, merely finds the need to review the literature on dating tiresome. (That would be the Petterson review: "The following chapters, "Primary Sources" (7) and "Extrabiblical Evidence" (8) reiterate with tiresome pomposity debates over dating and authorship of the New Testament texts and extrabiblical evidence." - which is all she says on the matter, finding nothing factually wrong, and just bored with the need to do it). The only other two academic reviews/responses I'm aware of are Lataster (which doesn't mention the section and is otherwise favorable), and the recent Gullota paper (which I just found out about by googling, and doesn't seem to make an issue of dating at all). So as best as I can determine, the dating section has received no academic responses at all. -- 2602:306:CFEA:E360:987C:301:C455:C8EE ( talk) 16:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure how Ehrman's book criticize's Carrier's book on dating, when it predates it by 2 years Carrier has been talking and writing about dating since well before he wrote that book. Again; if you're not well-versed in the issue, you're not going to get any traction here.

We've already explained the rest to you. Whether or not you accept it is up to you, but the only two editors interested enough to comment on it are clearly set strongly against you, and you are unlikely to make a case that an author widely perceived as an unreliable source for claims about the bible is acceptable in this particular case with the wider community. I suggest you move on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Bible encyclopedias and dictionaries of some sort seem to me to come out on an almost annual basis, and many or most of them will at least acknowledge the prevailing academic consensus on the dating of various Bible books. If the book is old enough to be potentially mentioned in one or more of them, it shouldn't be too hard to find them and see what if anything about this book or idea they say. If it isn't that old, there should still be reviews of it in various biblical academic journals. And if it isn't old enough to even be reviewed in the journals yet, we can wait to determine what to do with it until it is. John Carter ( talk) 21:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been reviewed. The reviews coming from mythicist Atheists are glowing, while the reviews coming from historians and NT scholars are entirely negative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on that information it would seem that the work is probably too fringey for more than a passing mention if that in the main articles on the Bible, given the negative reception by the most directly relevant academic group, but at the same time significant enough within the atheist community to possibly merit discussion in an article on atheistic or agnostic views of the Bible, particularly the Christian Bible. Christ myth theory isn't quite the best target article for such content, but if it is notable enough as a topic for a separate stand-alone article on agnosticism/atheism and the Bible, particularly the new atheism and the Bible, it could very reasonably be discussed there along with the opinions of other agnostics or atheists, like Bart Ehrman, on the topic. John Carter ( talk) 22:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see Talk:David_Wolfe_(entrepreneur)#Scienceblogs Jytdog ( talk) 04:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Buell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Buell

I think more people from this board might be able to help with this difficult to decide situation. Although I !voted delete, I can see the other side, but remain unconvinced.

jps ( talk) 16:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Paranormal State, Buell's TV show, was pretty messy. I removed a large criticism section that was sourced to a psychic's blog. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 12:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A user repeatedly added a paragraph describing the history of Ukraine in the 5th century. I reverted this couple of times as original research, and then they returned with a reference [10] (this is Mykhailo Hrushevsky. Could someone please have a look whether the edit is ok? I doubt very much Hrushevsky could know anything about the area before the 9th century, as there are no sources available, but may be we need to write "In Hrushevsky's opinion" or smth like this? Thanks.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 13:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You should have asked for a citation before deciding it was original research. Woscafrench ( talk, contribs) 23:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I did ask for a citation, and this is in the end of the day why they produced one. It is just the book is of the 19th century.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

So, now you know that the material was not Original Reseach. The material may be based on an outdated (or even fringe) source... but it came FROM a source and so isn’t ORIGINAL research. The next question you need to look into is “what do modern scholars say?” Blueboar ( talk) 12:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not the NOR noticeboard, this is the fringe theories noticeboard. But I got the message. There will be no help coming from here. Thank you for your time.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 13:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Your original post framed this as being an OR issue... so that’s what we responded to. Suggest you start over, focusing purely on what you think are the fringe issues. Blueboar ( talk) 13:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Just forget it. Someone sometime will find the article and clean it up.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 14:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia published an article about Reactive multi-layer foil - /info/en/?search=Reactive_multi-layer_foil On the website of the company Indium Corporation, Dr. Andy Mackie reports about very simple extremely exothermic (heat-generating) stoichiometrically reaction

Al+2Ni -> AlNi2 http://www.indium.com/blog/nanofoilr-nanotech-comes-to-indium-corporation.php This is either a mistake or fake. Or is it real-the discovery of a new compound of Nickel with aluminium? It's necessary to supplement the chemistry textbooks and encyclopedias. Wikipedia about Nickel aluminide - /info/en/?search=Nickel_aluminide Publications about NanoFoil® technology initiated funding similar receach worldwide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.70.9 ( talk) 11:01, 20 January 2018‎ (UTC)

NO idea, what do RS say.? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

And of course the Ark had a nuclear reactor, but you knew that, right? [11] Doug Weller talk 19:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've had enough Tide laundry pods to understand this. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It gets better: "He claims that the birds Noah released were not actually birds but unmanned aerial vehicles." Dimadick ( talk) 20:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• ...And he's got the selfies to prove it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. And this is the same species that produced Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Any indication who his service provider was? John Carter ( talk) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ark Telecom. ‑  Iridescent 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Everyone has a cellphone, no? the birds are used for intel in the story (finding resurfaced land), and there are a whole raft of issues with the original ark story [12], that adding a nuclear reactor might just make things more plausible. Or not. Icewhiz ( talk) 22:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

somewhat related ^Humor — Paleo Neonate – 11:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theory of next month: The Storm

Totally different subject but equally insane: a new bonkers conspiracy theory called "The Storm" [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] making the rounds of the kookosphere. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"Alex Jones’ Infowars is now fully endorsing it..." Well, OK then. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, a person could build their philosophy on truth around Infowars. If Infowars endorses is, it's untrue, and if Infowars rails against it, it's true. It would be fairly hard to go wrong, that way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I´m looking forward to read The Storm (conspiracy theory) and the afd's. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The great thing about it (from a CS connoisseur standpoint) is that it states they're just about to make arrests. So it can keep going forever, with the fans of the theory saying "Yeah, but they keep finding more and more evidence, so they're not making their move yet". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget that the leader/revealer (called "Quanon", or "Qanon", or simply "Q") is supposedly a high official who must remain anonymous; which can give rise to infinite storylines. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cost-effective. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 22:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I should have known that Q would be behind it all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

TIL by falling down this rabbit hole that Roseanne Barr is out on that limb: [18]. Her new reboot show might be interesting to watch if you're into that sorta "O how the lefty have fallen" sorta thing. jps ( talk) 23:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"But Trump is on to all of this and he’s going to break up the pedophile ring, arrest ... wealthy members of the Illuminati"

The Illuminati went defunct in 1785. Is Trump going to exhume 18th-century human remains and arrest them? Dimadick ( talk) 09:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD going on here. Personally I object to the relevant articles being deleted, but they need seriously cleansed of woo and possibly merged. Famousdog (woof) (grrr) 13:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed a bit about someone named Brian Stubbs (although not in the text) being enhanced to include his all but dissertation work. The text is "One Mormon linguist, a specialist in the Native American Uto-Aztecan language family and graduate level studies in Near East language, has recently published works on similarities between Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic languages (specifically Egyptian and Semitic languages). ^{[1] [2] [3]} "

I have a couple of problems with this. He's got one journal article, something by "Grover Publications Provo Utah" for which I can find no details although a few other books list it, and the latest one isn't published but simply printed by a printing company. Details on the article talk page. This is all in-universe and I can't find any mainstream sources commenting on this major claim that there is serious linguistic link between Uto-Aztecan languages and Egyptian/Semitic languages. Isn't this WP:UNDUE? I haven't had the stomach yet to look at the rest of the article. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Since migration to the continent likely first occurred in pre-agriculture times (~20k years ago) and that what we know of those semitic languages and abjads goes back to only ~4000-1000 BCE, this appears very unlikely; what I wonder is if some notable criticism of Stubbs exists on the subject. If not, it couldn't be mentioned at all in relevant articles, except perhaps in the context of Mormonism itself with attribution (if notable enough). And as we know everything relating to the Book of Mormon is fringe except to Mormonism. Likely undue as you suspect. — Paleo Neonate – 22:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There have been previous attempts to connect language families of the Old and New World. For example the Nostratic languages hypothesis groups together the Afroasiatic languages with almost every language family in the Northern Hemisphere. The Borean languages hypothesis is even wider. Dimadick ( talk) 09:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is pretty classic Mormon pseudoscience. Establishing a link between the Levant and the Americas during the first millennium B.C.E. is their version of ID. I can tell you right now it's bunk based on sheer probabilities (Mormon author pushing a highly improbable claim that supports Mormon doctrine), but I'd have to read more about it to know exactly how it's bunk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I checked all the sources by Stubbs, and none of them reaches RS. The paper hosted on BYU comes the closest, but since it wasn't published in any peer-reviewed journal of linguistics or history, it can't be given any academic credence. The other two sources from Stubbs were both published by outfits too small to even have their own website, as far as I can see. That means no reputation for fact-checking, etc... The last sentence saying that some linguists have rejected all such claimed links was okay as far as sourcing, but a WP:OR, as the source only says that the author doesn't accept the claimed links. So I removed the entire paragraph and watchlisted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There was a brief discussion at RSN about him a while ago. [19] Use of him seems to have crept back in, or perhaps was never entirely removed. Genetics and the Book of Mormon, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Scot and Maurine Proctor, Endowment (Mormonism), Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, Mormonism and Freemasonry, Danite and Polytheism show up with a Wikipedia search, and an external links search [20] turns up others. I note that his article claims he has published in a peer reviewed journal, The Interpreter. But that states "Reviewers are generally of the LDS faith, but are not required to be. It is required that the reviewer not be hostile to LDS truth claims and that they are supportive of the Interpreter Foundation’s mission statement. Quite honestly, most reviewers are LDS simply because the majority of non-LDS scholars don’t have the source-level expertise required to provide a peer review of LDS-oriented scholarship." [21] so I'm removing it from his article. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This AfD of a parapsychologist may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interconnectedness. The pages interconnectivity and interdependence look pretty bad too. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, the "interconnectedness" page is now dead. Anyone feel like trying to find something salvageable in the other two? XOR'easter ( talk) 19:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Do Large (Magnitude ≥8) Global Earthquakes Occur on Preferred Days of the Calendar Year or Lunar Cycle? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: Here's one that has the opposite conclusion, which I came across a couple years ago and saved the link: http://bssa.geoscienceworld.org/content/64/5/1363

GeoSienceWorld seems to like brevity in their published abstracts. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 17:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Another proof that watchlisting this noticeboard was a good thing. Such things make for great entertainment. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• I startled my coworkers with my laugh at that. I was expecting the usual 3-5 paragraphs with a joke embedded in there, somewhere. Oh, and those two actually come to a very similar conclusion, Anachronist. To say they're Poissonian is to say that each such earthquake (with aftershocks removed) happens independently of the previous earthquake. It's saying essentially that "there's no pattern", though there are further depths than that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Depths. I see what you did there. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

being a thoroughly grounded individual (a real salt of the earth type, if you will), I'm sure I have [22] idea of what you mean. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Input on this discussion is welcome. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 13:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is clearly not accomplishing anything except serving as an impetus to bickering. The OP was helpful (to some of us), but past that, things went rapidly downhill. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it – That's the title of an article in The Guardian today. [23] It starts with "University College London has been unwittingly hosting an annual conference attended by race scientists and eugenicists for the past few years. This might have come as a shock to many people. But it is only the latest instalment in the rise of “scientific” racism within academia." It discusses " Race realism", Mankind Quarterly, Richard Lynn, etc. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And you are notifying us because... ?? Blueboar ( talk) 12:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Likely because it's of interest to a number of editors watching this page, and because it's news which involves both science and activism, it's something we may soon have to deal with at articles we watch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

As perception of scientific discourse shifts from FRINGE to non-FRINGE (or vice-versa) we should update Wikipedia to reflect consensus.12:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Let’s remember the purpose of this noticeboard... which is to discuss WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES that delve into fringe material. It isn’t a forum for discussing fringe theories in general, or for warning people about the latest fringe theory that is out there. So... is there a specific WP article where this is actually an issue? Blueboar ( talk) 14:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It can be useful for having this knowledge though as it can help deal with fringe material. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 14:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

How? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Telling us what to keep an eye out for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

MEH... There is more than enough fringe stuff CURRENTLY in our articles to keep us busy. We don’t need to discuss what MIGHT... someday... maybe... perhaps... become an issue. There are other venues for doing that. Blueboar ( talk) 15:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Any more then we already know this? None of this is new, a;; that is new is another source that might be added to pages we are already watching. I see no need for this notice at this time, and in fact makes us (I think) look just a bit too POV pushy for my liking "DANGER!, DANGER WILL ROBINSON POV I DO NOT AGREE WITH", this looks all just a bit too panicky and (frankly) a tad too close to canvasing. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If racism does "creep back into mainstream science", then our duty will be to adjust scientific articles to reflect the new mainstream, won't it? Regardless of whether it's wrong or evil or anything else, Wikipedia is supposed to show the significant viewpoints among experts in a field. So if major scientific journals start publishing more articles about the differences between races or the superiority of some races over others, then we'll be forced to give those viewpoints more weight — at some point they'll no longer be fringe theories and will just be theories. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 15:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The article says that these views still have no substantial support (the views sound also fairly speculative, anyway), so at this time no POV adjustment is necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've read the article, and yes I agree no changes are necessary now, and hopefully never will be. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 15:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a tiny little grain of truth to some of this fringe group (the connection between intelligence and genetics), but there's no scientific support for race as a biologically meaningful term, for intelligence as a single variable, for the assumption that intelligence can be used to order individuals in a linear fashion, for the significance of differences in metrics associated with intelligence between ethnic groups, for any link between intelligence and visible traits associated with race, etc, etc, etc. So it's really not surprising, the picture this article portrays. The central point that many of these academics openly support isn't all that controversial, so they find themselves publishing works around that central point. It's only when they try to group it into a coherent theory that there's a correlation between race and intelligence (which a shocking number of them are wont to do, given the chance) that they descend into lip-flapping stupidity.

