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

Hello, all. Recently I've been taking a look at our reincarnation article (summary: it's a mess) and noticed that the paranormal template ( template:paranormal) appears in the lead. After removing it, my edit was reverted by Pfhorrest ( talk · contribs) ("this article is linked within that paranormal navbox, so it belongs"—with that logic, one can imagine the response to removing it from the navbox).

So, currently we've got reincarnation, a major aspect of religions both historically and contemporaneously, listed next to a bunch of western pseudosciences (like ghost hunting, cryptozoology, and parapsychology) under the guise of "paranormal". Meanwhile, heaven, hell, and all related articles receive no such treatment. What gives? I've started a thread about this topic here. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Following up on this, I've now started a discussion at Template:Paranormal (see Template_talk:Paranormal#"Main_articles"). Evidently this template was produced during a Wikipedia era where every little topic that editors at WikiProject Paranormal deemed 'weird' (anything from angels to UFOs to ghosts) could be lumped into this category. As it stands, it looks like to me this template serves no purpose and should either be refactored or deleted. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think the reason that template is slapped on there is that while the existence of heaven, hell, and so forth does not have documented active pseudoscientific research into them, reincarnation does. But perhaps instead of "paranormal", a better connector would be "parapsychology". jps ( talk) 11:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right. However, the "paranormal" association appears as a sizable template at the beginning of the article rather than in a small section or in a sentence or two. That's definitely too much emphasis on a small western subculture.

I also recommend that supernatural gets more eyes. As it stands now, it's a total mess that needs a total rewrite. See my comments at Talk:Supernatural#Article_Needs_a_Total_Rewrite. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The current location of the template looks more appropriate to me. I spent a lot of work trying to pound what used to be a WP:POVFORK reincarnation research into a form that was appropriate, so some of this may perhaps be part of the headaches associated with that. I apologize if it's in any way my fault. jps ( talk) 15:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I did some edits to the reincarnation research section that still survives. I'm actually pretty pleased with the way this subject is dealt with now. Would love to get others' feedback. jps ( talk) 16:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate how difficult it is to cut through the pseudoscience and vested tomfoolery that has over the years grown so thick on so many of these articles. I'm glad that we have editors like yourself active on the project and a board like this where we can discuss these issues. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I hadn't realized just how far down the article it was - seems like a reasonable location. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Supernatural

Following up on the discussion above, we've got an editor removing fringe and rewrite tags over at supernatural (@ GliderMaven:), and restoring large sections focused on Christian mythology ( [1]). This editor also added reincarnation and karma to this article earlier today ( [2]). I think adherents to belief systems featuring both concepts would be surprised to find the description of such systems as "supernatural"—a Western concept dating form the medieval period—to apply to their belief systems, but that's just where we're at on this article, I suppose. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's not focussed on Christian mythology, I don't even know why Bloodfox is claiming that, it covers all of the Abrahamic religions as well as Zoroastrianism and potentially most of the others, as well as other belief systems including the Occult, and he deleted virtually all of the article without consensus for reasons that don't seem to make any sense. Bloodfox seems to be POV pushing that religions aren't supernatural, which would be in and of itself a Fringe theory. GliderMaven ( talk) 00:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Glider, prior to your inexplicable additions of reincarnation and karma to supernatural, the article featured a large section exclusively dedicated to entities from Christian mythology ( [3]). :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleting my responses under the guise of them being personal attacks and making UNDUE statements about me is NOT the way to go. I am a filmmaker, NOT a cryptozoologist. After repeated attempts to state that Wikipiedia is a reference cite and encyclopedia site has gone on deaf ears. You pretty much destroyed any chance of ANY crypto and paranormal related articles have at being expanded to their full capacity, which I have also stated that doesn't me I advocate for or against those topics. Merely that they should have a full balance on the info given from both sides since ignoring all the information that is from legitimate news sites and books is just plain silly. I don't appreciate it that some users here decide to launch personal attacks on others when they make edits that don't fit with their agendas. MY agenda is to have ALL articles expanded to their fullest extent and all that it entails and the misinterpretations of the rules and regs here have gotten in the way of that for far too long. Again that doesn't em that we add every single source that is out there, only the previously mentioned ones that have verifiable notability.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 01:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Even prior to those additions, I am unable to match up your claims that it exclusively talks about Christian mythology with the contents of the article. This seems to be largely in your head. It talks about Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Vedism deitism and much more. I do not agree with you deleting almost the entire article, nor do I agree with the claims you made to do this. GliderMaven ( talk) 01:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

A quick glance at the subsections you keep adding makes the focus on Christian mythology abundantly clear. As for your additions of reincarnation and karma to the article and insistence that these topics somehow fall under the category of "supernatural" (and repeated edit-warring to restore sections and, always a bad sign, to remove rewrite and fringe tags), I'm not entirely sure what you're hoping to do here. Common features of religions are simply that; they're not "supernatural", so to speak.

Given your propensity to edit-war and remove tags from articles rather than discuss them or find a solution and my refusal to engage, it seems that we'll need to wait for other parties to enter this discussion. In the mean time, I'll continue working on a rewrite and I invite you to better familiarize yourself with this topic. As usual with this sort of thing on the site, I get that certain users would rather these articles remain fixated on their pet topics, and that said users often seem to think that button-mashing will get them what they want, but I think you'll find that aggressive reverting will get you nowhere fast on the platform, whereas thoughtful discussion can go a long way. :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm onto you now, you are clearly POV-pushing; deliberately slanting the article by removing pertinent material. And given your propensity to remove most of the article, it would be essential for you to read Religion which states: "Religion may be defined as a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.". The material you removed refers to gods in general, not simply the Christian god, and is 100% on point. GliderMaven ( talk) 01:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

My POV, which I've stated, is that the article needs to be rewritten with reliable sources that discuss the topic of the supernatural (and the historical development of the concept) and that the massive amount of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on the article needs to go, including the cherry-picked discussion about angels, demons, and spirits. Our religion article is irrelevant here, we're talking about this article. Our Nature article more relevant to this discussion, but we're discussing the state of this article. Let's stick to the topic at hand. :bloodofox: ( talk) 02:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Most people do not seem to agree with you. This is a WP:BROADCONCEPT article, like most major topics, and certainly is not limited to a small set of references that refer to the history of the word 'supernatural' from the middle ages or whatever. Religions of all types are very definitely on-topic here. Wikipedia is a reference work. Among many other things, you deleted section on angels and demons- which are specifically defined everywhere as being supernatural beings, as are gods. To be perfectly honest, I don't think you have the slightest clue what an Encyclopedia or for that matter the supernatural even is and your edits and comments above only serve to exemplify this. GliderMaven ( talk) 02:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring your personal attacks, I invite you to check the discussion that has to date occurred here and on related articles. While you seem keen to turn the article into a list of random stuff (including broad concepts like reincarnation and karma) you've decided to be "supernatural" (no references needed), this article cannot remain the pile of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that it is now. Additionally, the emphasis on Christian mythology appears to betray a fringe approach that we've been dealing with on related articles for some time now. :bloodofox: ( talk) 02:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I repeat the accusation that you do NOT know what is or is not supernatural. As such you have clearly disqualified yourself from editing the article. PLEASE GET CONSENSUS ON THE RELEVANT TALK PAGE BEFORE MAKING ANY OF YOUR BONKERS EDITS. GliderMaven ( talk) 03:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that we've discovered perhaps why the article is problematic. In any case, bloodofox has stubbified the article into a version that I think serves us much better than the morass that came before. I encourage people who watch this board to join the conversation and help build out this relying on the best academic sources on the subject. jps ( talk) 10:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

In regards to BoF's posting of that particular link, I will say this: That post was meant for those that actually new the rules and regs on Wikipedia in terms of notable/reliable sources for the topic. Little did I realize that some of those users would unwittingly use unreliable sources, and for that I appologize (I left a reply that clarified that whole issue so thanks for the heads up BOF). In regards to the intention of your post, I have seen this tactic with you before BloodofFox, using what I say out of context as a sort of "drop the mic" as one user described it as. It seems more like bullying and slandering to me and I have seen you do it with multiple users you argue with. It needs to stop. I have tried to calmly explain why transparency and complete covering of subjects are needed, as information (if notable) is worth being mentioned. I have also previously said that, even though BoF would LOVE to point out that I lean towards "cryptozoology", the ONLY reason I am here is because I am a strong advocate for the complete covering of an article's subject. POV's don't matter to me because that is not the point that I am trying to make. The REAL point is that we are transparent, and with that transparency we must use all the reliable sources that we can muster to show all sides in a neutral way. This would not be like a big argument/conspiracy theory thing where people decide which side is right and/or wrong. Merely a reasonable paragraph that both acknowledges the argument in a neutral way and shows that there is an argument. Not acknowledging that there is a big debate about some of these subjects is sloppy in terms of coverage as it is still notable to state that there IS an argument. That would be the most "neutral" way of doing it without crossing the line in terms of this site's rules and regs.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 17:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This is an off-topic comment that doesn't deal with the needs of the article on supernatural. If you would like to explain what sources we should use for supernatural, feel free to do so. jps ( talk) 20:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I would like you to explain what the real reason for vandalising the article is, because you haven't actually given one. The topic is largely one related to Christianity, because it was defined by Saint Thomas Aquinas specifically in relation to miracles and prophesies and so forth. And yet you f'ing morons have just deleted all that. Please explain what kind of brain damage you have suffered from??? What is wrong with you morons? GliderMaven ( talk) 21:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yelling abuse at people isn't going to help you at all. Stop it. Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's clear to me that these are bad-faith actors, none of their explanations make any sense at all. This article just went from solid mid C-class down to stub. When was the last time you saw an article do that? GliderMaven ( talk) 21:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This happens a lot. See WP:TNT. Fortunately, we have some excellent editors who are willing to work on this article with you to try to build it up to a better piece than what was there before. jps ( talk) 21:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If you finished exchanging insults, does anyone want to discuss the article's sources?