The trend described in this article (I don't know that I agree that it is a trend, to be honest) is not one that, I believe, will require a change in focus with respect to what is considered fringe. It may, however, require us to keep a keen eye out for agenda-driven editing as a result of this (possibly nonexistent) trend. At the very least, it's distinctly likely that some white supremacist will cite this article to support the claim that such fringe researchers are actually mainstream scientists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Plus an article in The Guardian today is somewhat misleading. The page in question is an opinion piece by Angela Saini in "Comment Is Free" (the user-generated-content section of the Grauniad), not an actual article by a Guardian employee. That's not to say it's necessarily wrong, but it needs to be borne in mind that Saini currently has a book to promote called What Are You? The Mad Science of Race – and Its Fatal Return and consequently an obvious vested interest in making "racism is on the rise in the sciences!!!" sound like a big deal. ‑  Iridescent 15:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that editors wanting to help in this area could usefully add Race and intelligence to their watchlist as a start. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion seems out of place and improper. It seems preachy. It smacks of "we know better than others". Duh. I thought we were not here to right great wrongs. Bus stop ( talk) 15:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In what way, exactly, do you find this discussion "preachy"? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The original opinion piece linked above is somewhat preachy (mostly the title) but what it's actually about is fringe views getting somewhat more exposure lately. I imagine that the idea of bringing it here was not to rally the troops for a grand crusade, but to make editors aware of an issue that might emerge on articles related to this particular fringe theory. So the goal isn't to right great wrongs, but to make sure that fringe theories aren't given undue weight. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 16:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

IF and when these fringe theories are actually GIVEN undue weight on WP, they certainly can (and should) be raised here... but, at the moment, no. It’s premature to spend any time on them. Alerting us to their existence, when they are not being given undue weight in WP does come across as being “preachy”. Blueboar ( talk) 16:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The impropriety is that this is anticipatory. We should be allowing the pieces to fall where they may. We should not be approaching potential questions with preconceptions as to what assertions we should wish to be making. To do so would be to risk the skewing of our future content. We have to keep an open mind and report what sources say with mindfulness of countervailing views to impart balance of weight to differing views. In this discussion I detect a preaching for an outcome that fails to take into consideration the facts on the ground at some future point in time. Bus stop ( talk) 16:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In what way are you concerned this will "skew" content? Geogene ( talk) 16:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is that pseudoscientists can be found in surprising places, including legitimate scientific conferences [24], and they can have real academic qualifications [25]. This is obviously hazardous for Wikipedia's "verifiability not truth" model of epistemology. It requires a level of vigilance, and sometimes even competence, that I doubt many editors are capable of. But awareness is a useful first step. Geogene ( talk) 16:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is still anticipatory. I think you are positing that our future editors will not be able to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. Bus stop ( talk) 16:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

True. But many of our current editors are unable to do that, so I think it's a valid concern. Geogene ( talk) 16:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And this is the Fringe theory, not the reliable sources notice board. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and we're discussing Pseudoscience here, thank you. Geogene ( talk) 17:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any sources under discussion. I do see a fringe theory under discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought I saw two users talking about being unable to distinguish between RS and not RS, my mistake. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

People who hold fringe views are often unable to do so. You're missing the forest for the trees. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Iridescent: you're right that it's an opinion piece and I apologise for using the word "article", which I was using loosely. @ Slatersteven: I'm not asking anyone to do something, so I don't see this as canvassing. It's a bit of a surprise that posting something relevant to fringe theories on which we have articles has caused such a fuss. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller—in an edit summary you note "maybe using the title of the article as the section heading caused problems". [26] I think it was not the best choice in section heading. Even if it were simply reduced to "Racism is creeping back into mainstream science" instead of the present "Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it", I think that would represent an improvement. Bus stop ( talk) 01:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It never occurred to me that people would see it was a title, I stated clearly that it was, or that people would get upset by the title. Doug Weller talk 06:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic. Mathsci ( talk) 09:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::I updated the section title, and moved the quote of the external article's title to the body of the section – didn't seem too difficult. @ Doug Weller: please get your priorities right on what "simply isn’t important enough": I followed this yesterday and can only conclude that you're in no position to lecture others on what is important and what isn't, like you did on my talk page. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Warning - Fringe theories exist!!!

There are fringe theories that relate to the topic area you care about. Someone may try to give them undue weight. Place any articles in the topic area on your watchlist.

There... now everyone is alerted to the potential danger, and they know the appropriate action to take. Perhaps we can now move on and discuss specific cases where fringe material is actually being added to articles? Blueboar ( talk) 17:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

For the life of me, I can't figure out why a couple of you are getting hysterically upset about this. This is an article alleging that a particular fringe theory is getting more attention. That's all. It's a friendly heads up. Why some folks here are getting bent out of shape over that is really mystifying. If you didn't care, you didn't have to read the section. It's really that simple. Stop engaging shit that bothers you, and you'll find it's much less bothersome. All you've accomplished thus far is diminishing my (and likely quite a few others') opinion of you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

whereas, I can’t figure out why you are getting all worked up about a fringe theory that might... but then again might NOT... show up in an article. It comes across as a shout that “the sky is falling”, when nothing of the sort is actually occurring. But I have said my 2 cents worth and will drop the stick. Have fun righting great wrongs. Blueboar ( talk) 19:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion we are best served by holding in abeyance convictions about the possible distinctions between people based groupings—whether that be by race or any other criteria. I have an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to what seems to be a cautionary stance to something that has not yet come to fruition. As an encyclopedia we should first wait for a situation to arise and then to evaluate it. We should not put the cart before the horse. We should not be saying "What if someone tries to use a source to support an assertion that we deem "racist"? In my opinion we should cross that bridge when we come to it, rather than now, in anticipation of particulars that we cannot now know. Bus stop ( talk) 18:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion we are best served by holding in abeyance convictions about the possible distinctions between people based groupings—whether that be by race or any other criteria. Your opinion is noted and promptly discarded in favor of the scientific consensus. I never thought I'd see an established editor actively defending racism on this noticeboard, but they do say there's a first time for everything.

Regardless, I think I'm done trying to explain the concept and utility of meta discussions to editors who'd rather fly off the handle than stay out of a discussion they don't like. So ya'll have a nice time with your sulking and complaints about people using the Fringe Theories Noticeboard as a Noticeboard to discuss aspects of Fringe Theories as they may affect this project. I'll be sure to keep tabs of how many times a discussion gets disrupted by you folks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I am actively defending racism? That's news to me. No, I am advocating for open-mindedness. You are characterizing as hysteria an opinion that you apparently don't hold. You said "For the life of me, I can't figure out why a couple of you are getting hysterically upset about this." Let us put this into perspective. It is more correct to see your reaction as "hysterical". We have to be tolerant of disagreement. Doug Weller called our attention to an article external to Wikipedia. A discussion ensued. Who is trying to suppress discussion? Not me. Am I permitted to point out what I see as improper about some stances taken in the early parts of that discussion? Am I exhibiting hysteria? Bus stop ( talk) 19:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The comment "I never thought I'd see an established editor actively defending racism on this noticeboard, but they do say there's a first time for everything" was way out of line. I suggest that am apology is in order. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, that was me that said that line, and no apology will be forthcoming. The statement I said it in response to was a statement that we should refrain from passing judgement on discredited and racist theories. It's a defense of racism. Now I'm not suggesting that Bus Stop is themselves racist, rather I think they're getting caught up in the argument without due consideration of the implication of their positions. This is borne out by the response, calling for "open mindedness" regarding said discredited and racist theories followed by an immediate change of subject.

Though I would like to alter one small part of my statement about hysterical reactions. In an attempt to avoid being over accusative, I spoke in the plural, when in fact, the only hysterical reaction was the edit that created this subheading. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You are failing to distinguish between the future and the present. At present no legitimate science supports intellectual superiority of one group of people over another group of people. Even myself as a non-scientist supports that view. But am I prepared to take a stance now on the science of the future? Of course not. I will evaluate that source when it becomes available to me and not before. I am not in the habit of evaluating something imaginary. No apology is called for. Disagreement is normal. Bus stop ( talk) 20:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Can't tell now from then sounds worse than can't tell science from fringe. The problem is that by definition there are no RS promoting fringe theories. So editors who come here to promote those views have no way to do it other than to violate our policies. Add the problems that some of these editors are highly motivated ideologues, some of them are ignorant of what the mainstream does say, and the result is they rely on bad sources - unvetted, primary, self-published, etc. These are serious structural problems that require constant attention to policy and guidelines. And highly motivated, often single-purpose, editors are not into that kind of thing. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict)I'm afraid you've been reading far too much into the things I said. For future reference, be sure to read only what I wrote. The only thing you'll find between the lines of my comments is white space. I never said, nor even implied anything about the future of science. Of course, I presumed you were reading only what I wrote, when you wrote your defense of the possible truth of scientific racism. I suppose it's somewhat more defensible as an abstract "we can't know what the future brings" sort of thing than as a defense of the current pseudoscientific claims making up scientific racism, but not much. You see, there's an actual reason for the current scientific consensus that there's no biologically meaningful distinction between the races, and no meaningful link between "race" and intelligence. That reason being summed up as "a reexamination of the evidence produced during the period when scientific racism was in vogue along with new evidence produced in the decades after that period." So while you may be perfectly willing to suggest that we have no idea what the future of science might be, I feel just about as comfortable predicting that it won't include "race is a real thing and some races are better than others!" as I do predicting that it won't include "Magic is real, lets found Hogwarts!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed we have an article on the author, Angela Saini. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Doug Weller that this is a relevant and important discussion to have, especially where personalities like Richard Lynn are concerned. I have seen Richard Lynn cited in articles, and it has concerned me. In one case a month or so ago I believe, I cleared out all references to him on the page, and posted a message to the talk page alerting others that other scientists have had serious qualms about ethics as well as his interpretations of his works. I have also seen arguments on talk pages that rely seriously on racialist or scientific racist notions -- claims that there exists a "Turanid" race, claims that one group of people are "literally" one race or another, and so forth. Most of these cases I know better than to get myself involved, but it is an important conversation to have.