• The article now includes an extensive quotation from an 1686 book by Robert Boyle (1627–1691). Not the kmost up to date source we could include.
• Citation 6 references a book, but neither its writers, nor its editor.
• Two of the sources date to the 1970s, and one to the 1980s. One of them is a publication from Academia Sinica (in Taiwan). Another is a quotation from Benson Sale, who is currently listed as a faculty member in Brandeis University, and one is by Michael Winkelman, but I am not cettain if it was written from the Winkelman who served in the faculty of the Arizona State University. The Arizona Winkwlman is an exper in neurotheology. Are these reasonably up-to-date and reliable, or not? Dimadick ( talk) 23:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

One the issues I'm having with the article is that the term has been used a long time, but it has changed dramatically in its implications over the years. I am almost to the point where I think it would make more sense to write a disambiguation page so that those interested in the original coinage could go much about in Christian theology, those interested in the philosophical meanderings could be redirected to naturalism or somesuch, and those who are more fascinated by the back-and-forth between skeptics and believers be redirected to paranormal, perhaps. jps ( talk) 11:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Good points. A lot of people searching for supernatural could easily be looking for something more like paranormal. -- tronvillain ( talk) 13:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but I bet the vast majority are actually looking for Supernatural (U.S. TV series). Sigh. jps ( talk) 13:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably true. I tweaked the hatnote. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Could someone here please take a look at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a propaganda film that portrays the scientific theory of evolution as a contributor to communism, fascism, atheism, eugenics and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen Princess Bride, but I've seen Big Bang Theory. Thanks for the chuckle! Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I highly recommend it. Best film André the Giant ever made.

Westley: Give us the gate key.

Yellin: I have no gate key.

Inigo Montoya: Fezzik, tear his arms off.

Yellin: Oh, you mean THIS gate key.

- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Miracle Max: I'll call the brute squad.

Fezzik: I'm on the brute squad.

Miracle Max: You are the brute squad.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

OMG I just want that interminable thread to go away forever. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm so tempted to archive those threads with the edit summary "aaaaasss yoooouuuuuu wiiiiiiissssshhhh...." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - I can hear the sound of ultimate suffering coming from that talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"His page of ten years is called propaganda by another tonight, so who else has the cause for ultimate suffering?" -- tronvillain ( talk) 16:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone with Talk:Parapsychology on their watchlist, unfortunately... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Or Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ouch - missed that one. At least EEng's there the lighten the mood - or maybe that makes the suffering all the more acute? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I look at my watchlist and wonder how I constantly end up going against a Sicilian when death is on the line. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

A built-up immunity to iocane powder, that's how. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Inconceivable -- Ronz ( talk) 02:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The article Frederick Klenner is currently at AfD and may be of interest to editors who monitor or participate on this noticeboard. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That article could definitely use some more eyes. The number of references to Bitter Blood is impressive, and it has statements like "Having cured polio in 1948 via megadoses of vitamin C and large doses of vitamin B1..." -- tronvillain ( talk) 13:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Requesting some help on the talk page regarding claims that the photograph is not genuine. There's dispute in how to interpret one of the sources and whether to give it weight in the lead. Catrìona ( talk) 13:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

See Category talk:Non-Darwinian evolution. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anybody know what to do about this?

[4]

Seems legit - if one looks at the site only. But the content???

Of course "This is no longer true" is impossible in an article. Still I did not touch it yet. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the solution was easy, but I would say that. - Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeeees, maybe I should have done that myself. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

From the abstract of the article it seems like pyramids are better resistors than power plants "scatters EM waves into the substrate" sounds like a fancy way of saying "acts as a ground line". Simonm223 ( talk) 13:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The text of the paper isn't hard to find on google. Though I won't link here because the only copies I've found are of dubious copyright status.

"Two of the main objectives of our study are partial removing of unreasonable speculations about electromagnetic properties of the Great Pyramid and the demonstration of flexibility of the multipole decomposition method for research at both nano- and macro-scales."

The paper is over my head, but I'm pretty sure this is just a math exercise with predictable results.

"Hey look, this math we use for nano-scale structures in a lab also works for huge structures in the dessert."

ApLundell ( talk) 16:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

In addition: What did they find? Pyramids scatter some wavelengths more than others. That is expected for a structure of a fixed size. -- mfb ( talk) 22:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC) ^Dessert?

It's enough to put you off your pudding !! - Roxy, in the middle. wooF 00:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We have a dispute about [5] (forget the part with the Romanian Academy, that's not being disputed).

Namely going by JSTOR and EBSCO (Academic Search Alumni Edition and Business Source Alumni Edition) his Magnum Opus (Prehistoric Dacia) is not even considered for rejection, let alone approval. Therefore WP:PARITY applies and the rub is about some sources, one of which says that ND's book is "mystical delirium". Example: ND has stated that Orăștie is the place where lies buried Orestes. How does he know? Well, they sound similarly (which is a symptom of delirium, Alexe's claim is not rocket science). Other examples: "Atlas=Alutus=Olt=Muntii Oltului; Pharanx=Paring; Colchis=Colti (Buzau); Phasis=Buzau; Terrigenae=Tirighina; Ardalos=Ardeal; Zalmoxis=Zeul Mos; Latona=Letea; Selene=Sulina; Saturn-Noe-Novac etc. etc." (Mircea Babeș, [6]).

Alexe's book has been published by the prestigious Romanian publishing house Humanitas and it is corroborated by a source published by the reputable scholarly publisher Brill. Other luminaries of Romanian historiography consider ND's book as fantasy genre, fantasy ruling out delirium (but not because it would be reality-based). The statements are properly attributed to their authors. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not what the dispute is about. You keep misunderstanding, which is why I asked for a third-opinion. Good luck though. Iovaniorgovan ( talk) 07:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Iovaniorgovan: Who wrote this: You again misunderstand or purposely misstate the nature of this debate. The argument is not over whether Densusianu is fringe, but rather if we should allow REDUNDANT AND NON FACTUAL comments (see Wiki guidelines above) from a blogger/filmmaker into an article that already violates WP:PARITY ("Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources.)? And this: You may want to read my last comment again. My main contention is that Alexe's "comments" are REDUNDANT AND NON FACTUAL (as per Wiki guidelines). My secondary contention is that his comments are redundant and non factual in an article that already violates WP:PARITY. Since I've gotten to a point where I have to repeat my statements, I think it's time for 3O (feel free to list for 3O, since you started this, or your edit will be removed).? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

My reply to these statements was that local consensus cannot trump a content guideline. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned the Wiki content guidelines. Iovaniorgovan ( talk) 07:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's see, on my side ("ND's book is bunk") are: Alexandru Dimitrie Xenopol, Vasile Pârvan, Nicolae Iorga, Zigu Ornea, Dan Alexe, Lucian Boia, Andrei Oișteanu, Eugen Ciurtin, Florin Țurcanu, Mircea Babeș, Tchavdar Marinov and I could add a few notable Romanian historians to this list. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is it so critical that Alexe get such a prominent mention in the lede?

The "Legacy" section suggests that multiple scholars think Densușianu was crazy, so if it's going to cause an edit war, why not replace that Alexe statement with a summary like "Mainstream scholars regarded his work as fanciful and unscientific"?

ApLundell ( talk) 07:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, done. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@ ApLundell; thanks, my point exactly! Iovaniorgovan ( talk) 08:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I started removing some fluff, but why should have all the fun changing this nightmare to an acceptable article?

There were actual copy-paste abstracts of his publications in there. He will probably add pictures of his daily meals next. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that Jack Sarfatti -- and it's obvious the editor inflating this article is Jack, sockpuppeting -- was blocked by Jimbo Wales hisownself near 13 years ago, so perhaps it's easiest if someone just blocks him and puts the article under semiprotection. -- Calton | Talk 21:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Stupid question: What exactly makes him notable? David Kaiser talking about him? Anything else? -- mfb ( talk) 00:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, he knows a lot of famous people, and he believed Uri Geller was real, and a lot of other irrelevant reasons...

He wrote books?

Martin Gardner made fun of him? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Self-published books according to the article. -- mfb ( talk) 17:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

We've got a UFO editor there deleting sourced material. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Waverly Hills Sanatorium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Student assigned to improve article doesn't appear to accept that fringe sources aren't reliable. See Talk:Waverly_Hills_Sanatorium#More_Research_Found/_Basic_Editing. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There is some querulousness over at talk:Sci-Hub where a couple of editors are absolutely adamant that Sci-Hub's use of credentials to which it has no legal right, to access copyright material and give it to users in violation of copyright, may not be described as computer fraud. Basically it's the guerilla open access viewpoint, which is WP:FRINGE in terms of the real-world position on copyright via the Berne convention, WTO rules and related national laws including laws relating to computer fraud and misuse. Guy ( Help!) 12:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Is the phrase "No legal right" actually used in a source describing Sci-Hub? Or is that WP:SYNTH based on your own interpretation of rules regarding sharing passwords? ApLundell ( talk) 05:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(Please excuse me if I missed something in that giant, repetitive thread on the talk page. ApLundell ( talk) 06:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC))

I am not convinced that they have a WP:FRINGE position on copyright. If they claim that they are not breaking copyright laws, that would be fringe. If they agree that they are breaking copyright laws and say that this is a legitimate act of civil disobedience over unjust laws, then there is no fringe theory involved, just someone purposely breaking the law and admitting it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What the scientists actually said:

• "We discuss the possible origins of such an object including the possibility that it might be a lightsail of artificial origin." [7] [8]

What The Usual Sources changed it to:

• "Leading astronomer claims Oumuamua is alien probe with broken engines"
• "Is Oumuamua an alien spaceship? Does NASA know the TRUTH behind cigar-shaped asteroid?"
• "Harvard Researchers Suggest 'Oumuamua Was Alien ‘Reconnaissance Mission' "
• "Strange 'cigar-shaped' asteroid could be 'hostile' ALIEN RACE that 'risks our existence' "
• "Astronomers are listening for alien signals from a weird object that's flying through the solar system"

What the scientists said next:

• "Sometimes a cigar-shaped 'comet' is just a comet." [9] [10]

The reaction of The Usual Sources:

(...silence...)