My two cents: Bus stop's weird sentence about the "future" is kind of not necessary to say the least. Right now not only are racist views completely fringe in academia, but extensive scientific literature shows that the entire paradigm of race is irretrievably flawed -- actual observed genetic differences often contradict traditional ideas about races which are based on perceived phenotypical similarity and cultural notions -- "races" typically don't align to actual genetic groupings. "Races" simply aren't valid categories in science, and the idea that humanity is divisible into discrete categories ignores mountains of genetic and historical evidence of continual contact and mingling in the vast majority of cases. Most studies that claim to show racial differences, like the "Bell Curve", fail because of a spiderweb of confounding socioeconomic and cultural factors that counter-explain their findings; "races" are fundamentally cultural, not genetic, units. Don't take it from me: there is a whole literature discrediting "race" as a unit that people should read. The "future" is entirely irrelevant, as in the present we have an enormous body of literature discrediting any study that attempts to make claims according to "race" outside of sociological context. We do need to have a discussion about how to treat such sources like Lynn. As I said, my view is delete from pages that aren't about them, and where they are discussed, post the mountains of criticism of them which are typically not hard to find. -- Calthinus ( talk) 21:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well said. While I agree that in theory some day in the future science may overturn our present understanding on this, we will address that when and if it happens. Most scientific theories don't get overturned. In the meantime, we present the views of the majority of scientists, mentioning notable noting fringe theories that disagree with accepted science as appropriate. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Well said, indeed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Double Plus Warning - Some editors don't read the material at the top of this page!!!!!!

The top of this page says:

"This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Questions related to articles on fringe theories may also be posted here."

It does not, as is implied above, say that this page is only to discuss specific cases where fringe material is actually being added to specific articles.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants is being criticized when he didn't do anything wrong. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And this is not about a possible fringe theory, but a source relating to one we are already fully aware of. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have posted at least half a dozen "Fringe theory of the month" posts about fringe theories that we are already fully aware of, such as flat earth theories and creationism. I didn't notice you or anyone else complaining. -- Guy Macon ( talk)

I think I did ask at least once what is the point of such posts (but it was a while ago). Slatersteven ( talk) 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I hate racism, me. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Besides the fact that most if not all of the IP edits just now need reverting, this looks as that needs a general cleanup. And can anyone remind me where it’s appropriate to use the title “Sri” and when it’s not? Doug Weller talk 08:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope it's not too far out of context to ask editors here to check the thread at User talk:Remember the dot#hoax → sting. We're talking about the Sokal affair and List of scholarly publishing stings. Remember the dot made a few moves/redirects/edits that I questioned, even though we're in general agreement. Needs more eyes. — jmcgnh ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Of possible interest:

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#RfC_about_a_new_sentence_in_WP:SENSATION

jps ( talk) 22:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"Veterinarians successfully used alternative medical treatments such as acupuncture on three wild animals burned in the Southern California wildfires, although one patient — a 5-month-old mountain lion — did keep eating his fish-skin and corn-husk bandages, vets at the University of California, Davis said Wednesday."

"Peyton and her colleagues used some of the alternative methods she already employs with other animals, including acupuncture, chiropractic treatment, and cold-laser therapy. Many health-insurance companies consider some of the treatments experimental or unproven, and do not always cover their costs in human patients."

"Another form of treatment seemed most helpful of all for the bears, vets said. The California vets stitched the fish skins to the animals' burned paws, then wrapped the treated feet with bandages of rice paper and corn husks, after reading about trials on human burn victims in Brazil that placed treated skins from tilapia, a ubiquitous species of fish, on burn victims to soothe pain and promote healing." --Source: Bears burned in California wildfires go holistic for pain

(Wikilinks added.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No comment on the others, but the use of sterilized animal skins as a dressing for burns certainly isn't fringe—it's been a routine treatment for decades, although in the west it's almost always pigskin which is used as it's light, flexible and readily available. ‑  Iridescent 18:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Our article on Xenotransplantation#Potential animal organ donors does establish that the use of sterilized animal skins as a dressing for burns isn't fringe, but I believe that using fish skins -- especially when sterile pig skin and lamb skin (often used instead of pig for religious reasons) is widely available -- is fringe.

More information: [27] [28] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: why are you linking 'experimental or unproven' to 'Pseudoscience'? You risk changing what the author meant when you do that, and it comes across as you editorialising or adding your own commentary or opinions. For example, experimental medicine redirects to medical research. Also, you linked 'alternative medical treatments' to pseudomedicine, when we have a distinct Wikipedia article on alternative medicine that would have been more accurate to link to. What this appears to be is someone trying an experiment on animals, and hoping to "get donations to fund research". The other point to make is that it is important to distinguish between xenotransplantation of organs and tissues that remain permanently in place, and the use of tissues that are replaced by the body's own tissues during the healing process (the distinction between transplantation and wound care becomes blurred in some forms of skin grafting, particularly in relation to managing burns). There are many different methods of wound care (for some reason our link redirects to history of wound care), many of which may seem fringe but are not (leeches and maggots are mentioned - it gets confusing!). Have a look at the 'modern wound care' section of that article, and articles such as wound bed preparation. We also have dressing (medical) (with a subsection on 'biologics, skin substitutes, biomembranes and scaffolds') and articles such as hydrogel dressing, hydrocolloid dressing, and alginate dressing. It is a complex area that would benefit from more people working on our articles on the topics. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Context matters. If the source had simply said "alternative medical treatments" I would have linked to alternative medicine but the context makes it clear that the author is defining "alternative medical treatments" as "including acupuncture, chiropractic treatment, and cold-laser therapy", all of which I consider to be pseudoscience.

I also have a real problem with anyone doing animal experimentation on a specially protected species. Wild animals should receive conventional medical treatment. Alternative medicine should be limited to laboratory animals and to humans who have consented. Call that editorializing if you wish. I call it a breach of scientific ethics. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. The reporting in the article wasn't great. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Carcharoth that a link to pseudoscience in the context of experimental procedures is probably a bad idea. Yes, this does seem to me to be a rather strange experimental procedure, but if something is truly being done as an experiment or an experimental procedure, then to my eyes it doesn't yet claim to be scientific, and if the procedure of experimentation being used is scientific, then it isn't really pseudoscience, and would better be called experimental. Untested procedures open a whole other can of worms. John Carter ( talk) 18:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Carcharoth's first assertion. "Experimental or unproven" means much the same thing as "pseudoscience". The author chose the words "experimental or unproven". It is gratuitous to link to pseudoscience. Here is the fundamental problem as I see it: that which is unproven can eventually be shown to be efficacious. You can't rule out possibilities for the future. We can identify what is a fringe theory at present. But whenever we engage in making assertions about what will apply in the future, we are overstepping our bounds. In this case it is more proper to leave the author's words in the form that she wrote them. The author is conceding that this is "unproven". I don't think any further clarification is called for. A link to pseudoscience is implying a permanent connection between that which is at present unproven and that which will always remain ineffective in promoting health. This connection may not last indefinitely. This would not be the case if for instance it was found at some future point in time that "acupuncture, chiropractic treatment, and cold-laser therapy" held some valuable therapeutic properties. Bus stop ( talk) 15:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's unproven to work, and it's being used to actively treat patients (instead of being used in clinical trials, even clinical trials where the subjects are hoped to benefit from the treatment), then it's pseudomedicine by definition. Acupuncture is unproven. Trepanation is unproven. The laying on of hands is unproven. Psychic surgery is unproven. You may notice a pattern beginning to emerge. Meanwhile, experimental stem cell therapies are rarely -if ever- referred to as "unproven". At worst, they're "untested", and more accurately "insufficiently tested for medical approval". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"The thing is, you can't really run "clinical trials" on burned large wild animals; it's not the sort of thing you run across in an average day-to-day veterinary medical practice. I'm not seeing the "pseudoscience" here; UC Davis VetMed is one of the most respected veterinary research hospitals in America, so presumably this was approved by the university hospital's research ethics people. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 19:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Why is there a sudden uptick in people complaining about how this noticeboard is used? The complaints above aren't about article edits, but about the way an editor composed a notice posted here. If anyone has a problem with the way this noticeboard is used, unless that problem is that it's being used to canvass, then kindly take the page off your watchlist. I'm sick and tired of every thread degenerating into an argument over whether or not the OP should have opened the thread. Seriously, this is fucking juvenile. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You are mischaracterizing the discussion when you say that the discussion is about "whether or not the OP should have opened the thread." The source already says "experimental or unproven". That is sufficient for our purposes. We cross the line into activism when we take it upon ourselves to provide a piped link to Pseudoscience. We are not opposed to plain English. We are opposed to the use of Wikipedia for perpetuating fringe theories. Bus stop ( talk) 19:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It's a legitimate criticism, and I won't be adding Wikilinks to any future posts about various fringe topics, simply because which wikilinks to add is my judgement and there are likely to be other editors who disagree with my judgement, as happened here. Looking back, it was a marginal-to-poor decision. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you really focused in on the one part of my comment that you could argue with and ignored the rest. Good job, there. Guy, there was nothing wrong with piping the link to pseudoscience. This is a talk page, you are expected to express your own judgements, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I could just as well focus on the part of your comment which reads "If anyone has a problem with the way this noticeboard is used, unless that problem is that it's being used to canvass, then kindly take the page off your watchlist." [29] I don't know how you can cavalierly suggest one remove a page from their watchlist. You say above "This is a talk page, you are expected to express your own judgements, here." Sure—we are expected to express our judgements here. But everybody doesn't have to agree with everything we say. Bus stop ( talk) 23:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Your ability to consistently miss my point entirely is truly amazing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

"treated skins from tilapia, a ubiquitous species of fish"

Possibly an error in the source above. Tilapia is not a species. It is an entire group of species within the tribe of Tilapiine cichlid. They are wide-spread in Africa and the Middle East. Dimadick ( talk) 18:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

I have a proposal. If someone writes something on the Fringe theories noticeboard that you find to be objectionable, go to their talk page, explain your objection, and ask them to edit and/or strike the comment. Be open to getting a response that convinces you that your objection is invalid. Only if you cannot reach a resolution on the user's talk page should you open up a meta discussion here with the usual associated drama. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support: as proposer. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: Regarding the thread above this one, without criticizing anyone for criticizing me here, if the criticism had been on my talk page I would have instantly agreed and removed the Wikilinks; I have a "if even one person objects, fix it unless there is a compelling reason not to do so" policy. Alas, it is too late to do this here, as it would make the thread talking about the wikilinks pretty much incomprehensible. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Furiously support to the point that this proposal could rightfully call me its sugar daddy ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This should be in dispute-resolution-related guidelines (like TALK, CON, DR), if something like it isn't already in them. Side conversations about other's behavior can easily derail consensus building. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some PROFRINGE tendentious editing going on there. I am INVOLVED so my superhero tool kit is unavailable. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to borrow my utility belt? - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm somewhat familiar with this subject. I've watchlisted and will take a look at it during my lunch break. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The article has been reverted to an earlier, and IMO much better version. There seems to be some support for that. Also the source of most of the tendentious editing has been warned about their behavior. Hopefully things will quiet down now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, earlier I sat down in front of my computer with take-out Italian and stared at the screen for five minutes trying to remember what I said I'd look at while I was eating. Eventually, I gave up and watched a photoshop tutorial on YouTube. But NOW I remember what it was. D'oh! At least it got taken care of in the meantime. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"I've watchlisted" I have it on my watchlist for a few days, mostly because it is a British-related article which had never been tagged by any of the British-related WikiProjects. One of the problems with the article are the nature of the sources in the "Sceptical analysis" section. One of them is Ian Ridpat's personal website, the either is a podcast. It is rather unclear whether they do count as reliably-published sources. Dimadick ( talk) 19:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• National Vaccine Information Center (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Checking my biases here. One user wants to treat NVIC as a normal nonprofit and include the mission and slogan, which are:

mission = The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) states that it "is dedicated to the prevention of vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and to defending the informed consent ethic in medicine."

non-profit_slogan = Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice.

Obviously this is NVIC. The "informed consent" they promote is actually misinformed dissent, per multiple reliable sources, and the "choice" to endanger your children and others by wilfully refusing immunisation based on lies and misrepresentations is, as a matter of law, one which the state has every right to overrule.

That said, should we treat NVIC as a normal nonprofit and include these? Or maybe remove the infobox altogether? Guy ( Help!) 16:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That said, should we treat NVIC as a normal nonprofit and include these? My gut says yes, but that the article (ABSOLUTELY INCLUDING THE LEDE) should clearly spell out the problems with this org. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict)The first sentence could stand to be re-written. The details of its founding are not nearly as important as a description of what it is. I'll raise the issue at talk there in a bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is what they say. What we think of it is irrelevant. I fail to see why they are not a "normal nonprofit", as I have no idea what a normal one would be. Care to explain. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A normal nonprofit exists to fulfil some beneficial public purpose. NVIC exists to undermine public health. It would not be allowed nonprofit status in many places (e.g. the UK, Australia). Guy ( Help!) 17:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

See my objection to that argument here [30]. Tornado chaser ( talk) 17:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC) (I am the user JzG(Guy) was referring to when he started this thread)

Advocacy groups tend to be non-profits, so who cares? The point is that they are an advocacy group for a fringe position; all else is either evidence or commentary. Mangoe ( talk) 17:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it exists to fulfill some beneficial public purpose, the effect of which is to undermine public health. Many non profits in fact have unforeseen side effects (and many are in fact lobby or political organisations whose aims are not "egalitarian" but selfish), the side effects are not what they aim to do (and non profit and charity are not synonymous). You are mistaking their aim with their effect. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I was doing a bit of research about the following two positions, trying to determine which best describes NVIC.