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

TBF, I don't think that ʻOumuamua is usually considered to be a comet either. Thankfully, the article does not give the UFO view too much weight. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Got to that page via the TCM page. Is it me, or is it a little bit odder than usual. Can't pin it down. - Roxy, the Prod. wooF 01:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It's another WikiEd page written by User:Mayafuffels. We should report it to the class. jps ( talk) 01:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Except, I can't actually find the class. There doesn't seem to be one listed for Freshman English at UCSB. jps ( talk) 01:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

yeah i’m new to the whole wikipedia editing scene - this page is a result of my college english class (look at tibouchina’s userpage). if you have any edits feel free to change the page however you want!

Thanks for letting us know. It doesn't look like there is a connection to the WP:Wiki_Ed project, so I posted on the noticeboard. Are you familiar with WP:MEDRS? If not, it's really, really important that you read that. I have a hard time believing that all the sources you used in that draft are acceptable according to that guideline. jps ( talk) 02:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not, so thank you for the link! It's midterm week for me so I won't be able to go over my page again right now, but as soon as my tests are all over I can definitely check my sources. And I have my own copy which is being graded separately, so honestly if the page is just too messy/improper I'll only be a little hurt if someone decides to take it down (:

• In case someone is interested, I started the discussion about this course here: Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#User:Tibouchina. jps ( talk) 02:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Another candidate for WP:FRINGE theory of the month. User adding astrological mumbo jumbo to the Apollo 11 article. [11] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd have made my edsum say "Remove utter bollocks" - Roxy, the Prod. wooF 09:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Ha. - Roxy, the Prod. wooF 09:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Posttraumatic stress disorder#Acupuncture -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

https://qz.com/1010684/all-the-wellness-products-american-love-to-buy-are-sold-on-both-infowars-and-goop/ -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

God nforbid somebody gets their Jade egg and stainless steel soap mixed up in the dark? - Roxy, the Prod. wooF 19:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

And how is this a fringe theory, or relevant to any of our articles? Dimadick ( talk) 23:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It is related to the fringe theory being pushed by Goop that their products are anything other than snake oil, the fringe theory being pushed by Infowars that their products are anything other than snake oil. A;lso, no rule says that everything on this noticeboard has to be directly related to a particular claim in a particular article. Information of a general nature about fringe theories is also talked about here. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm shocked. Guy ( Help!) 23:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I know! The products shilled on Goop and Infowars both have quite a reputation in the scientific community... Who doesn't love a $66 jade vagina egg or a $100 bottle of "an overhaul for your cellular engines!" DNA Force Plus? [12] (I am still trying to figure out what "Cryogenically-polished silicone" is. [13]) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Power of God ( talk · contribs) is adding a fringe source to various articles.[ [14] Charles Finch III, [15] [16] [17] the author of the chapter used as a source [18] [19]seems to have a number of self-published books his LinkedIn profile which shows he is CEO of the company that publishes his books) and makes some extraordinary claims about the Dogon people and claims that Africans knew elements of modern science tens of thousands of years ago. [20] Doug Weller talk 13:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The source I referenced was from A Companion to African American Studies. Apparently, it was not published by the companies Charles Finch is the CEO of, as may be implied. Concerning the specific parts of the section authored by Finch, which I referenced, it does not deal with either of the claims you mentioned, Doug Weller ( talk · contribs). The reference described a point in history where Senegalese Professor Lam discovered the works of Yoro Dyao and some of its detail. In any case, A Companion to African American Studies was co-edited by Lewis R. Gordon and Jane Anna Gordon. Lewis R. Gordon is a Professor of Philosophy with a focus on Africana philosophy among other focuses ( https://philosophy.uconn.edu/faculty/). Jane Anna Gordon is an Associate Professor of Political Science with a focus on Africana political thought, political theories of education, and methodologies in the social sciences, among other focuses ( https://polisci.uconn.edu/person/jane-gordon/). The section authored by Charles Finch seems to have passed the editorial qualifications of Lewis R. Gordon and Jane Anna Gordon. Daniel Power of God ( talk) 04:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the Charles Fitch who predicted that the world would end and Jesus would return sometime in 1843 or 1844... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"The source I referenced was from A Companion to African American Studies."

Could you name the publisher as well? In any case, the tale with the Dogon people isn't exactly new information. Marcel Griaule (1898-1956) claimed that they had advanced astronomical information on the star system Sirius, which supposedly was significant in their religion. The validity of Griaule's information has been called into question, but his original report has been circulating for many decades.

Personally. I have read repetitions of the tale in Greek books and magazines from the 1980s and the 1990s. It passes as "common knowledge" in some circles. Dimadick ( talk) 10:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The publisher is John Wiley & Sons ( https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Companion_to_African_American_Studies.html?id=ODmpx1fgJNIC). Daniel Power of God ( talk) 12:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Dimadick: which tale? The Senegalese migration? Anyway, here [21] Finch explains that Abraham, Canaan, the Sumerians are basically black African, as are Egyptians and Arabs. Jacob's descendants intermarried with black Egyptians and those in the Exodus were ethnically, etc black. At the end of that video he seems to be saying that monotheism was in Egypt extremely early, long before Akhenaten. My reference to Finch and the Dogon wasn't about Sirius, but his statement "that in the cosmo-conception of the Dogon of Mali, there are distinct elements of knowledge that seem to have anticipated some of the most advanced concepts of modern physics. The problem is that I can't find text sources, just a multitude of YouTube videos. But in any case, if he's accurate, other reliable sources will have mentioned this. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"The publisher is John Wiley & Sons"

The main article is John Wiley & Sons, an academic publisher based in New York City. Sounds good enough. As per the claims mentioned by Doug Weller, I would guess they are based on a mix of Afrocentrism and Biblical literalism.

"Jacob's descendants intermarried with black Egyptians" One descendant of the legendary Jacob did. Joseph supposedly married Asenath, an Egyptian woman. Their sons Manasseh and Ephraim were of partial Egyptian descent, and both the Tribe of Manasseh and the Tribe of Ephraim claimed Egyptian descent. A claim from the Book of Genesis which gets repeated in scripture and the works of those who assume Genesis to be a historical account. Aren't biblical genealogies familiar to just about anyone, despite being useless for historical purposes?

"he seems to be saying that monotheism was in Egypt extremely early, long before Akhenaten"

Not exactly a new theory either. I have spend a few weeks categorizing our articles on Pharaohs, and took the time to read them. Some egyptologists suspect that Seth-Peribsen (28th century BC) was trying to establish a monotheistic cult, with his patron deity Set as the only remaining god:

• "The debate continues over why Peribsen chose this name. Earlier theories have favoured the idea that Egypt was split in two realms during Peribsen's time or that he was a heretic, who sought to start a new monotheistic religion with Seth as the only worshipped god."

If true, tyrannical monotheists were already active in the 3rd millennium BC. Dimadick ( talk) 14:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The edits in question state uncritically ("discovered" and "documented") [22] that the Senegalese are descended from the ancient Egyptians, based on an oral history an antiquarian found there 100 years ago. Geogene ( talk) 16:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Dimadick: I didn't know about Peribsen, but I don't think that's relevant to whether Finch is fringe. Note that the chapter in question [23] starts by him claiming that the origins of the Nile Valley civilizations can be traced back to 10,500 BC. That rang a deafening bell so I did a search and turned up another chapter by Finch where he says the same thing, albeit more cautiously as he writes "This chapter concentrates on the first-named process—initiation into occult knowledge or the “mysteries,” whose origins predate the beginning of the dynastic period in the Nile Valley (4300 B.c.), some say as early as 10,500 B.c.8" [24] (8 is the footnote, and no surprise, it is "8. Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, The Message of the Sphinx (New York: Crown, 1996)." The same source is used twice more in the chapter. He also writes about the Arcanum and some sort of ceremony in the Great Pyramid, which he says " was never intended to be entered except by the secret passageway from the Sphinx itself, resting one-quarter mile away." Doug Weller talk 16:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, The Message of the Sphinx"

Graham Hancock, the pseudoarchaeology writer and Robert Bauval who attempts to revive Hermeticism? If yes, unreliable. Dimadick ( talk) 16:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Talk:Jackie_Walker_(activist)#Request_for_comment_can_we_say_Jackie_Walker_is_Jewish Slatersteven ( talk) 13:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Walker self-identifies as Jewish? That's the only measure that should matter for identifying a person as a member of a faith as far as I'm concerned. If there is such evidence, we include it. If there isn't, we don't make such claims about her. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see the talk page. As there is an RFC it would be wrong for me to comment here. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Not quite sure why this noticeboard was pinged. This hardly seems a fringe matter. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As a curtesy I will reply, but only to say I will not comment here about the RFC's question. I would point eds to the long thread on the talk page titled Jewish. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The words ten-foot pole seem to apply to that talk page right now. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Quite possibly, which is why there is an RFC which is much shorter and questions can be asked there (to make it clear the RFC does not have lice). Slatersteven ( talk) 14:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. Fine. One comment and I'm out. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

List of alleged megalodon sightings could use some more eyes. It looks like it only exists because a lot of this material was considered too fringe for megalodon. This is a common point of fixation for, say, cryptozoologists. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, folks! Quite a few of you weighed in on this, but this merge proposal still seems to be open from way back in August. Someone at some point mentioned what to do about this, but I've been pretty busy for the past few months and unable to spend much time here, and so can't remember who or where. What to do? :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess it would be WP:MERGECLOSE: "In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved is normally made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has been established; such a request may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard." -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll take it there. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This particular coatrack attempting to create a new school of early Feminist thought out of the racist inclinations of a few specific early feminists is something I tried to delete in drafts; and now it's in mainspace. This is clearly an attempt to promote a fringe view as if it were fact. I've launched an AfD. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The racist element to this theory is quite disturbing, particularly the advocacy for compulsory sterilization of those deemed unfit. I did a bit of research and found that there are some sources that talk about it. An alternative to deletion would be to trim parts that promote it or give undue weight as if it is feminist theory and also add a section covering criticism or views that debunk it. Just to show that there are people who actually harbor such worldview. Darwin Naz ( talk) 23:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to discuss our article on John Harvey Kellogg. For those who are not already familiar with him, I suggest looking at the following sources -- sources that paint quite a different picture than our article does.