• "Vaccines are bad. Here are the reasons why we believe this".

• "Whether or not vaccines are bad, people should have free choice and not be forced to vaccinate".

The first is pure pseudoscience. The second is a legitimate but somewhat unpopular political position. Alas, some organizations that really take the first position often pretend to take the second. I believe that this describes the NVIC.

While researching this, I ran into the following two papers which may be of interest:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/44/1/37

http://jme.bmj.com/content/43/11/792

Does anyone know of a non-paywall site where I can access the tesx of these two papers? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, the first IS a legitimate political opinion... even if it is not a legitimate scientific opinion. Nothing say a political opinion can not be based upon pseudoscience. Blueboar ( talk) 16:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 17:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• I think we should be forthcoming with information, by which I mean providing plenty of information about the subject of the article. The thing about fringe theories is that sources support fringe theories, but better quality sources debunk the fringe theory. Therefore our role is clearly to give the findings of the better quality sources prominence of position. In no uncertain terms we should be asserting the opposition found in good quality sources to the "fringe theory". But this does not mean that we obstruct the flow of information about the subject of the article itself, into these sorts of articles—even if we consider that information to be misinformation. We simply emphasize the findings of the better quality sources. That way the reader is informed about the ways in which the organization presents itself and also informed about the likely wrongheadedness of the organization's mission or its assertions about some fringe theory. Therefore I think we should include the organization's "mission and slogan" and we probably should provide the article with an Infobox if related articles would have an Infobox. Bus stop ( talk) 17:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

In some cases, it is unclear what the "fringe theory" is. Apparently this organization was formed with the idea that "whole cell pertussis" vaccines had significant medical side-effects. While this is apparently not true, the method has been abandoned in the United States in favor of "acellular pertussis vaccines".

Also in the case of pertussis vaccines in general, the effectiveness of the vaccination is questionable. The illness is having a 21st-century resurgence, in part because old vaccines no longer have the desired effects: "The 21st-century resurgences in pertussis infections are attributed to a combination of waning immunity and bacterial mutations that elude vaccines. ... Immunization does not confer lifelong immunity; a 2011 CDC study indicated that protection may only last three to six years. " Dimadick ( talk) 20:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Rendlesham Forest incident is extensively, but UFO's or contact with extraterrestrial beings is still unproven. Thus, such an article serves mere speculation, and should be deleted. prokaryotes ( talk) 19:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason for deleting an article, but you're can nominate it for deletion at AfD is you believe it doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines.- Mr X 🖋 20:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Most of our deletion discussions have to do with whether there are sufficient sources for any given article topic. (When there is no source at all, the likelihood of a hoax article increases.) Dimadick ( talk) 20:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Any hint that the incident is evidence for alien UFOs needs to be removed from the article, but the incident itself is too famous to delete. It's a hard job we have, but there are plenty of sources available to help us improve the article without lending our discussion to fringe theories. jps ( talk) 15:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Just curious for you guys, but how do you think my David Meade article looks? I think it meets C-class but I just would like to know what you think about the article. -- LovelyGirl7 talk 16:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved to author. prokaryotes ( talk) 18:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

His failed prediction that the world would end on September 23, 2017 speaks for itself. prokaryotes ( talk) 18:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @ Prokaryotes:. How would you rate the article (assessment wise)? I think C-Class sounds accurate. — LovelyGirl7 talk 18:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Wikipedia's rating system. Speaking for myself, I just now read about this guy and it seems to be constrained to a few U.S. media outlets. Low importance to me. prokaryotes ( talk) 18:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The importance of an article may differ, depending on how many WikiProjects are attached to an article. Something may be of core importance to one WikiProject, and only of lesser or peripheral importance to another WikiProject. For example, the article on Houston has been rated as being of High-importance for WikiProject Cities, but of Top-importance to WikiProject Texas. To one, Houston is a relatively large city in the global scope of the Project, to the other it is a core topic of its geographic scope. Dimadick ( talk) 20:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This is better than C-class. I've bumped it to B-class. C-class articles are much worse than this, typically. jps ( talk) 15:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@ ජපස: thank you so much. However, I do still have some work to do to get it GA though. — LovelyGirl7 talk 15:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I made a peer review for my David Meade article here. If anyone wants to give feedback on that page your welcome to do so. -- LovelyGirl7 talk 20:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conception chart. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A post at the "Wikipedia We Have A Problem" blog (I'd link it but naturally it is blacklisted) is soliciting readers to go edit two articles that have figured in past fringe-related edit wars and attempt to relitigate past battles on the talk page. The first request is to go to Rupert Sheldrake and ask about the word biologist in the first sentence (despite the fact that it is already right there in the second sentence). The second request is to go to Deepak Chopra and ask about "why he isn't listed as an MD", again despite the fact that this is right there in the second paragraph. If you are not familiar, this blog is written by someone who has been the subject of several bans and sock puppet investigations, specifically regarding activity on those two articles. Also attn Roxy the dog you are mentioned by name in the article (as am I). -- Krelnik ( talk) 20:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Related:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive190#Askahrc (Section "Statement by Jytdog", search for "we have a problem" and "Chopra")

Wikipedia We Have A Problem (yes, it is a red link. I am referring the reader to the deletion notice)

https://archive.li/3eTMr

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've known him for donkeys years, way before I ever joined wikipedia. Thing is I only use "Roxy" here so he doesn't know why I know him, which is the only thing that amuses me about him. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 01:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

In fact this is a generic feature of being engaged in any critique of bullshit anywhere. See the SLAPP suits against Britt Hermes, the SGU and, in the past, people like Simon Singh and Peter Wilmshurst. I had to get a court order to get rid of one nutter. Guy ( Help!) 16:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(I see some sockpuppet accounts appeared overnight and attempted to squelch this discussion, thanks to those who dealt with that mess). That's interesting Roxy - do you have a perception of what percentage of what this person does is pure "for the lulz" trolling and what percentage they really care about? That's nearly impossible to judge over the net but since you know him personally I thought I'd ask... -- Krelnik ( talk) 14:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have seen this sort of thing (and even raised an AN about it) in relation to other pages (and other off Wiki forums). It seemed most peopel felt there was little we can do about off Wiki canvasing. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree, I don't think there's anything to be done about the blogging itself (else I would have brought it up on an admin noticeboard). I just wanted to warn those who have Sheldrake and Chopra on their watchlists that they may see some activity as a result of this. -- Krelnik ( talk) 15:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ditto the above. The only times we could do anything about off-wiki canvassing is when the individual engaged in it is an editor here, and we know which editor. Then, it's a violation of WP:MEAT. In any other circumstances, there's nothing to do but let people know about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Couple of points. I don't know him personally, but have dealt with him before. He has been trolling the world like this for a long time, and will obviously continue. I don't think he's a sociopath like David Mabus, but I always envisioned him sitting in a little dark circle of silence in a loud busy pub, month after month. Trolling is to get attention. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• WP:DUCKs may be shot on site. Tumbleman is very banned. Guy ( Help!) 17:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I personally am not surprised that a disgruntled former-editor takes up their grievances elsewhere. In the spirit of WP:DENY shouldn't this just be ignored? In an unintended consequence, this thread is calling attention to those grievances. The referred-to blog, which I had no trouble finding, is blacklisted for a reason. I'm not sure we should even be discussing it. Bus stop ( talk) 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

He was never an actual editor here, he was always disgruntled. We've all heard the "dont feed the troll" schtick over and over again, so much so that it has become a thing. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 21:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Are either Sheldrake or Chopra still active in the field? The article on Sheldrake dates his last employment as a biologist to the 1970s, and the one on Chopra his last employment as a a medical doctor to the 1980s. Both men are in their 70s. Dimadick ( talk) 19:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It depends on how broadly you ascribe the "field" in question. A medical doctor is considered a medical doctor as long as they keep up their board certification, I would argue. As far as I know, Chopra has done this. A practicing doctor is another matter.

This argument is a bit WP:PERENNIAL. Clearly Chopra and Sheldrake are leaning on their backgrounds to lend their fringe ideas legitimacy. They would never have the audience they enjoy if it they didn't have the credentials they do. On the other hand, they legitimately have those credentials and it would be dishonest for us not to let the reader know this. How to strike the right balance between being honest to the reader about the credentials while not engaging in WP:ADVERT is the name of the game. It's not easy. It's certainly not as simple as just putting "Sheldrake is a biologist who..." or "Chopra is a medical doctor that..." as lede sentences. Neither is it as simple as removing the designations entirely or, worse, wasting lots of text trying to describe the situation in the opening paragraph. My inclination is to argue that the current articles strike a good balance between the competing editorial best practices, but it's entirely possible there is a better solution to be had than the status quo. The desires of Mr. Viharo, though, are not, I would argue, better solutions.

jps ( talk) 16:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that "why is there inertia?" is a legitimate question that one could write about from a philosophy-of-physics perspective ( Mach's principle and all), but when an editor puts Harold E. Puthoff, Bernard Haisch and James F. Woodward on a level with Mach, Feynman and Einstein, and when their references include a blog post about a magical space drive, and when they persistently fail to get why Wikipedia needs secondary sources... it doesn't go well. I'm stepping away for a bit to attend to the day job and to avoid becoming needlessly antagonistic. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Recently expanded, apparently from at least one editor with a coi, from what was previously a stub. Looks too much like so many other poor alt-med bios:

After being sick for years with health problems from allergies to more severe respiratory problems and taking various medications, she realized that sugar addiction was at the root cause of her symptoms.

Drawing on childhood experiences, she wrote her dissertation titled “An Alternative to the Germ Theory”, and in the 1970s she started lecturing on the dangers of sugar and the role diet plays in a person’s health.

Suicide by Sugar - published in 2009, links over 140 health symptoms to sugar consumption, with the bulk of its research coming directly from medical journals.

Lots of puffery and advertising too, but I thought the alt-med claims should be reviewed. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I just happened to see the Robert Vancina (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article which has been edited by a COI account. The article itself was created by an account which appears to be a paid editor. On top of the unreliable sources, advert issues etc., the article uses sources that promote cold fusion (see this source) and the subject of the article appears to be researching LENR. Can any of the regulars of this noticeboard please check this BLP? Thank you. Dr. K. 04:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Editor Trutheyeness recently added rebuttals (somewhat repetitive rebuttals) to the various skeptical criticisms of Stevenson's work on the Reincarnation page. At Ian Stevenson, it looks like the WP stance is that this was fringe research. The whole addition feels like a mess to me, but I don't want to edit based on feelings. Anyone else have a stronger constitution for dealing with it? — jmcgnh ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Psalms was written by human beings. None of these people wrote after death, yet a claim to that effect -- Based on King David's death in 837 BCE, all of the psalms had to have been written by then. -- was reverted as being unsourced.

I did have a source, www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48936837.html (title=History of King David), which says "King David is one of the most important figures in Jewish history. Born in 907 BCE, he reigns as king of Israel for 40 years, dying at age 70 in 837 BCE."

A second attempt, with more source material and also details in the TALK page, was reverted as WP:OR (as if Wiki's policy of allowing common sense, e.g. the dead don't compose, isn't enough).

When I rewrote the sentence as "King David's writing was accomplished before the end of 837 BCE." (with sourcing) it was reverted as FRINGE. It is not FRINGE - it is basic material taught (even) in "Modern" Orthodox schools.

Start with the year of the first temple's destruction. Subtract how many years it stood. It wasn't built by King Solomon right away, after King David's passing. Convert the date from since-creation to common era, and we're done: 3338 = destruction, stood = 410 years, 3338 minus 410 = 2928.

3760 is the factor for AM to BCE: 2928 minus 3760 = -832, meaning 832 bce (Before Common Era).

Since King Solomon didn't complete it the same year (832 bce), "837 BCE" (from the AISH.com source, and others) is consistant with the cited sources.

I added a subsection named "Jewish calculations" the first 2 times and then tried "Jewish viewpoint."