• "By pumping yogurt cultures into the rectums of America's well to do, Kellogg claimed that he had managed to cure 'cancer of the stomach, ulcers, diabetes, schizophrenia, manic depressives, acne, anemia ... asthenia, migraine and premature old age.' There was nothing a clean bowel couldn't handle." -- Museum of Quackery

• "John Harvey Kellogg was, to put it simply, a whack-job. Way out of balance. Freaked out. A bloody lunatic. But he wasn't just nuts, he was nasty. Kellogg was a prime example of the anti-pleasure crusader. Kellogg's life was dedicated to the abolition of sexual pleasure."-- Psychology Today

But to read our article, you would think that Kellog was a medical pioneer.

Also interesting is that The Road to Wellville is only given the briefest mention, and there is a link to our article on Light therapy, despite the fact that Kellogg was doing something far different -- and far more fringe.

Kellogg thought that his "incandescent light bath" could prevent or cure "jaundice, gall-stones, hepatic abscess, pancreatic disease, appendicitis, hemorrhoids, the various forms of colitis, mesenteric tuberculosis, tubercular peritonitis, cancer of the intestines and peritoneum ... abdominal dropsy and hepatic cirrhosis ... vertigo, mental confusion, depression, pseudo- apoplexy, nervous irritability, nervous exhaustion, morbid fears..."

I smell a whitewash. There certainly is motivation for it: Last year Kellogg's had $13.484 billion US dollars in revenue and 5.102 billion us dollars in profit. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, although he invented the cornflake he's not the guy behind Kellogg's (that was Will Keith Kellogg); indeed, John Harvey Kellogg spent most of his later life in litigation against Kellogg's in a futile attempt to stop them making cornflakes. I can't see why the company would want to whitewash his life; if anything you'd think they'd be delighted to discredit him. If there's any whitewashing going on—a claim of which I'm sceptical—it's more likely to be by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, who have long found the association of his crackpot ideas and their religion something of an embarrassment. ‑  Iridescent 19:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this definitely looks whitewashed, but I would guess its from alternative medicine people and the SDAs rather than any corporations who could care less about this guy. Incidentally, if any of you have ever been to the Kellogg Museum in Battle Creek, MI? The rejuvenators there are straight crazy pants. And the whole thing is filled with SDA propaganda, exactly the kind of people who would want to give this article a positive POV. -- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 03:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."

"What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t. [25] [26]"

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been shown to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards NASA astronauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If this isn't an essay already, you could make it one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I always thought we ought to have a page WP:REQUIREDBIAS or somesuch. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. I will write the essay. Does anyone else have any good "biased towards X], biased against Y" topics I can add? Any of the above that I should nuke? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Vax/ anti-vax? Global warming/ denial? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Another idea would be to redirect REQUIREDBIAS to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

NASA are not the only astronauts, we might need to pick our words a tad more carefully to avoid giving the wrong impression. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Taikonauts and cosmonauts arguably are the only people who went to space who weren't NASA astronauts. jps ( talk) 01:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: I would add Holocaust studies/ Holocaust denial. Catrìona ( talk) 14:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

CSI/ psi. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Any essay explaining this has to note that we should not simply ignore the things we are biased against. We do (and should) discuss such topics. It’s just that we must present them appropriately... as being opinion and not as being fact. Blueboar ( talk) 14:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:MAINSTREAM was the last time I tried to write something like that. An update might be a good idea. jps ( talk) 15:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Good comments so far. Lots of stuff that will ghelp with the essay I am writing. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The only big question the "bias" is what it entails in terms of article coverage, references, and the like. There must be some parameters that sort of give us editors some leeway in terms of how much we can expand said articles. For example: We should at least mention the alternate sciences and their views (pseudo-science, religious science, and other alternate "sciences"). Not as an argument, but as a brief acknowledgement of the alternate viewpoint. We have a whole bunch of science articles that include theories proven and unproven as well as non science articles with theories as well. What I'm trying to say, and what I have been trying to say all along is this, does a brief mentioning of the "biased" works/theories fit within Wikipiedia's guideline parameters? It feels like we should at the very least mention in a brief paragraph (with criticism by scientists) the alternate works/theories.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you are suggesting. We don't just mention Astrology, we have a whole article on it. Are you saying that our Astronomy article should talk about astrology? Note that we already have an Astrology and astronomy article. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think it should end by stating that we are biased towards reality (or possibly "demonstrable truth" or an equivalent term), and against anyone or anything that rejects reality. As a conclusion, because all of the above really boils down to that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No, not reality. We are biased towards current scientific (for example) consensus (maybe, best knowledge), but scientific consensus has been wrong in the past. In some areas we can say "reality" but not in all. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, reality. The scientific consensus is reality. If you disagree, then please show me the difference in a way I can put stock in. You know, a methodological, reproducible, empirical way. Good luck. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean methodological, reproducible, empirical way? I seem to recall that every so often "science" has to refine how it views the universe based upon new evidence, that is certainly empirical, but you cannot reproduce (unless of course you mean repeat it (such as what about piltdown man?))m As to methodological, well I suppose I could always list (does that count as reproduce) all the times science has had to refine "reality"? \this is why we need to be carefull "ohh well you call it reality, so was it reality when...after all reality cannot change?). Using terms like reality plays into the hands of pseudoscience advocates.10:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Slatersteven ( talk)

There is also the the problem of begging the question. Tell an antivax proponent that we are biased towards reality and he will reply "of course! and I can show you that the reality is that vaccines cause autism!" Tell the same antivax proponent that we are biased towards the current scientific consensus and he will reply "of course! and I can show you that the current scientific consensus is that vaccines cause autism!" For the purposes of my essay, it would be better to just say "We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against antivax" (with the links). It is the seeing your pet hobbyhorse listed among all the other things that you don't believe that is so effective. anything that requires to reader to not be completely wrong about what the sources say just dilutes the message. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No, not reality. — Yes, reality. — There be dragons. Off-topic dragons, I might add. This discussion literally (in the literal sense of literally) predates Plato and goes on still. If you'd enjoy about as fascinating a discussion of this as you're ever likely to encounter, check out Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It by Steven L. Goldman (via Great Courses). Is M-theory real? What "reality" is, is not a simple question. Back to your locally scheduled reality show reality. Mathglot ( talk) 08:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't really buy the whole 'the scientific consensus has been wrong in the past' thing, which is a favorite amongst the lunatic charlatan brigade. It's kind of true up to a point, but it's used far too often to add an element of doubt to whatever glaringly obvious fact someone is try to call 'just another theory'. The scientific consensus is not going to change about the world being round, about vaccines saving lives, about life forms evolving gradually over time - actually, about anything on Guy's list. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem becomes when we expand the list. Sure when we are talking about flat earth or round earth we are talking about a well established and clear irrefutable fact. But is it true to say that Ancient astronauts are clearly and irrefutable not real (after all Shklovski and Sagan both stated it was a possibility all but a slim one (and one by the way I happen to disagree with, physics and reality et all making it impossible). We need to ensure that the kind of "but science if sometimes wrong" argument cannot be used by a choice of language that does not elevate science to "infallibility", leave that to religion. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Great idea for an essay. However, we are no more biased against Cargo Cults than we are against Christians. Other than that, good list. Mathglot ( talk) 02:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have been very happy with my user page for all this time, but the meat of the "towards and against" may well appear there before too long. - Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

ADDENDUM : Laundry balls facilitate better washing when used with a commercial detergent. They also promote fluffier results when used in tumble dryers. Regards, an Expert. - Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Make sure you wash your hands with Stainless steel soap afterwards... :)

That's a rather expensive replacement for the traditional tennis ball in the dryer. The pros use these: [27]

As far as the claim "Laundry balls facilitate better washing when used with a commercial detergent", no they don't. I have done a fair amount of engineering on commercial watchers, including running many test loads to get the timing and amount of detergent that the computer I designed adds to the water just right. I have installed these systems in a couple of dozen commercial laundries. I have seen tennis balls and wool balls used in in the dryers but never any sort of ball on the washer. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Amateur Laundry Engineers eh? One step up from janitors. Cant live with em, cant manage without. Did I actually say how much better the results were? Hmmm? - Roxy, the Expert. wooF 12:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

An RfC has been posted which may be of interest to people here. - Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 08:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion[ [28]] on the RS noticeboard about the RS status of Climatefeedback.org, a climate science fact-checking website which debunks climate change falsehoods. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 09:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Just asking. Sorry, but I believe humor (note merkian spelling) is the best medicine. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

2604:2000:e84a:4100:1d2c:8fe7:88d7:4a0e ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pushing a fringe POV on multiple pages:

[29] [30]: He starts out easy, posting a rather silly claim that Teller is not a magician. Odd, considering his next few edits, that he has an interest in a magician who is also noted for being a skeptic.

[31] [32] [33] [34] Now we are starting to see what he is on about. He rejects empirical evidence.

[35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] ...and there is is. He reveals the POV he is pushing. And that he is willing to edit war to get his POV into Wikipedia.

[43] [44] [45] [46] Now he is claiming that magicians do what they do through supernatural means. Perhaps this explains the earlier false claim that Teller isn't a magician? Perhaps he is a WIZARD! BURN HIM!!