Those who don't accept these teachings have their right to believe what they want, but to label a part of the Jewish belief system as FRINGE is a violation of NPOV and also of the fact that the article DOES have separate labels elsewhere for different religions, on a different subtopic. Pi314m ( talk) 10:31, 6 February 2018

A, I am not sure that is RS, what are their editorial policies?

B, Frankly much of the above looks like OR, is that your maths or the sources? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

As stated on the talk page, it is fringe even in the Israeli academia. No historian worth his salt, Jewish or Gentile, teaches such view in a mainstream university. It is not a scholarly view, it is the view of true believers (fundamentalists), who reject mainstream history. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a source for this? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

We should look for sources at Seder Olam Rabbah and Missing years (Jewish calendar). I mean this chronology is so fringe that is not even taken seriously as history. E.g. it puts David's reign about 143 years later than mainstream historians put it. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Strack (1991) stated that it compresses the Persian period to 52 years. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

See also Stephen L. Cook (2011). On the Question of the "Cessation of Prophecy" in Ancient Judaism. Mohr Siebeck. p. 157. ISBN  978-3-16-150920-9. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

And Oded Lipschitz; Manfred Oeming (2006). Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Eisenbrauns. p. 499. ISBN  978-1-57506-104-7. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Direct attribution of all the Psalms to David is eye-rollingly problematic at best (and definitely fringe). Report on the traditional attribution, sure, but don't go beyond that. jps ( talk) 15:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the article as it stands, the reference to Davidic origins as a rabbinical position is reasonable, without the "fringe" label, which would be anachronistic. I'm pretty sure that there isn't any serious Christian commitment to such a position: if nothing else, Christian commentators hold Psalm 137 as exilic or post-exilic. One guesses that plenty of text-crit types and modernists want to make the whole thing very late but it doesn't seem to be a hot enough issue to leak out to where I've been exposed to it. Mangoe ( talk) 19:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I had reverted the edits as WP:OR without discussing the WP:FRINGE issues. There is no source provided that actually states this as a conclusion, so it is original research. But I would concur with most editors here, that even if such a source could be found, it would not be mainstream (i.e. it would be fringe) and there would be so many other sources countering it that it would lead to similar problems to what this article has previously had where minority views are added and then counter views and counter-counter views ... Melcous ( talk) 22:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference between discussing traditional Jewish chronology and reporting it as fact. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

A source for Pi314m's view: Hershey H. Friedman; Linda Weiser Friedman (2 May 2014). God Laughed: Sources of Jewish Humor. Transaction Publishers. p. 473. ISBN  978-1-4128-5427-6. This source puts the destruction of the First Temple 163 years later than mainstream historians do, and therefore making Nebuchadnezzar II still alive in 423 BCE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

My take is that such chronology is pious fiction and it is certainly not the view of all Jews. In fact, it is roundly rejected by the Israeli academia. At the Hebrew University of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv University they would say "We don't teach such chronology as fact." Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This article, on a creature from Maori mythology, cites a Blogspot 'essay' as a source. [34] Which in of itself would fail to pass WP:RS. Even worse, this ridiculous essay claims that "taniwha are not just mythological beings without any basis in reality, but that they are based on real dinosaur sightings", based on pseudoscientific creationist drivel. Clearly none of this belongs in the article. but rather than deleting it, it would probably be worth trying to find some better sources. Māori mythology is a subject deserving of proper scholarly coverage, and I am quite sure that such material can be found to support the article, without it being used as a platform for halfwitted hogwash imported from elsewhere. 86.130.97.5 ( talk) 10:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Kensington Runestone history and Johan Andreas Holvik history. And a little comment at my talk after I reverted their unsourced additions. Could probably use some extra eyes. He iro 19:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard's article was recently created. There has been some controversy recently about him in a number of newspapers for his advocacy of child rape and Nazi views. On his personal twitter he seems to have posted a comment recently telling his friends to delete sources on his article. It be best if there were some eyes on the article. As this guy is currently in the news, it may be a magnet for edit-warring or meat-puppetry. Rebecca Bird ( talk) 20:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(Emil) It is not correct that I told people to delete sources. My Tweet is here and the complete text is "Looks like Oliver (editing as Storyfellow) is trying to have his way on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, WP has strong protections against his shenanigans (BLP etc.). If you are an editor, please help clean up the article.". Deleet ( talk) 20:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted two of StoryFellows edit's because I believe they should be discussed on the talk-page first, not without consensus. As for telling people you know to edit your article. This is not recommend, see WP:MEAT. It's possible an associate of yours [35] is now adding original research to the article. Rebecca Bird ( talk) 21:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Making a public tweet telling people to clean up an article is not "telling people you know to edit your article". I don't know who Tickle me is. MEAT is not violated because I am not an editor in this conflict (have not edited my page), and because TM is not a single purpose user nor is it a new account ( contribs). However, Storyfellow is a single purpose user ( contribs). Deleet ( talk) 21:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Telling your followers to clean up the article about you is generally regarded as a violation of WP:MEAT, in the sense of " Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Everything I posted is well-sourced. Another source is the Telegraph, that notes Kirkegaard is a fellow of a white supremacist institute that receives grants by the Pioneer Fund as well as the fact Kirkegaard "justified child sexual abuse on his personal blog". So Neo-nazi/white supremacist & child-rape apologist are accurate descriptions. Storyfellow ( talk) 21:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(Update) - The article has been submitted for deletion. Rebecca Bird ( talk) 21:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many of the contributors here have been blocked for sockpuppetry, in particular User:Rebecca Bird and User:Storyfellow. The puppetmaster was User:Anglo Pyramidologist. User:Maunus (and me) know a little bit of the prehistory, which started in the Department of Linguistics in Aarhus. Interested editors can read the ongoing WP:AfD. Mathsci ( talk) 09:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(Update) The article has been deleted, as per the discussion. ^{[ Username Needed} 15:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

AP (can one use real names here? He outed himself multiple times recently, see e.g. comments here) has nothing to do with dept. of linguistics Aarhus. I'm not sure why I was chosen as his stalking target, but perhaps because we banned him from the OpenPsych forum. That happened Feb 10th 2016, and 2 days later AP creates my RationalWiki entry. Deleet ( talk) 19:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 3. — Paleo Neonate – 18:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It's hair-tearingly delicious! XOR'easter ( talk) 17:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

IP edit warring. Adding unsourced claim that Gobekli Tepe shows that the Sphinx could be 10000 years old. [36] They insist that Hawass and others were claiming that there is no sign of any civilization before Egyp, whole obviously they aren't. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Power factor#Greater than -1. This particular editor has been pushing his crackpot theory for years. It's a shame, really, because he does good work when he gets away from his hobbyhorse. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

At the talk page you said "I have better things to do than debate known crackpots" so go and do those better things. Engaging with folks like this -- even to criticize -- only encourages them. Just let them babble into the void. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

We have a new SAQ-article, and per COI-statement [37] it´s written by the originator of the idea. Eyes and edits could be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing worthwhile - have boldly redirected to Shakespeare authorship question. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Per the discussion here User_talk:Billdup#Conflict_of_Interest_policy_on_Wikipedia, there may be more articles involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

My edit may not stick, but so far as I can see the "Lewkenorian theory" has no foothold in the world (apart from via Wikipedia!). Alexbrn ( talk) 13:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Errm, so does all this stuff:

• Lewes Lewknor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Samuel Lewkenor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• William 'Bill' Corbett (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hang off William 'Bill' Corbett's self-published book, which Wikipedia is effectively being used to publicise? Alexbrn ( talk) 14:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William 'Bill' Corbett (2nd nomination). jps ( talk) 16:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: The editor in question has, as far as I can tell, acted entirely in good faith; been responsive and constructive when contacted on their talk page; and has attempted to comply with our policies when made aware of them. I would urge that some diplomacy and a soft touch is warranted when dealing with this, irrespective of any normal policy or process requirements (cf. eg. my comment at the referenced AfD). When possible, please consider taking the time to explain (in human language, not in templates) to the editor why and what they can do in whatever process is relevant. Thanks. -- Xover ( talk) 18:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The editor did get somewhat different signals at [38] and [39]. However, the COI-thing may not have been noticed at the time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Jean-Pierre Petit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

French astrophysicist/cosmologist with a section of fringe and conspiracy views that are not explicitly identified as fringe or conspiracy. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow. That's an article that needs some WP:BLOWITUP if I've ever seen one. jps ( talk) 02:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep. In addition to the conspiracy stuff, it's also incredibly promotional about obscure and grandiose cosmological speculations, and it suffers pretty badly on the grammatical side. When I say "obscure", I mean that the paper which the article promotes has received a grand total of 13 citations by the incredibly permissive standards of Google Scholar. Only 3 of those 13 are not self-citations, and 2 of those appear to be duplicates. The article even admits, "Despite being peer reviewed, this non-standard cosmological model has not triggered much interest in the scientific community throughout the years". That's not a thing to be proud of! XOR'easter ( talk) 17:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Take the BLP to AfD for debate. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC).

You think so? It looks to me like he slides in above WP:PROF, but I could be wrong. jps ( talk) 16:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Theories-Secret-Societies-Dummies/dp/0470184086/ -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't know how this got on my watchlist, but I think it needs a fringe veteran's eye. - Roxy, the dog. barcus 22:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Vancina. jps ( talk) 00:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

https://www.sfgate.com/weird/article/NASA-No-we-don-t-have-child-slave-colonies-on-11259620.php -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like something that someone with child slave colonies on Mars would say. freshacconci (✉) 05:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a single child on mars that hasn't been enslaved by NASA.^{[ Citation Need ed} -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Wish they would take me. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No child left behind. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe they bothered to deny it. - Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe the story was printed. Are there more important issues to deal with these days like monkeys on mars( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC))

BTW, if you click on my ^{[ Citation Need ed} tag, you may be in for a minor surprise... :) -- Guy Macon ( talk)

Robert David Steele

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

Whaddya think? BLP notable? jps ( talk) 20:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, the last Afd on the subject was closed "keep" on the basis of !voters who thought his open source activism made him notable. I'm inclined to think that this may be a situation where the inclinations of Wikipedia editors, many of whom at the time were open sources activists (and many still are), may have been to keep articles about open-source movement articles. Today, this kind of WP:ILIKEIT would be less easy to get away with, IMHO. jps ( talk) 20:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert David Steele (2nd nomination). jps ( talk) 16:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

A new editor has made a major change to Drake's Plate of Brass and included an odd image of supposed "silversmithing tools" used to make the plate. Their edit summary was "This is a major change. The truth about Drake's, Plate of Brass is now being shown, I will complete my edit tomorrow". More images can be seen at Image sets from Wiki Science Competition 2017 in the United States. I'm concerned this is fringe material.-- Auric talk 13:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Guess what? - Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Auric talk 14:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This time the usual attempts to cast doubt on the circumstances of her death are popping up on List of unsolved deaths. I have removed the entry and there is an ongoing discussion at the article talk page here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Still pushing the "unsolved death" entry... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I have no idea if he is or isn't. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Volkskrant, VARA, BNR Radio are Dutch mainstream media having national coverage. I did not check if he is the main subject of such news. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a note, two of the recent contributors to that discussion are SPAs that just started their edit histories by creating those talk page discussions - seems suspicious. Who brings up notability in their very first edit? One of the pair also edited on the talk page of Ruggero Santilli (here: [40]), a fringe figure who has been the target of criticism from Pepijn van Erp. -- Krelnik ( talk) 15:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Both should be warned about pseudoscience DS. Guy ( Help!) 09:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

An SPA keeps adding Dorothy Kilgallen to the List of unsolved deaths, even though their own unsourced edits show that a modern re-examination affirmed the original conclusion that there was "no evidence of murder". [41] [42] [43] Various JFK assassination conspiracy theorists have threied to claim that Kilgallen's death was suspicious, and this appears to be another attempt. Edward321 ( talk) 01:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Such a long article. I also see a tag for split. D4iNa4 ( talk) 16:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Frankly what I want to see is a tag for deletion of a largely indiscriminate list, but I know there's no hope for that. Mangoe ( talk) 01:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:IINFO does not seem to work against List Inclusionists. The best we can hope for, I think, is to make the criteria for inclusion a lot more strict. jps ( talk) 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I had nominated List of most-followed Twitter accounts and List of most-followed Instagram accounts for deletion. One got deleted and then restored at deletion review, and the other managed only to get reduced to 25 items (down from 100 or so). Some people really like worthless lists. :) In defense of List of unsolved deaths, however, I note that at least each item includes a useful description. The last section about murderers could be removed, but that would hardly affect the overall length. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"Various JFK assassination conspiracy theorists have threied to claim that Kilgallen's death was suspicious"

I have across a few conspiracy theories concerning Kilgallen myself, but the ones I am familiar with do not include JFK. They find it peculiar that she reportedly had a "blood alcohol level of 0.15" (see: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death4.htm), but that she was still able to read in bed. "Miss Kilgallen died in her sleep. She was found by a maid and a hairdresser who came to the home to keep a 12:15 p.m. appointment. Alongside her bed was a book which she apparently had been reading before falling asleep."