We need to keep an eye on this one... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It's block evasion by User:Daniel C. Boyer. See edits to Marmalade by that IP, Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E84A:4100:D110:73D1:7A6F:E574, and Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E84A:4100:B548:5AEA:BFCD:5BDB. I'm just gonna range block. Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a real live one at Talk:Electronic harassment. Pop up a big bowl of popcorn, come on over, and see the show! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Gosh. I thought you were talking about this. - Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 22:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Especially entertaining: the comment by Mathglot at the bottom of Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet#Specific Carbohydrate Diet. Nailed it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Finished my popcorn. Is there another one playing? Mathglot ( talk) 22:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sentinelese is getting to be rather entertaining. In was going to mention the old standby Talk:Acupuncture but I fell asleep trying to scroll past all of the Tmboxes... :)

"If this is the sort of thing you like, this is a fine example of it". -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The show has moved. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Quite a lot of activity here recently, impinging on the fringe space. Latest issue is whether it's undue to quote somebody describing the marketing of sugary products as "murder". More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ricardo Carezani is the inventor of the fringe theory autodynamics. In the Ricardo Carezani article itself, the sections "About Autodynamics" and "Carezanian Velocity Addition" present autodynamics as if fact. There may be other problems in the article, but these two sections are the worst. (By the way, I was the same person who tagged the sections; I am just using a different IP now). Even the autodynamics article itself correctly presents the theory as rejected by mainstream scientists. I would fix it myself, but the problems are so pervasive in the Ricardo Carezani article that I'm not quite sure how to do it well. 24.5.8.227 ( talk) 01:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

After thinking about it for some time, I have decided to remove the sections altogether. Not only are they almost impossible to fix, autodynamics should be described in detail in its own article, not another article. If anyone wants to make sure the sections are rewritten to follow fringe theory guidelines (especially not presenting autodynamics as true) they may be included in the autodynamics article. 24.5.8.227 ( talk) 04:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I commented at the article's talk page. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 20:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

The usual wall-of-text war has resumed against the scientific view of acupuncture, with at least one admitted practitioner pressing, as he always does, to portray acupuncture as an effective treatment. Guy ( Help!) 08:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Kreskin#Did Kreskin claim to have paranormal abilities? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

As I recall, his show biz gimmick was equivocation; saying he is not a psychic but can "tune into people's thoughts", he is not a prophet but can "make accurate predictions", etc. [47] - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Kreskin is a nightclub performer with the gift of gab and an other-than-magical desire to sell tickets. His woo-woo claims seem to me out of the Kroger Babb school of "You gotta tell 'em to sell 'em," and can safely be treated as such. That probably doesn't help, so how about this: Has he claimed to possess paranormal ability? Yes. Has he claimed to not possess paranormal ability? Yes. Will he be appearing at Lucy's Laugh Lounge in Pleasantville this upcoming January 12? Yes, two Amazing shows. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 19:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed there is an SPA named Amdc538 who keeps removing criticism and skepticism of facilitated communication from the articles on Anne McDonald and Rosemary Crossley. Various editors keep reverting, of course.

In the edit summary of their latest whitewash attempt, they claim that the Australian Newspaper Herald Sun was sued for defamation over their investigations of Crossley and lost, paid damages, and took the article{s) down. I notice that the citations in the removed text cite not the original web version of the Andrew Rule Herald Sun article, but a PDF copy of it here. Sure enough, if you try to get the original article (which apparently was at this URL near as I can tell) it's gone. The only references to the this article on Herald Sun's site are in letters-to-the-editor section. However, perhaps because of the nature of the case, I can't even find any references to the case itself, even in non-Australian websites. (It is perhaps worth noting that the Herald Sun, although it is a Rupert Murdoch owned tabloid, is based in Melbourne, the same city where Crossley was based. So one might assume that they were in a good position to do some decent reporting on the case).

Now, there are other sources in the removed material, but the Rule article has the quotes from McDonald's family members, the film crew and others who closely interacted with Crossley and McDonald so its very compelling stuff. I'm certainly not suggesting that we hold ourselves to what may be a very flawed libel ruling by an Australian court. But on the other hand, if there were flaws in the reporting that came out in court, should we be using this article as a source? Can anyone find any references to the case against the Herald Sun, so we could add it to the Crossley, McDonald articles or even Rule's own article? -- Krelnik ( talk) 13:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I can find no reference to then being sued (even here [ [48]]). As such I find the claim dubious. Yes the herald sun is an RS, but given the nature of this (A BLP) it must be attributed. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I reverted the edit and in my edit summary for the reversion asked the editor to supply a source about the alleged legal action. I guess I should go ask them directly on their talk page, as a new editor they might not see my edit summary comment. -- Krelnik ( talk) 14:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

ETA Oh, I found where the Herald Sun posted their apology and admitted to removing the articles. It's here on their website along with a bunch of other apologies/corrections/etc. Search for Crossley. The apology does not indicate whether there was any court action involved. Also, the apology seems to revolve around whether Crossley "deliberately misled" and the fact that the second article was titled "True Crime", implying that Crossley might be a criminal. It doesn't say anything about other facts in the articles being incorrect. Of course, we all know there are many cases where pushers of fringe theories truly believe what they are saying, even though they are in fact wrong. -- Krelnik ( talk) 19:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Crossley comments on the Rule pieces here. -- tronvillain ( talk) 15:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems this vital article mentions harm caused by anti vaxxers in the lede but does not have a sourced discussion of this later in the body. Hopefully someone here can help out. This is a contentious intersection but deserves coverage. Best. MrBill3 ( talk) 13:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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

is a fake cancer cure. There's currently some debate about weight/sourcing around a use of this substance by a naturopath at Talk:Ukrain#Britt Marie Hermes. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Note this is now at WP:BLPN#Ukrain / Britt Marie Hermes. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche (Spanish: "Mapuche Ancestral Resistance", RAM) is an organization in Argentina that wants territories that they claim belonged to the Mapuche indigenous peoples, and who uses violence and vandalism to voice their protests. I had made a report a year ago at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 58#Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche. There is a discussions about the existence of the group. Long story short: the governments of both Argentina and Chile, the Argentine minister of security, the local governor, the leader of the opposition party, the mainstream press, etc; all take its existence for granted, and act accordingly. On the other side, some obscure politicians and web pages claim that it is a big conspiracy of the president to justify police repression, and that the RAM does not exist at all. Note that it is not a huge organization (we are not talking ISIS or Al-Qaeda), but saying that it does not exist goes too far.

The users Agustin6 and Sietecolores insist in re-writing the article according to their view, adding "alleged" to the intro, removing the logo, adding dubius tags to perfectly referenced sentences, etc. And they insist that we should use the article in Spanish as a model, where this fringe theory is allowed. I explained all the problems in the references used in that article, and now in a coatrack section added recently, but they refuse to reply to those concerns.

Should the fringe theory be mentioned in the article in some way, or just be dismissed?

And now that we are at it, as the organization is small there is little info available in the mainstream media about it (actions, people, background, ideology, ongoing judicial cases, etc.), just a pair of notable cases. However, the Minister of Security and the involved provinces made a report, available here. Agustin6 made a claim about the report and referenced it with a link to the report itself, which clearly goes against the rules, but is the report a reliable source to expand the article with its contents? Cambalachero ( talk) 18:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no judicial case about any guerrilla in Argentina, of course not even one confiscated wheapon from a single Mapuche; the story of how and why these fake news from a small group of media (Clarin/La Nación and Infobae) were produced was in the section that this user Cambalachero deleted with no reason; The claim about the document was mentioned in this source: https://www.tiempoar.com.ar/nota/el-eterno-montaje-del-enemigo-interno-por-ricardo-ragendorfer. There is about 3 users on the Talk page pointing all this out to this user, who is the only one making the edits, all alone; the user doesn't follow any Wikipedia rules and he just vandalizes the article.-- Agustin6 ( talk) 19:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, that gets even better. I can see that the whole section was based on that article (that you did not cite as reference), as you have basically rewrote the same concepts in summary style. Problem is, that article does not just cast doubts on the existence of the RAM, but the Coordinadora Arauco-Malleco (CAM) as well. And that one has been there since the late 1990s, is way larger, and controlled several territories (there's an article in English about them here). Casting doubts about them is like hiding the sun with a finger, and helps us very little to consider Tiempo Argentino a reliable source. Cambalachero ( talk) 00:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't left is as reference because you erased the whole section before I could. The article doesn't cast doubts about anything, it describes facts. Unless you got any prove that any of those facts aren't real you are breaking all the rules of this site, as many users are pointing you over and over in more than one article. Again, his whole aticle is a fake news charade, there is no judicial case about any guerrilla or anything like that in Argentina. -- Agustin6 ( talk) 18:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

In difference to RAM, CAM does exist for sure. But CAM is no guerrilla in the sence the alleged would RAM be. A quick search in Google Scholar [49] show that CAM is treated as an real entity by scholarly souces. In contrasts the equivalent search [50] for RAM show various sources that doubt RAMs existence. Sietecolores ( talk) 18:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

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

There's been a persistent attempt to remove the fact that NLP is discredited pseudoscience at this article. The most recent removal repeats: "please site source". That source has already been pointed at before and also immediately follows the claim. More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 18:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• • Was and the article is now protected and stuck on the profringe version. Good job, JzG. A+. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 16:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Their contribution history shows they are recreating their article under a different name, and vandalizing the electronic harassment article. We need more admin help here. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

We also got a new draft: Draft:Remote sensorimotor torture - with different title because the original one was blocked... -- mfb ( talk) 14:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Some odd behavior, could be a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Certainly WP:NOTHERE. Ping @ User:JzG. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done [52], thanks. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

At least for 31 hours... -- mfb ( talk) 14:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I don't know if this is the right place, but these articles seem like fringe theories and definitely need some attention. I'm just posting here to try and solicit help on revamping the many Anthroposophy-related articles. For many years, these articles have had pervasive POV issues mostly due to hyper-involved single-purpose editors with COIs. The articles in question are Anthroposophy, Waldorf education, Anthroposophic medicine, and Biodynamic agriculture. Most of these articles read like promotional material and desperately need our help. To get more specific Anthroposophic medicine is actually pretty good, but the others in that list are pretty good examples of WP:BROCHURE.

I could give you the diffs and the many ArbCom rulings, ANI postings, etc. (and will if asked) but suffice it to say that there is a very small group of editors who are themselves professionally linked to Anthroposophy and Waldorf education who are gatekeeping the articles so that all edits are filtered through their lens. As a result, many of the criticisms and less-favorable aspects of the history of this new age religion are dimmed in favor of excessive detail about the adherents' beliefs and positive praises of the subject material.

I of course want these articles to detail the beliefs of anthroposophists, no question about that. But overly favorable language and WP:WEASEL words are pretty rampant throughout. Then the many racist and unscientific views of adherents (anti-vax, anti-microbial theory of disease, their founder Steiner didn't believe in evolution, believed in racial "types", reincarnation, believed Jewish people should fully assimilate and abandon all Jewish identifiers, etc.) are minimized and reduced in size, book-ended with positive praise, and so on. Combine that with the overly wrought language and hyper-sophistry of the article text, and you have what we see today. I will tell you that if you agree to help me, you may become exhausted in the process. But if the wiki itself is less promotional in the process, it will have been worth it!!

Please don't come into this process with fiercely pro- or anti-Steiner views. The guy was just a random 19th century philosopher who had some interesting and crazy ideas. The only reason I'm interested in these articles is because of how clearly they are an example of what can happen when a very diligent, very obsessive, very biased group of editors are 99% of the edits on a set of controversial articles.

I personally am starting with the root article Anthroposophy and then hope to expand to revamp the daughter articles in the series. I've tried in the past to help bring these articles to NPOV, but was unsuccessful like many before me due to attrition, wiki-breaks, and a general dissatisfaction dealing with the very involved COI-editors. So I'm hoping that asking for help from more uninvolved editors will do the trick. Any takers? Thanks. -- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 17:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, I think you'll find Fortress Steiner is impregnable (except Anthroposophic medicine and its related articles, which attract interest from enough medical editors for them to be kept straight). Alexbrn ( talk) 18:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I know! Honestly, to borrow the words of the famous Patient H.M., I am "in an argument with myself" about whether or not this is a good idea. I think I cannot be happy with my tenure here on the wiki if I don't do more to help fix these articles! :( But you're probably right. Odds say that in a month or so I will give up again and resume some pervasive sense of ennui.-- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Your proposal is a worthy project, but it will be difficult, and may end with lots of discussion but little improvement. As soon as the COI group senses a correction in motion they will make a concerted defense. Binksternet ( talk) 18:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've made some efforts for Waldorf education, with minimal success. It might be possibleto do more if someone did the actual research into discussion of it from unaffiliated sources. In that field, at least we should aim at keeping long discussions of their education philosophy out of the pages for individual schools, as for that section they just need to refer to the general article. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, DGG, I remember a while ago you dared to put an {{advert}} on Waldorf education. It was removed after a while, with no real remedy. Revisiting the article now after a while I see it's worse. Is there any page anywhere on Wikipedia which is a more blatant brochure, I wonder! Alexbrn ( talk) 19:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Right? To be honest, I think Biodynamic agriculture is actually much better than it used to be (even if it does still go into an extremely unnecessary amount of detail on ratios of different manure to quartz combinations T_T). Waldorf education, on the other hand, has systematically gotten worse! My theory (I haven't actually collected any diffs yet) is that slowly after any uninvolved editor stops watching, the page is restored piece by piece to its original state by COI (or at least POV) editors...-- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 20:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If there's anything in Biodynamic agriculture that needs work, go to it. We've made a lot of headway with it over the years.

If there any actionable coi violations going on, then they shouldn't be ignored because of WP:CONLIMITED issues. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at Biodynamic agriculture - I think that article is in reasonable shape. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

And of course this is the kind of source which you'll never find being used on Wikipedia's Waldorf education article ... Alexbrn ( talk) 21:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If the topic of that news article is not covered in Waldorf education, then there are likely serious problems.

So the problems are in and its related articles, particularly Waldorf education and Anthroposophy , not Anthroposophic medicine and Biodynamic agriculture? -- Ronz ( talk) 22:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

For a full assessment it's probably necessary to go through the links in Template:Anthroposophy series. But yes, I think the education aricles present the most obvious big issues so far as this noticeboard is concerned. Alexbrn ( talk) 22:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I think Biodynamic agriculture still probably needs some tweaks. It really minimizes the pseudoscience. -- tronvillain ( talk) 00:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it a bit more, almost everything critical is tucked away in the "Reception" section at the end (or at the end of the relatively long lede), essentially "hiding all disputations in an end criticism section" as described in WP:DESCF. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I have it on my watchlist, but I haven't tried to tackle it further either. If someone wants to focus on something specifically there and brings it up at the talk page and I'll see what I can do to help for finding sources, clarifying content, etc. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

To correct some points: Steiner had a PhD in philosophy and could coherently write very abstract philosophical books; he also claimed to be a clairvoyant, and reality-based editors consider clairvoyance as hallucination. We was a racialist, not a racist, meaning that he acknowledged differences among the races, but he thought that "superior races" should help, not oppress, "inferior races". According to my teacher, dr. Olga Amsterdamska, in the 19th century if you weren't racist, you were a socialist. In respect to Jews, assimilationism was the lesser evil, especially when compared with Hitler's policy. Nazis considered Anthroposophists as competition, so they wanted to eliminate them. While Steiner was fiercely against materialism, he did believe in evolution; I'm not sure if he admitted Darwinian evolution, anyway he added to evolution a shitload of mysticism: for him everything was evolving, from humans and animals to stars and planets (which are alive, according to him). In respect to politics he was mid-way between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism (we could call it anarcho-corporatism). He wrote very positive reviews of Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner, i.e. positive in so far as a mystic could see something good in people who derided mysticism. His moral philosophy was thelemic, but he thought that liberty is a gift which should not be misused. He acted like he was an universal genius, competent from agriculture and medicine to visual arts and education. It seems that in architecture he still has a mainstream impact (in certain countries). He did held mean views, like bad karma is your own fault, but overall he was a humanitarian (in his intentions). In the Waldorf schools they give pupils freedom. You won't see there badly misbehaving children, because those who couldn't cope with freedom already got ex-matriculated. The Waldorf schools do not overtly teach Anthroposophy, but the meditations they use in classes are Gnostic passphrases which in your afterlife you have to tell to the Archons in order to get past them. As sciences they teach a lot of woo, e.g. a chemistry class is more like alchemy. Also, they teach a lot of legends, and have no use for kids who disbelieve in Christmas, since they spoil the suspension of disbelief for other pupils. So, if you are persuaded that myth and legends are hogwash and deride those who believe in gnomes and elves, you cannot be a good Waldorf pupil. A Waldorf teacher who no longer believes in elves and gnomes gets sacked. Since if you disbelieve them, the whole of Waldorf education is baloney: Waldorf education is an occult science approach to the development of the astral body and of the ego, gnomes have a role to play in it. Whenever there is trouble in a Waldorf school, discontent gnomes have done it. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

What a wonderful potted summary! Alexbrn ( talk) 07:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Darwinian evolution: Steiner was a big fan of Ernst Haeckel and put his own spin to Haeckel's now-obsolete recapitulation theory: as an embryo, you go through a fish stage, then reptile and so on, ending with a monkey stage and a human stage. Steiner extrapolated this phylogeny/ontogeny stuff into (pseudo)history/childhood: when you grow up, you have an Atlantean stage, then Greek, then Nordic, and so on. Therefore children learn Greek myths before Nordic ones in Waldorf schools. So, he did to Haeckel what Haeckel did to Darwin: A big Yes, but distorted and expanded. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

SO one thing I'd like to do is start to compile sources that are missing from these articles and have info that desperately needs to be added in. Sort of like a "wishlist" of what we think is missing. I'm sure there's more than what I've included, so please add your own! If you'd like to critcize a source as non-RS, do so briefly in an indented comment just below the link. And please strikethrough a source when you think it has satisfactorily been added into the page in question. I'm not sure if this noticeboard is the ideal place to compile these, and if not I'll happily move these lists to the respective talk pages or to a relevant wikiproject talk page. But otherwise see below.-- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 01:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources to add to Waldorf education

General criticisms and other noteworthy sources

1. Rawlings, Roger. "My Experience As a Waldorf Student". www.quackwatch.org. QuackWatch. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
2. Williams, Lee. "steiner schools". The Independent. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
3. Francis, Meagan (27 May 2004). "What's Waldorf?". Salon. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
4. O'Brien, Zoe (2 July 2018). "Grooming fears over Steiner schools as teachers advised to home visit". Mail Online. Retrieved 30 November 2018. No longer considered a RS.
5. Johnson, Ian. "Class Consciousness". The New Yorker. Retrieved 30 November 2018.

School closures

1. Turner, Camilla (2 September 2017). "Exclusive: Top Steiner school ordered to close by Government over child safety fears". The Telegraph. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
2. Merritt, Anita (24 November 2018). "This is what life is really like inside troubled Steiner School". DevonLive. Retrieved 30 November 2018.

Vaccine denial

1. Sobo, EJ (September 2015). "Social Cultivation of Vaccine Refusal and Delay among Waldorf (Steiner) School Parents". Medical anthropology quarterly. 29 (3): 381–99. doi: 10.1111/maq.12214. PMID  25847214. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
2. Wamsley, Laurel (20 November 2018). "Chickenpox Outbreak Hits N.C. Private School With Low Vaccination Rates". NPR.org. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
3. Parker, Laura (6 April 2015). "How Your School Could Become the Next Tinderbox for Measles". Retrieved 30 November 2018.
4. Omer, Saad B. (29 November 2018). "Perspective | Why small groups of vaccine refusers can make large groups of people sick". The Washington Post. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
5. Rainey, Clint (30 March 2014). "Immune to Logic: Some New York City Private Schools Have Dismal Vaccination Rates". Intelligencer. Retrieved 30 November 2018.

Science illiteracy

1. Jelinek, David; Sun, Li-Ling. "Does Waldorf Offer a Viable Form of Science Education? A Research Monograph" (PDF). California State University College of Education. California State University Press. Retrieved 29 November 2018.
2. Scott, Eugenie C. (Winter 1994). "Waldorf Schools Teach Odd Science, Odd Evolution". National Center for Science Education Reports. 14 (4): 20. Retrieved 30 November 2018.