The ones favouring Kilgallen's death as a suicide, claim that she was affected by her husband Richard Kollmar's financial situation. Kollmar used to be a notable actor and to own a supper club. By the time of Kilgallen's death, his acting career had ended, his club had closed, and he was unemployed. Dorothy was the only one still earning an income. Dimadick ( talk) 16:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

See here. Probably mostly ok, but not all. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

What part of the edit is not OK? Blueboar ( talk) 15:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure. At least the bit about no evidence, that's OR. Might be right, but still OR. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree - that paragraph looks like the editor's own conclusions, and the next paragraph, the quote, seems to provide little of use to understanding the Newport Tower, only in furthering the editors disagreement with Gregory's conclusions. Agricolae ( talk) 17:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This page has been discussed here before so I bring to your attention:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (3rd nomination)

This AfD appears to have arisen out of a complaint to BLPN ( [44]) that is typical of the demands made previously by her socks and proxies, though the specific issue raised in the nom is WP:BLP1E. Agricolae ( talk) 00:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree on the typical. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to report the outcome, even though the !votes were about 50/50 it was closed as delete based on marginal notability and the subject's request, but unlike the previous time when the subject returned and used a sock to recreate the page with a whitewashed version, this time the namespace and two alternatives have been protected from recreation, so at least we have probably seen the last of the fringy self-promotion. Agricolae ( talk) 17:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Time will tell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The article David Meade (author) is currently a GA article nominee and I’m ready for it to be reviewed. If anybody would like to review it, feel free to do so. — LovelyGirl7 talk 14:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Flatwoods monster (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The sources look truly terrible. I clicked on one citation called "various newspapers" and found jpg's of sensational headlines (colored bright red) framed by a quote disparaging skepticism and encouraging belief. The rest of the sources seem to be UFO sites and Fortean books. There is a sort of ghettoized criticism section cited to single article by CSICOP. The topic itself is notable, but I'm having a hard time coming up with WP:FRIND sources that might help fix it. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources are atrocious, agreed. Article needs a cleanup and notability (based on the sources provided) is questionable. Kleuske ( talk) 18:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be notable as a local legend, especially to tourism promoters. And we may see some traffic to the WP article when a trashy new movie comes out in the Spring. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh joy! <<sigh>> Agree that the article seems to be missing better sources. Sgerbic ( talk) 03:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the Cabal volunteers could take it on as a project. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 04:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"a trashy new movie" According to the link provided, it is just a documentary film by Small Town Monsters, a production company that reportedly focuses on "small town folklore" for its documentary films. It seems unlikely to generate much publicity. Dimadick ( talk) 15:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh man, I remember hearing about this thing growing up. Yes, it's a local legend, like the Mothman, Jersey Devil or Kelly-Hopkinsville aliens, covered in cryptozoology & UFO related matters. But it's been around enough to be covered by the West Virginia Division of Culture & History. If I can free up some time, I may try to find more reliable sources for it. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 14:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC on Talk:Faith healing#RfC about inserting content and category about pseudoscience. Feel free to share your views. Raymond3023 ( talk) 18:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square of Nine may be notable woo; other articles on its inventor and his other notions may need checking. I'm dubious that we need to say that using astrology to time your investing is questionable. Mangoe ( talk) 22:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is one of William Delbert Gann's ideas. While it may be purest woo spoken by a batshit crazy man, it probably is a notable concept in Wikipedia's terms provided someone can rustle up some decent sourcing—a surprisingly high number of people who should know better have taken Gann seriously—in the same way we host individual articles on L. Ron Hubbard's various ravings. Pretty much everything listed in Special:WhatLinksHere/William Delbert Gann needs to be liberally sprinkled with "this is pseudoscientific bullshit" disclaimers rather than, as we currently do, report it as a credible theory. ‑  Iridescent 22:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The Gann article (and everything connected to it) seems to need work. "Opinions are sharply divided on the value and relevance of his work"? I can't even. He is just a numerologist plus astrologer. He is like an inventor of gambling systems. I had never heard of this guy before... is there any skeptical analysis anywhere? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

FrancisGrant ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I find these edits troubling, but is it just me being paranoid? Guy ( Help!) 13:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this an article? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it is a new editor whose short edit history shows a pattern of significant additions and deletions to evolution-related articles, including Wedge strategy, Darwin on Trial and Uniformitarianism, many of which have subsequently been reverted. Agricolae ( talk) 14:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I've given a general poke to see how they react. Ian.thomson ( talk) 15:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

93.230.59.192 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This guy is using a reference that doesn't even cite a single conducted study to support his claim that antipsychotics (and he wrote this on the atypical antipsychotics page, which is a class of antipsychotics that improve both the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia) do not improve schizophrenia in the long term, despite an overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary. I added some references to the article section in question to that effect. He re-added his edit claim despite my removing it with the evidence I collected and presented. His reference talks about some critical review, with no link or information on it, having been conducted that schizophrenia patients should not be maintained on antipsychotics, though it's easy to find a multitude of references reporting, sometimes severe, patient decompensation when antipsychotic dosage is reduced or abruptly discontinued. Maybe a warning for unconstructive editing is due? Reixus [Talk] [Contribs] 10:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a case of "I have my POV, all I need are sources". Have tried to fix. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• I hate to break it to you guys, but Robert Whitaker is an award-winning science journalist who has written both peer-reviewed science and academically-influential books about psychiatry (with a focus on Schizophrenia), and the source given is a work that lies at the confluence of investigative journalism and actual science, was published in a non-peer-reviewed but otherwise fairly well respected journal (except for a single controversy unrelated to this) and which has managed to accumulate well over 100 citations, including by peer-reviewed science articles ( galore!), and -contrary to what is stated above- thoroughly documents its own use of sources (See the "references" section at the end of the paper).

That being said, I don't think the edit by the IP was quite acceptable. Coming as this is from a non-peer reviewed outlet, written as it is by a non-scientist, for a medical claim, we should probably attribute this explicitly to Whitaker. But I think it's certainly worth mentioning... In the appropriate article, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

We generally don't use Medical Hypotheses at all, and especially not for assertions about WP:Biomedical information. This article is also 14 years old and there are more recent secondary sources we we can use. If Whitaker's views here were notable they'd have been picked up in the secondary literature – were they? Alexbrn ( talk) 17:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I can certainly understand not treating Med Hypo as an authoritative publisher (AIDS denialism was their controversy!), but it's no worse on balance than a textbook publisher, and this particular article seems to be a bit of a stand-out. As for the attention Whitaker got, see [45], [46], [47], [48] [49] & [50], plus the 118 cites I mentioned and linked to, above. I'm not saying that this source is WP:MEDRS (in fact, I think it's not), but it's a source that is given much greater weight by academia and the medical community than a reasonable person would expect, given the claims. Indeed, note the change in tone from the peer-reviewed article I linked in my last comment, to the Psychology Today article in this comment, to the Huffpo article in this comment. As one moves further and further from expertise, his work is treated as more and more controversial. That's generally a sign of really good work from an outsider. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I have doggy biscuits with which to celebrate. - Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeing this made me wonder if NaturalNews is being used to source any of our articles and sure enough there is: Methuselah Foundation. This surely needs some attention from fringe-savvy editors. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It's used in that article only to source a claim about the Foundation's purpose. I think it's fine for that, but it's certainly possible we could find a much better replacement. Now excuse me, I have to go laugh hysterically for a few hours before tagging some of my more woo-friendly family members in a facebook post. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks to me like the article is mostly a brochure stuffed full of dodgy health content. Some WP:TNT may be required. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Taking a broader look at the article, I think you have a good point... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Agreed - earlier this week a single editor in their only edits to Wikipedia massively expanded the article using dodgy (non-independent and/or non-reliable) sources and fluff about the research done by companies they are funding (were the sources don't mention Methuselah's role), and it now looks like an infomercial. I think the likelihood of COI is not negligible under these circumstances. It should probably all be reverted, yet the 'before' version had its own problems. Agricolae ( talk) 17:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/03/06/conspiracy-theorists-arrested-harassing-sutherland-springs-pastor/ -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Palma, Bethania. "Conspiracy Theorists Arrested After Harassing Sutherland Springs Pastor". Snopes.com. Retrieved March 7, 2018. The pair have spent months stalking families of victims and their communities in a failed attempt to prove the November 2017 mass shooting in Texas was a "false flag." 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• As someone who moves in gun nut and prepper/survivalist circles, I see these sorts of conspiracy theories first hand on an almost weekly basis. Their ability to rationalize how an evil, tyrannical, united oligarchy willing to do anything it can to seize absolute power with a willingness to spend millions of dollars and risk exposing their own plans by faking these attacks instead of simply launching them is the one thing I find most interesting about the theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

And in case you really missed them: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 27. jps ( talk) 18:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Now closed with the deletion endorsed. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

On this article is a section about race and penis size. A user repeatedly is trying to blank content. He claims "There is no need to specify one race over others." Which is not quite accurate. The paper in question is a paper from the British Journal of Urology that reported that "there is no scientific background to support the alleged ‘oversized’ penis in black people". (Mondaini, Nicola; Gontero, Paolo (2007). "Idiopathic short penis: myth or reality?". British Journal of Urology. 95 (1): 8–9.) - I see no reason why this paper should be removed. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 07:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Mumble mumble bone mumble bites tongue mumble. - Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

User is still removing those papers claiming they are "racist". See the talk-page. Any ideas? Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 11:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems weird. Insofar as this is a fringe topic it need merely be stated that it is a common myth that black men have larger pensises - the notion is not supported by evidence. There is a decent source for this already in the article. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

To me this looks like a NOTCENSORED issue rather than a NPOV issue, i.e the editor takes issue with the article discussing race issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 12:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point - and I'm sure something could usefully be added on this being classic racist stereotyping, such as

• Schmidt R (2002). Chapter 2: Large Propagators — Racism and the Domination of Women. Indiana University Press. p. 49. ISBN  0-253-10885-3. {{ cite book}}: |work= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) ( help)

Alexbrn ( talk) 13:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Really, the only question is one of DUE weight... do we, by discussing the stereotype in the first place (and then debunking it), give the stereotype (as a sub-topic) UNDUE weight? Given the stereotype’s prominence in pop culture, and this article’s scope, I don’t think so, but it is a consideration for discussion. Blueboar ( talk) 13:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that this discussion should take place at Talk:Human penis size rather than here. There is an ongoing discussion there. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the fringe issue here? jps ( talk) 17:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

IMO, there isn't one. There is a claim that the mere interjection of race into penis size article is "racist." See Talk:Human penis size for a more detailed version of the claim -- lest I be accused of misstating the position. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 19:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The fringe theory is that “black men all have large penises”. Granted, it isn’t a particularly earth shattering theory... but definitely fringe. Blueboar ( talk) 22:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, is there an issue wherein the article is either unduly considering the idea or not presenting it properly? I have to admit that I cannot see exactly why this was posted here. jps ( talk) 22:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't belong here. Article states:
Fringe theory
Larger junk
full of bunk.
That's what I thunk. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary for the above, including the section head title, reads "Human penis size: more" . I wish you success in your endeavor. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

And, as it turns out, my edit summary for the above says "Human penis size: add" . We both shall surely succeed in our quests. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