Technology

1. Healy, Maureen (24 February 2015). "Waldorf Schools: Are They Way Behind the Times?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
2. Jenkin, Matthew (2 December 2015). "Tablets out, imagination in: the schools that shun technology". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
3. Manzoor, Sarfraz (14 June 2016). "Could Steiner schools have a point on children, tablets and tech?". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 November 2018.

Racism

1. "Steiner Waldorf Schools Part 3. The problem of racism". DC's Improbable Science. 16 December 2010. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
2. Frost, Peter (8 December 2017). "Rudolf Steiner, clairvoyant, educationist and racist". Morning Star. Retrieved 30 November 2018.

Accusations of religious teaching and "cult" status

1. Chertoff, Emily (30 November 2012). "Is This Grade School a 'Cult'? (And Do Parents Care?)". The Atlantic. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
2. Lewis, Andy (2 November 2012). "What Every Parent Should Know About Steiner-Waldorf Schools". The Quackometer Blog. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
3. Ruenzel, David. "The Spirit of Waldorf Education - Education Week". www.edweek.org. Education Week. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
4. Haynes, V. Dion (20 September 1999). "WALDORF SCHOOL CRITICS WARY OF RELIGIOUS ASPECT". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 30 November 2018.

Already in article, needs expansion

The tabloid sources (e.g. Daily Star and esp. Daily Mail) are no good. Really, sourcing quality needs to improve. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources to add to Anthroposophy

Reliable sources to add to Biodynamic agriculture

1. Novella, Steven (19 June 2017). "Biodynamic Farming and Other Nonsense". Neurologica.
2. Dunning, Brian (10 February 2007). "Skeptoid #26: Biodynamic Agriculture". Skeptoid. (already in article)
3. Gorski, David (19 March 2018). "Biodynamic farming: Like anthroposophic medicine, only on the farm". Respectful Insolence.
4. Robinson, Jancis (28 September 2018). "Biodynamic wine and the Hogwarts school of viticulture". The Financial Times. Nikkei Inc. Archived from the original on 3 December 2018.

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

There is disagreement here over whether the thesis promoted by John M. Riddle is a fringe one. In nutshell he rejects the long-held view that population stablity was largely a result of child mortality, and theorizes that "the relative stability of ancient and medieval populations [is due] to the extensive use of herbal contraceptives by married women, knowledge of which was passed on for centuries by means of a folk tradition". [53] Wisdom welcome! Alexbrn ( talk) 12:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It is a different theory of Riddle that is at issue in the disagreement over my edit to Abortifacient, namely, his theory that there was a "Broken Chain of Knowledge" (the title of a chapter in his book) that prevented folk knowledge of abortifacient herbs to be transmitted to modern times. Riddle also maintains that the Demographic transition was due to the use of those herbs. The latter theory is very controversial among demographers, but I maintain that controversial is not the same thing as fringe. Riddle's books were published by Harvard University Press, and there's no indication on Riddle's Wikipedia page that Wikipedia regards him as fringe. Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 13:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delving a bit deeper into this, I think can answer my own question ... From a skeptical review of his work by demographer Gigi Santow I notice Riddle was picked up for the claim that, wrt birth control,

It is perfectly possible that people in past ages knew some aspects of science better than we do in the modern age. ^[1]

Looking at that review, it seems pretty clearly fringe. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

In light of this review and the NEJM linked above, I think it's case closed: Riddle's views need to be treated as WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The highlighted sentence, taken out of context, can be interpreted in different ways. One way is to look at other very similar statements by Riddle in other places that are more precise. For example, from p. 259 of Eve's Herbs: "At the end of the twentieth century, we know more natural-product drugs that affect fertility than did ancient women. What's more, our science has an explanation for many of the drugs' actions. What separates us from our ancestors is that today this knowledge is mainly in the hands of the experts: there are few modern women who know the antifertility plants in their environment, whereas women in the past did know them."

In contrast, a prosecutor who hopes to convict Riddle of fringiness might prefer a somewhat twisted interpretation of the sentence highlighted above, such as: It is perfectly possible that people in ancient times understood some areas of science better than our best scientists today. The latter statement is foolish and not what Riddle said. Riddle is not a fool or quack; he's a recognized mainstream scholar. Like many other distinguished scholars, his conclusions are often controversial, some of them more than others. The OP has expressed his strong dislike for Riddle on Talk:Abortifacient, calling the broken-chain-of-knowledge chapter in Eve's Herbs "the ruddy thing" (I gather from dictionary.com that ruddy is a strong British slang pejorative). In connection with his attempt to get Riddle's work declared fringe, the OP a few hours ago went to Riddle's Wikipedia page and loaded it with an inaccurate and overstated summary of three critical reviews. I will revert that, in line with WP:BLP. It is not right to slur a living person. NightHeron ( talk) 00:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

BLP does not preclude well-sourced criticism of hypotheses (otherwise Wikipedia would never cover criticisms of current hypothesses, since they always come from people). So far as I can see, all the scholarly reviews are fairly scathing about Riddle's notions. Your attempts to personlize the discussion are unwelcome and disruptive. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Coverage of disagreement with someone's hypotheses is not a "slur", and being a recognized mainstream scholar does not preclude being a proponent of a fringe view, nor does holding fringe views necessarily imply that someone is a "fool or quack." -- tronvillain ( talk) 18:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP says that the need for balance and NPOV is especially great in biographies of living persons. The edits that the OP made to Riddle's Wikipedia page give the impression (in support of his case here for labeling Riddle's work fringe) that other scholars have a low opinion of Riddle. For example, the wording of the OP's summary of Ferngren's book review says that Ferngren has taken issue with Riddle's hypotheses (unqualified, implying all of Riddle's hypotheses). In reality, Ferngren speaks highly of Riddle as a scholar but strongly disagrees with certain conclusions in Eve's Herbs, particularly about demography. Ferngren writes: "John Riddle has established his reputation as a leading expert on ancient Greek pharmacology...Riddle argues his case with learning and perspicacity. He draws widely on the specialist literature of a number of disciplines..." Also, the wording in the OP's summary of Ferngren's review suggests in Wikipedia's voice that Riddle's evidence is deficient. The wording "X took issue with Y's conclusion because of deficiency in the evidence" is not neutral wording because it takes sides by saying that the deficiency exists and is what caused X to dispute the conclusion.

Of the conclusions in Riddle's two books published by Harvard University Press, some are widely accepted and others are accepted by some people and rejected by others. Perhaps his most controversial theory is that women's use of herbal abortifacients in Europe several hundred years ago was a key factor in lower population growth. One opponent is the demographer Gigi Santow, who is quoted in the OP's edit saying something very negative about Eve's Herbs. Santow's own theory (described in a paper in 1995) is that a key factor in population stability is the use of Coitus interruptus (withdrawal) by millions of men, who have successfully used it to limit family size throughout Europe. In Eve's Herbs Riddle rejects the effectiveness of coitus interruptus as a family planning tool, and in Santow's review she rejects his theory. Whatever an editor thinks about Riddle's or Santow's views on the matter, the role of Wikipedia is not to take sides or to refer to either of them as fringe. Neither one belongs in the same class as creationists and Holocaust-deniers.

What the OP does on Riddle's Wikipedia page would not be hard to do for many eminent scholars working in fields that are prone to controversy. One could find book reviews by opposing scholars, extract the most negative phrases and comments, and string them together to give the impression on the scholar's Wikipedia page that his or her work is of poor quality and perhaps even fringe. To do so would confliect with WP:BLP, which says that unbalanced negative content on a living person's page should be removed immediately. I will not revert the OP's edit again now, because that could lead to edit-warring. I would like to respectfully ask the OP to self-revert those edits for the time being, at least until this discussion of whether or not Riddle is labeled fringe by Wikipedia is resolved by consensus. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 19:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Holy WP:WALLOFTEXT Batman! But to cut to the chase: we have multiple RS calling Riddle's views into question; is there RS for his views being accepted? Alexbrn ( talk) 20:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see, for example, (1) the book Herbs and Healers from the Ancient Mediterranean through the Medieval West: Essays in Honor of John M. Riddle, ed. by Anne Van Arsdall and Timothy Graham, Routledge, 2012, ISBN 978-1409400387, and the reviews of it (2) by Nicholas Everett in Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 2014, Vol. 88(2), pp. 376-378, ISSN: 0007-5140, and (3) by C. F. Salazar in Isis, 2015, Vol. 106(1), pp. 159-160, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/681827. NightHeron ( talk) 00:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well that's a big book of essays, and from looking at its content I cannot see how it bears on the apparently fringe theory that is the topic of this discussion: the proposal that pre-modern population levels were kept static through the widespread use of herbal birth-control, the knowledge of which was secretly transmitted between generations. Or am I missing something? Alexbrn ( talk) 04:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

As I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, that is not the issue that we had disagreement about at Talk:Abortifacient. We had disagreement about whether or not, in citing Riddle's "broken chain of knowledge," I was citing a fringe author or fringe theory. Riddle's views on demography are irrelevant to that article, which has no content about demography. These sources certainly support the statement that Riddle is a highly acclaimed scholar. As I've said before, his views on demography are his most controversial (but controversial isn't the same as fringe). NightHeron ( talk) 09:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