A couple single-purpose accounts at Na+/K+-ATPase are adding material along the lines of Some individuals dispute the proposed function of the sodium-potassium pump, based on both experimental and theoretical studies in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, which appears innocuous enough but is a pretty extreme fringe claim. Is this worth keeping? - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 18:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever heard of such claims. I am also wary of any source that uses verbiage like DOUBTS ABOUT THE SODIUM-POTASSIUM PUMPARE NOT PERMISSIBLE IN MODERN BIOSCIENCE because of what is said in the last point of WP:REDFLAG. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It's something I had seen exactly once before, it gets pretty weird. I deleted it when I noticed it, but when it was restored I figured I should come here. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 19:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The content was sourced to a self-published website. Nope. Not good enough for inclusion. jps ( talk) 19:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict) The journal, "Molecular and Cellular Biology" appears to be open-access as well, so it seems fairly unreliable for such extraordinary claims. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 19:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that Cellular and Molecular Biology (ISSN 1165-158X) is an open-access journal wouldn't be an issue, but that it's an OMICS journal certainly is. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay, gotcha. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 20:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing attempts to promote are ongoing. Hooray. jps ( talk) 20:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The editor tried removing the predatory journal ref, but that left it citing only a PNYAS work from 1973. Three problems with this: 1) PYNAS is not the strongest in terms of reliability - at least when I published in it, it was by invitation, with only superficial review; 2) anything about protein-level cell biology from 1973 is utterly worthless in 2018, except for providing a historical perspective - most of what we know about it comes from approaches that were unavailable 45 years ago; and last and not least 3) it apparently doesn't say what the editor is claiming it does. Other than that, it's fine. Agricolae ( talk) 23:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The 'editors' making these changes have been blocked as socks: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123qweasd123zxc123asd. Agricolae ( talk) 23:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

From the lead: "Stephen G. Bassett is the first extraterrestrial life (ET), disclosure (ufology) lobbyist in the United States, executive director and treasurer of the political action committee Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee and executive director[1] of Paradigm Research Group (PRG)[2] that says it wants end to end the governments imposed truth embargo regarding the facts of extraterrestrials engaging the human race." Doug Weller talk 19:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Fringe issues aside, the structure of that sentence could use some work. Agricolae ( talk) 19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen G. Bassett. jps ( talk) 15:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of THIS, and this yet, but it appears the person accusing him of fraud Eberhard Zangger has some issues of his own. But if accurate will have to be addressed at the Çatalhöyük and James Mellaart articles at some point. And this article from a few years ago seems to support something, although I am not sure what. He iro 07:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

At Talk:Andrew Wakefield. - Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Already notified above. Commented. Must say I was slightly surprised that RS seems to put this stuff so squarely as pseudoscience. Raimo Tuomela gives a painstaking exposition in:

• Tuomela R (1987). Science, Protoscience and Pseudoscience. Springer. pp. 83–102. ISBN  978-94-009-3779-6. {{ cite book}}: |work= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) ( help)

See particularly pages 94-96. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Alt-med? Seriously?

Matters have now turned to trying to characterize it as "alternative medicine" in the first sentence. That would be news to the vast majority of Christendom. Mangoe ( talk) 17:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems anachronistic to say the least. Kinda like calling astrology a UFO religion. jps ( talk) 17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

So the issue here is that some editors seem to prefer to cite a religious web site over a scholarly work when defining faith healing. My attempt [51] to firm-up the sourcing has been reverted. I'm not sure the OUP source cited is the last word

• Last J, ed. (2007). Faith healing. Oxford University Press. ISBN  9780195160901. {{ cite book}}: |work= ignored ( help)

But it surely beats a web site as a source? I think - as we have seen in the RfC - there is a general attempt to downplay the WP:FRINDepenent view of faith healing which we are obliged to reflect, and which the OUP source gives. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We can say, plainly, that faith healing is not based on any evidence. What is the website that users are citing? jps ( talk) 18:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Found it! [52] thearda.com should not be used so prominently. No way. jps ( talk) 18:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup it's the Association of Religion Data Archives - check out the opening of the article; it in turn is meant to be citing a 1995 religious encyclopedia, but that isn't verified. Anyway, the definition in the OUP source is this:

A form of alternative or unvonventional medicine that functions on the belief that illness can be arrested and even cured by faith alone, such as by prayer or the intercession of a supernatural power.

Alexbrn ( talk) 18:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the compound adjective belies the " alternative medicine" topic which is something that is taken up by a somewhat different group of ne'er-do-well-ers. "Unconventional medicine" seems like the crack to which I'm looking. We should discuss the lack of evidence and lack of efficacy (which was known to Mark Twain, ferchrissakes). jps ( talk) 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I can understand the "alternative" designation because in some forms (e.g. Christian Science) the supernatural healing is supposed to be used instead of conventional medicine. Time to look at more sources methinks. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues here, but the main one is the persistent attempt to recast a wide range of religions views and practices into one narrow perspective which certainly misrepresents the majority view of mainline/orthodox Christianity for starters. And no, a dictionary of medicine is not as good a reference on religion as a work on religion is, never mind whether it has to be that website that is cited. It seems to me that it is reasonable to say that some approaches to the matter fall into something like alt med, and that it cannot be verified scientifically, but calling it alt med in the first sentence is hardly neutral. Mangoe ( talk) 18:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think neutrality is the issue here. Specificity and definition is the issue. "Faith healing" is a very particular kind of practice which declaims health outcomes on the basis of religious practice. This is not the same thing as intercessory prayer, of course. jps ( talk) 18:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think that in most forms of contemporary practice it is done as a religious practice. You no longer go down to your local Christian Science Reading Room and ask them to take care of your miasmas, as was the case in Twain's time. jps ( talk) 18:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. [53] Actually, you probably wouldn't ... Alexbrn ( talk) 18:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think Ernst's title phrasing, while understandable, is not actually indicating that Kenneth Copeland has opened a kind of for-pay faith healing clinic similar to that which the followers of Mary Baker Eddy used to run. Vaccine refusal is a tried and true 'Muricanist religious right (as opposed to rite, I guess)! jps ( talk) 18:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought the anti-vaccine movement was mostly on the far left? GMG ^talk 18:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's one of the issues that joins far left and far right in unholy union. Kinda like chemtrails. jps ( talk) 19:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think the root of the problem is that the article is focusing on three different topics:

1) Biblical narratives about healing miracles (which have been interpreted in different ways)

2) The rather mainstream theological position that it's fine to ask God to ensure that science-based medicine will be successful, even if studies and even Jesus's own teachings give the impression that while God answer all prayers, many are answered "no."

3) The belief (ultimately rooted in or at least popularized by New Thought) that physical healing comes solely from spiritual faith and that physical science is either unnecessary or antagonistic

It's 1 and 2 that are getting people touchy. No upstanding editor would insist that 3 isn't pseudoscience. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree it's a messy division (and the article is poor too). We've also got the concept of spiritual healing which is currently just redirected to energy medicine (?). Ideally we could sort out some better division of this topic space. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. (Whoah... Deja vu.) If we categorize the various subjects all crammed into that page better, many of the people opposing labeling it a pseudoscience would, according to their own admission, change their !votes wrt the third topic above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• ”Alt-med” stands for “alternative medicine”... which implies some sort of “medicine” is involved. The problem is that faith healing omits the “medicine” part entirely. Perhaps a better term for it would be “non-med”. Blueboar ( talk) 21:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah but there are a number of altmeds like that (Reiki, therapeutic touch, psychic surgery ...). Alexbrn ( talk) 21:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As I've been reading a lot on this subject over the last two days, I've come to realize that there are aspects of "faith healing" which land firmly in the alternative medicine camp [54]. I guess this shouldn't have surprised me. Is it lede-worthy? Hard to say. Ugh. jps ( talk) 18:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This article seems to be grossly imbalanced; it lends far more credence to the fringe theory that there's a concrete correlation between race and intelligence than RSes do. I'm not the only one to notice this: The SPLC explicitly calls it out in a new article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I had to "sign up" (6 free articles per month, they say) to read this article, but it was worth it. [55].

"And it’s not just science and evolution that have been made kosher. Even generic, otherwise uncontroversial articles are required to become “modest” – an ultra-Orthodox euphemism for a prohibition on any images of women. Thus, for example, the entry about the current Israeli government, which includes ultra-Orthodox parties, has all the female ministers cropped out – a warped perspective eerily evident in the doctored image." Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it a Wikipedia site (see List of Wikipedias), or is it a website somewhere which happens to be a wiki, like Conservapedia? Johnuniq ( talk) 09:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The later: http://www.hamichlol.org.il/ There's still a lot about WP in the article, they used a lot of hebrew-WP content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There's been a brouhaha in the Hebrew Wikipedia on them copying the entire site and whether they attributed it correctly (it seems they did - but it was a very long conversation). If you think hamichlol is bonkers - they do the same thing in their newspapers - including cropping out photos of women (to avoid possible male arousal from the images). But to be honest - all of the various language Wikipedia's have their own POV - neutrality varies quite a bit by project.. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Recent work by GoatGod in the Clairvoyance article has used a Huffington post editorial - that includes the question Why is the existing literature on psi phenomena routinely dismissed by the scientific community and virtually ignored within the broader academic community? - to completely overturn the sense of the article so that clairvoyance now has scientific support. A skeptical reference has been discarded (though not all uses of it were removed) as biased. Anyone want to engage on this? — jmcgnh ^{(talk)  (contribs)} 21:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The source given is an 8 year-old HuffPo blog post by a fringe proponent. Probably wouldn't even rate an attributed mention, never mind an extraordinary claim in the article lead written in WPs voice. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: the edit warring kamikaze user account has been blocked. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I found this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism. YouTube will be inserting links to WP into conspiracy theory videos in an effort to debunk them. So prepare for a flood of True Believers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I suspect we may see more use of WP:ECP if this goes as expected ... Alexbrn ( talk) 07:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

O Govinda is a Hare Krishna editor who is obviously a believer in reincarnation. He has done mass edits on Ian Stevenson's page. His source is mostly James Matlock a parapsychologist. Does not look like a reliable source. I reverted some of his material but the Stevenson article is rife with fringe sources. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 05:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Eek! the editor seems to be on a mission. Might be time to comb through the contributions? jps ( talk) 16:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been bold and reverted his content on Ian Stevenson. No doubt he will take issue with this, but I will wait and see what happens. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 23:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Article has been dominated by a user Josezetabal who is a believer in the paranormal interpretation of NDEs. This user does not like naturalistic neuroscientific explanations for the NDE and prefers the research of Bruce Greyson or Sam Parnia. This user has added 'limitation' sections for every neuroscientific or psychology theory for the NDE. I have not seen this on any other articles. Now POV editing the lead, for example "However, this model lacks robust data", "their model remains speculative due to the lack of data" etc inserted right into the direct lead. The article now reads stupid. Not interested in engaging this individual but someone else may want to revert the lead to how it was before the fringe edits. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 23:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion underway concerning this miracle material. Survival seems likely; hoaxiness of material seems equally likely, so may need some of our loving care. Mangoe ( talk) 13:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Quantum neuron recoding GMG ^talk 17:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Just wow. -- MaoGo ( talk) 17:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't seem to fit any criteria for speedy. I don't honestly know enough to tell if AfD is an option, or if it is a "legitimate" fringe theory. GMG ^talk 17:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It is unsourced. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

PROD'ed. Created by Brainwellnessspa to largely duplicate their own "study" promoting their business. No independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, there we go. I knew I came to the right place. GMG ^talk 17:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Orangemike did the necessary thing. Thanks for the speed response. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Could use additional opinions at the Ark Encounter talk page. Regards the conditions for when the term pseudoscience is used and the sourcing required. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I tried to fix the lede. Bet that the creationists aren't going to be too happy with it, but we can't just say in Wikipedia's voice that the ark is a "full-scale" "reproduction" (this is just what the believers think is one). It's also important to point out that the beliefs promoted are factually incorrect. There are plenty of sources which show that the museum's position has been criticized as promotional of pseudoscience. All of this stuff is worthy of inclusion. jps ( talk) 16:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep. I warned the creationist that if he continues to reintroduce factual errors, I will go to the authorities. Sigh. jps ( talk) 17:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

And another. Wack-a-mole, folks. jps ( talk) 17:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

And another. This one is apparently a sock-puppet of a community banned creationist who got out of the ban by pleading that it wasn't him. jps ( talk) 17:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

To me, believing that a human-built ship housed all the types of animals on the planet is pretty much a CIR issue. Merits at the least a topic ban. —DIYeditor ( talk) 17:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware this was ANI. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was suggesting that might be the proper venue for this problem. —DIYeditor ( talk) 18:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

And I am saying stop talking about a users actions here, this is not really the right venue (and certainly not to discus a block when they have not been informed of any such discussion). Slatersteven ( talk) 18:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's good to have a record here. This is as good a place as any. jps ( talk) 18:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Bill Nye is not an authority on science-related topics!

Note this nonsense. Yeah, it's good to keep the pseudoscience POV-pushers in check, I guess. jps ( talk) 17:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Bill Nye really gets their goat, apparently. jps ( talk) 17:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Fake scientist" a BLP violation? A relevant discussion. jps ( talk) 19:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

A few pages kinda come a bit close to treating some South African farm attacks as evidence for the White genocide conspiracy theory. A South African far-right survivalist group seems to be tying the two together. The Peter Dutton almost treats them as mainstream.

Not to pretend that nothing's going on there, but at the very least, those pages in question seem to be treating the subject a little too simply, in a way that could be interpreted as giving credence to a white supremacist conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson ( talk) 06:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This might be a thing to look at. I'm not really good at deciding whether I should revert and face 3RR, but I do see the contribs by a few IP editors aren't supported by sources. Things are calm at the article right now, but you might want to keep an eye on it. byteflush _Talk 06:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Sandwich

Please comment.

jps ( talk) 19:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does Hyperdiffusionism in archaeology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) give undue importance to a crank theory in the lead? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hyperdiffusionism in general is a fringe theory. It traces cultural developments across the planet to a single, "superior" civilization of the past. (With supporters arguing as to which one it is.) It rejects the idea that two or more cultures may have independently developed similar writing methods, technology, or architecture. And opposes the idea that Trans-cultural diffusion may involve changes in any of the cultures involved in it. Dimadick ( talk) 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't give due importance to consistent use of grammatical singular-vs-plural tense: "Hyperdiffusionism are hypotheses . . .". Seriously, though, at a minimum the lead needs to include the fact that it does not represent mainstream scholarly consensus in most cases, and that there is significant criticism of both the historical and cultural implications of this line of 'reasoning'. Agricolae ( talk) 17:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I will add, I am also not a fan of the way it presents the proponents, for example, giving Fell's outlandish fantasies as if taken at face value. The whole structure of the article after the lead is awkwardly a litany of specific individuals' thoughts, ideas, critiques and characterizations - he thinks, he claimed, he criticized, he stated, with no attempt at any kind of unifying general descriptive narrative. Agricolae ( talk) 18:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"unifying general descriptive narrative" I doubt such a narrative exists. My mother (now deceased) was a fan of several proponents of Hyperdiffusionism, and I read several of the books in her collection during my childhood and teen years. Some of these nutty writers favoured Ancient Egypt as the source of all human civilization, others favoured Greece, Babylon, Sumeria, Atlantis, Lemuria, Mu, etc. There is not a single theory, there are numerous versions. And most without a shred of evidence. Dimadick ( talk) 18:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This edit [56] wasn't helpful, I'm not sure how I missed it. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not talking about a unified theory, but a unified approach - the fact that there is a term for it means that there are coherent similarities that have resulted in these disparate theories being considered flavors of the same type of thought. You certainly see hyperdiffusionists/hyperdiffusion criticized as a conceptual framework, in addition to the individual proposals being criticized. My comment was more one of style, though - the he said-he said style of the article gives the false impression that it is just an academic disagreement involving various scholars with differing opinions. Agricolae ( talk) 19:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Universal Medicine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There's a number of new IP editors adding information to this article that are not paying attention to reliable sourcing. I've reverted some already, but some oversight from more experienced eyes than mine would be appreciated. 79616gr ( talk) 20:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@ 79616gr:, you say you aren't experienced, so I want to make sure you know about the Protection Policy. If you think this activity fits the outlines of that policy, you may want to request page protection. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I did think semi-protection may be appropriate, but ultimately thought the eyes of an Admin over the article would be the best first call. 79616gr ( talk) 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Still ongoing IP activity. Some has been rolled back. Semi-protection would be useful. 79616gr ( talk) 10:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewey Bernard Larson.

jps ( talk) 23:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Because I had a query, this section title is an homage to the (more famous and more notable, in my estimation) Lawsonomy. jps ( talk) 15:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• I now have the unique experience of arguing BOTH sides of this deletion discussion. It would be nice if someone here could weigh in one way or another. jps ( talk) 19:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Remote Neural Monitoring ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Conspiracy claim of mind control supported by WP:OR will never qualify to be used in article space. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That's one of the more bat shit crazy essays I've seen in a while. We really need a CSD G14 for stuff like this. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Remote Neural Monitoring. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

https://boingboing.net/2018/03/25/flat-earth-preaching-rocketeer.html

"You likely read about "Mad" Mike Hughes in the news last year – you know, when you weren't busy stockpiling canned goods and potassium Iodide tablets to help deal with the existential dread that's currently gripping the planet. Hughes is the flat-earth loving, paradoxical science-hating DIY rocket designer who stated that he'd blast himself into the sky in a steam-powered, homemade rocket to prove that the earth isn't round..."

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

...distance of 1,875... Common, units! -- MaoGo ( talk) 08:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The Earth is round, but Mike Hughes is flat. - Nunh-huh 03:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Read all about it at Mike Hughes.-- Auric talk 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Zimmerman.

Please comment. jps ( talk) 23:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

How is he an "integral theorist"? this seems to be the only point that has anything to do with us, and it isn't cited. Mangoe ( talk) 16:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, part of the Integral Institute. Note that this is part of a now much-culled walled garden that I've been going through methodically trying to figure out which were keepable and which weren't. I'm not perfect by any means, so apologies if I'm messing up here.

It may be that this prof is notable, but the article and the sources I was looking at give me no means by which to assess the potential notability of the subject. In spite of lots of cites to his work, he himself appears non-notable to me. Still, @ DGG: has argued in the past that all full professors are notable. That is something I'm not sure I agree with, but maybe he can weigh in.

jps ( talk) 18:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's where I come in for the whole WP:PROF issue: there's not a lot of academics who one can give a real bio for even though they might be considered experts in their field, and this guy seems to fall neatly into that crack. Possibly the one book on Heidegger is worth looking for reviews of. Mangoe ( talk) 20:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you consider "real" biography? The largest part of the biography of any professional, no matter how famous, consists of the events of their professional life. Their personal life is not why we are interested in them, except insofar as it influences and reflects their accomplishment. There are detailed biographies of the professional lives of thousands of scientists, but very rarely during the course of their career: all members of the National Academy of Sciences and of thee Royal Society have detailed biographies published after their death, and many people in the humanities have a shorter one included in their festschriften, at the conclusion of their academic career.

For currently active people, its much rarer. But fortunately, since the importance of their life is shown by their works, it is possible to write a good article on any individual with a large body of well known works,by describing their work. Most published descriptions are not truly independent, being their own summaries of their career, or derivatives thereof published by their institutions . But the facts speak for themselves in showing notability, which is why we have separate standards for academic faculty and for creative professionals.

the problem here is a little special--see my comment at the AfD. he actual problem here is that some fields of the humanities seem to have a self-contained almost cult-like status, and Integral Theory is one of them. Fortunately, this person works in an area which is also studies outside of his own theoretical orientation, the mainstream philosopher Heidigger, and has academic appointment in institutions of general excellence. We need not therefore take into consideration the possible fringe nature of integral theory.

I agree that in general the area of Integral Theory in WP is somewhat of a walled garden, but that's irrelevant in this instance. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

IP editwarring at Iolo Morganwg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to make it state his works weren't forgeries and that the Coelbren alphabet is genuine. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

And at Coelbren y Beirdd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doug Weller talk 09:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Boy, does that bring back old FT/N memories. Mangoe ( talk) 10:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we've been around a while. :) Doug Weller talk 14:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Imagine the following situation:

• Politician A claims that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
• The specific RS that reports "Politician A claims that Barack Obama was born in Kenya" fails to note that the poltician's claim is false.
• The claim that Obama was born in Kenya is obviously false, according to all fact-checkers, relevant government agencies and reliable news outlets that have fact-checked the claim.

Would it be OK to add text to Politician A's article that says "Politician A falsely claimed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya"? Or would this be considered WP:SYNTHESIS? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

In your example, adding "falsely" would make a statement not supported by the cited source. You need a better way to make it clear that it's false (using another source, probably). Do you have an actual example you're working on? Dicklyon ( talk) 02:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Were the example you used the case in question, I'd probably argue that:

A) "Politician A claimed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya,[ref a] which is false[ref b]" is not synthesis.

B) "Politician A falsely claimed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya", while technically synthesis, presents the same information as the phrasing in A. Both references being slapped on the end can be confusing and does read as inappropriate synthesis.

C) The parentheses in "Politician A (falsely[ref b]) claimed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya[ref a]" separate the falsity clause as much as it does in A.

Ian.thomson ( talk) 02:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Birtherism has been flatly labeled as "false" by a very long list of reliable sources. IMO it would not be a breach of SYNTH to refer to anyone's Birtherist claims as false. You just need to add a couple of the many solid sources that have made that statement. If I am not following you then perhaps you could be a bit more clear about what you are dealing with. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to address this is to say that Pol A claimed Obama was born in Kenya, although such claims have been exposed as false. [cite] [cite] - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Just taking a wild guess, but is this the example that might have caused the OP to raise the question at FTN? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me take a further wild guess. Is it about the inclusion of "alarmist" in reference to Fitton's claims of widespread voter fraud? I don't think this strictly qualifies as WP:FRINGE theory (although there's this). Rather than describing Fitton's claims of voter fraud as "alarmist", the paragraph in question could simply state Fitton's claims, followed by attributed rebuttals to his claims as published in existing sources. IOW, let the sources do the talking. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The easiest and most policy compliant approach is to break it into two. "Person A makes claim B" - source, "Claim B is widely proven/considered false" - source. Etc. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Many sources do not say explicitly the sea is wet, but many do. As long as we have a source that says it is a conspiracy theory so can we, it does not matter if another source does not say it. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT. Barack Obama was not born in Kenya. If someone is quoted as saying that, it is okay to state in Wikipedia's voice that Barack Obama was not born in Kenya. How you go about doing that is an editorial decision, but as along as we don't mislead the reader, there is no problem. jps ( talk) 17:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Assuming this is about Fitton, well, I pretty much found exactly what I expected to find. The cited sources mentions both Fitton and that the claim is false. So SYNTH isn't really a problem. Regarding the hypothetical, I would be very surprised to find an instance where someone is notable enough for an article, and says something wildly false, and that statement itself is covered well enough to be WP:DUE, and there is not any source that explicitly covers the person, the statement, as well as the falsehood. Why else would RS be covering the wildly false statement in particular at all if not to point out that it is wildly false? GMG ^talk 14:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed Shroud of Turin topic ban for Pernimius -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Could use some help from editors experience with FRINGE matters.

An editor want to remove https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4540 as a reference completely, and after being pointed to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_112#skeptoid.com the editor states, "no consensus was reached to allow an exception to the general policy that blogs are not reliable sources".

The PARITY elements from the lede have been substantially reduced [57]. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I am the editor referred to and must strongly object both to going to a notice board when our discussion is in progress and without replying to my specific questions on the Feng Shui Talk Page, and to the inaccurate description of the discussion. I completely agree that feng shui should not be presented as science in the modern sense and have been very open to compromise. More important, the posting seriously misrepresents my position and the history of the revisions. The PARITY elements remain. I first removed the original reference to Dunning partly because 1) Skeptoid was a blog, not a RS, and 2) it was not a faithful representation of what Dunning said. In response to the discussion, I reworded and restored a more accurate version, with the original reference to Dunning included. My text was “In the last half of the twentieth century feng shui became widely popular in the West but also rebutted as a pseudoscience because its claims cannot be replicated.” The dif is here. The page history shows that I likewise corrected the material sourced to Puro in Skeptic’s Encyclopedia because it did not accurately reflect what Puro wrote (I had originally corrected the note and gave a link to it). Let us continue the discussion on the article's Talk Page. I think that our difference is that I and historians of science do not think that pre-modern science is “pseudo-science” according to the definition at Pseudoscience because it did not claim to be “science” in the modern sense, which had not yet been invented and could not be confused with it. Chinese science in China before the modern period is neither Fringe Theory or pseudo-science. ch ( talk) 02:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"I think ..." is never a good argument for content on Wikipedia. Instead we should go by the relevant WP:RS. A quick search confirms that feng sui is touted as scientific by advocates and so it is hardly surprising to find that scholarly works assessing whether feng shui is pseudoscience find that it "ticks all the boxes":

• Matthews MR (2017). Matthews MR (ed.). Feng Shui: Educational Responsibilities and Opportunities. Springer. p. 31. ISBN  978-3-319-62616-1. {{ cite book}}: |work= ignored ( help)

Per WP:PSCI core policy, pseudosciences must be prominently identified as such here on Wikipedia. 07:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please note that "I think" was not "an argument for content on Wikipedia" but trying to clarify what the argument is about. I am in complete agreement, and always have been, that feng shui in the modern context is not science. My edits to the lede stated this even more clearly and with better sourcing than what it replaced. ch ( talk) 15:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)