So far as I am concerned (and this was my request!) the question is over the idea that there was a lost golden age of effective herbal birth control which modern women have somehow lost contact with. You appear to have added similar text implying there was, into multiple articles on Wikipedia is a way which savours of WP:REFSPAM. I have trimmed this back and included one centralized description of Riddle's view at Birth Control#Early history, with slightly expanded content at John M. Riddle. I have attempted to include mainstream views alongside Riddle's for context and invite noticeboard members to assess. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You are caricaturing Riddle's views in order to have him declared fringe. Lost golden age is your term, not Riddle's or mine. Please show us text that you removed that refers to a golden age, lost or otherwise. Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 13:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the age where we knew more about the science of fertility then we do today! The consensus is that the hypothesis in question is WP:FRINGE. I suggest we are done here. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Alexbrn: - It seems like your passion for the point you are making is carrying you away. I don't see a consensus here, and @NightHeron seems to be making a reasonable case. Before a perjorative label like "fringe" is slapped onto some body of work, would it not be a good idea to step back and see if there is overwhelming evidence, rather than indications thereof? Wikipedia has a lot of impact, and "beyond all reasonable doubt" seems like the bar to cross before impacting someone negatively. To me, it appears like User:NightHeron's explanation has produced reasonable doubt. A really paranoid android ( talk) 16:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well there's the reception in RS (I have read all the scholarly reviews I could find in the library). As to "impacting someone negatively" I'm not sure what that means: a WP:FRINGE theory is "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" -- the practical application of it being fringe is that it should not be aired on Wikipedia without the context of the mainstream view. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the John M. Riddle page, and given the brevity of the existing content, the opposing views seem to dominate. This seems more like someone being yelled down. I have no expertise whatsoever in the subject matter, so I say this with respect to both the opposing parties in this thread: (a) More energy has been spent on this thread than has been spent in improving the John M. Riddle page (b) If the subject's views are in the minority compared to others in his field, would that not be reflected in other pages in Wikipedia supporting more of the other viewpoint? Perhaps a link to pages that discuss the opposing points of view would suffice rather than keeping the current page the way it is? A really paranoid android ( talk) 17:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well that's not how encyclopedia articles work. What we need are reliable, independent sources on topics, and articles are based on those. Of course, more would be good because the article is short. The view we carry (with regard to the herb idea) should reflect the balance of opinion in RS. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Once again you're grossly distorting what Riddle wrote. What he wrote, as I quoted above, was that women generally knew more about herbal abortifacients in earlier times than in modern times. That's nothing like what you mis-paraphrase him as saying. NightHeron ( talk)

But it's the "overstatement, inaccuracies, and sweeping assumptions" of Riddle's view that takes it into fringe territory. [54] We go with the experts in making this assessment. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Is Riddle Eric Von Daneken's secret alter-ego? - Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• FYI since there appears to be some grossly idiotic applications of the BLP above: it has not, and never will be, a BLP violation to note fringe theories as such, and where the fringe theories make up the substantial body of someone's work, note it as such where reliable sources support this. This has been tested numerous times in many discussions over the years at the BLP noticeboard and various fringe scientists talk pages. Feel free to go check the archives. From the article and relevant material it's clear the above theory is well into fringe territory. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 17:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Note Doc James has moved the Riddle content at Birth control to History of birth control#Europe, as a "minor and controversial hypothesis". I think this is a good move. Alexbrn ( talk) 02:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The NEJM book review summaries it as "one must conclude that his thesis remains unproved and unlikely" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• This may only be tangentially related, but I fixed the dead link for the reference on Silphium, and it turns out to be a subsection of the "Devil's Dung" article talking about Riddle's views. -- tronvillain ( talk) 15:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Since Doc James moved the section, I have edited to fix references and copy edited, in part based on changes I also made to the biography of John M. Riddle. I hope these are all uncontroversial changes and improvements, but as there has been a discussion going here, I thought I should post and invite comment / review. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 00:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Nice. I think your inclusion of the critique of Riddle's claim that "these drugs were perfected over centuries" is at the heart of why this is a fringe theory. The idea that we have lost the knowledge of "perfect" herbal birth control is not something that should have been implied uncritically throughout several of our articles, as it was. Now fixed, I think. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, folks. Recently a request to merge list of cryptids into cryptozoology resulted in a unique and interesting situation relevant to both this board and the fringe theories notice board. You can read the decision in full here. In short: Items that cannot be referenced with citations that meet WP:FRIND must be removed, and if removal results in, say, several items on the list, then the list needs to merge into the list's parent article, cryptozoology. (This section is a partial repost of a connected thread I authored at Noticeboard#Sneaky_Dino_Redux:_Sourcing_Pseudoscience_at_list_of_cryptids)

Well, you'd think that'd settle it, right? Nope! If this result is simply unacceptable, what do you do? As a last ditch effort, it seems that you might simply resort to faking sources. How? By placing sources that simply mention an entity next to their name on the list and then edit-warring to ensure that they remain on the article. For a complete outline of this situation, see this thread.

Has anyone ever seen anyone attempt a tactic like this before? Admittedly, this is the most comedic tactic I've seen in these circles yet—and here I thought I had seen it all! :bloodofox: ( talk) 03:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Vaguely related articles as references for random claims? That is quite common both in Wikipedia and elsewhere. "These stones cure cancer, see this article that talks about the crystal structure of them". -- mfb ( talk) 04:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, definitely, I encounter it all the time myself, although until today never under these particular circumstances. Seems like Wikipedia essay material. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree that a source saying "crypto animal" is not useful as a source for the creature being seen as part of the lexicon of cryptozoological animals (for example). Post one source here that has been "faked", or withdraw what is a PA. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Currently the list of cryptids contains at least one plant. Therefore "crypto animal" != "cryptid" Simonm223 ( talk) 18:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, does that mean it is not a source for it not being cryptozoological animal? Really? You are right, not all Cryptids are animals, but are all "crypto animals" cryptids? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Currently the references include two sources that make no mention of the word "cryptid", and one that doesn't even mention cryptozoology! It's all discussed on the talk page link above, which you've read and are aware of. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Has anyone ever seen anyone attempt a tactic like this before?" Try hanging out in Bible-related articles. People habitually insert irrelevant sources and misrepresent their content in support of their own pet theories. A few months ago, someone included a source talking about the archaelogical discovery of a Book of Daniel fragmentary copy from the 1st century BC as definite proof that the entire Book is older than the 2nd century BC (against current consensus). Naturally the source made no such claims.

Others have tried using outdated sources from the 19th century and modern newspaper articles as definite proof that The Exodus was a historical fact, Moses and Solomon were real people, that Ctesias abd Xenophon confirm the Biblical narrative concerning the Achaemenid Empire, etc.

I don't mind cryptozoologists, I can tolerate astrology fans, and alternate medicine fans can at least be amusing. Fans of Biblical literalism and other religious nuts are the ones that annoy me the most. (I already had 12 years of mandatory lessons in theology in my school years, and attended Sunday school as a child. Result: I became convinced that theologians and priests teach nonsense. I have a bigger chance at believing in bigfoot than Christian eschatology.) Dimadick ( talk) 10:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

A very active pseudoscience proponent has restored Cryptid ( [55]) despite universal consensus in 2016 to merge the article into list of cryptids, itself now under close source security and on its way to a merge with cryptozoology. Currently he claims nothing from the article may be removed, or else the prior merge was invalid, and responds with edit-warring. Discussion ongoing here. I'd revert it, but I'm not going to get into an edit war, and frankly I don't have the time at the moment to take to respond with current swarm of cryptozoologists, Young Earth creationists, and global warming 'skeptics' at the articles. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The entire article was always ridiculous. The body is essentially nothing but a little etymology and a close paraphrase of Eberhart's criteria from the beginning of Mysterious Creatures, and the lede contains nothing that isn't already in the cryptozoology article. Wait, that isn't even a close paraphrase - it's copied word for word from the beginning of each entry. -- tronvillain ( talk) 23:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, stop with the lies foxy. You have no idea my belief system on pseudoscience and your edit wars are legendary. Your attempts to backdoor delete the page before was met with administrative hand-slapping. Now if there is a copyright violation, that certainly must be addressed. But that content was to be merged, not deleted. It can be merged into List of cryptids or even Cryptozoology for all I care. Or it can stay as a standalone article (depending on it copyright status of course). But your bullying and edit-warring gets older and older. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 00:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This mysterious "administrative-hand slapping" must have been done behind closed doors! But notable to these edits, this particular user has long been rather vocal about his support of cryptozoology over the years (might he know the cryptozoologist who sent me anonymous threats?) and the subculture's 'unfair treatment' and has also chimed in about his stance on "global warming alarmists" rather unprovoked a time or two; these aspects might just be relevant in explaining his editing patterns here could potentially explain his extreme aggression to sourcing these articles and questioning pet material. Sometimes a duck's a duck! :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

In 2016 a discussion at Talk:Cryptid#Discussion of possible merge to List of cryptids reached a consensus that the article Cryptid should be merged to List of Cryptids, and this was done. Then in May 2018 there was a RedfD over the target of the redirect. The consensus of that discussion was to keep the redirect pointing to its current target. User:Fyunck(click) yesterday restored the pre-2016 page with the edit summary of: "This was closed as keep or merge, not delete". I would love to see it explained how a vote specifically mandating that a redirect be kept as it was (as a redirect to List of Cryptids) can be used as justification to restore the full page. Agricolae ( talk) 04:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes the vote was to retain the redirect. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"Now if there is a copyright violation, that certainly must be addressed. But that content was to be merged, not deleted. "

Leaving aside Bloodofox's typical combative style, I am surprised by this line of thought. Fyunck, you are a veteran editor with over 10 years by experience. You should know by now that we can't copy a copyrighted work in its entirety. See this guideline: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e., [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Please see both WP:QUOTE for use and formatting issues in using quotations, and WP:MOSQUOTE for style guidelines related to quoting."

If you want to cite a specific source, please take the effort to summarize its arguments in your own words. Dimadick ( talk) 11:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a new editor over on electromagnetic hypersensitivity that felt compelled to identify themselves as an MD and really wants to soften the lede. Perhaps they're right that it's overly harsh, but to me it seemed a little wish-washy for the first paragraph of a fringe topic, and it could probably use a few more eyes to help sort things out. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

See my comment on that page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Please remember to notify any editors you mention here in the future (I have done so in this case). Tornado chaser ( talk) 18:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Please remember that it isn't necessary to notify people about discussion here, contrary to TC above. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Roxy the dog: What about that bright red bold text near the top of the page that says "If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so" ? Tornado chaser ( talk) 18:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I never saw it, as like many others I have a small shell script that removes the dross from the top of any wiki page I visit, so that I don't need to scroll to get to the discussion. It removes comments from named users as well, it's fantastic. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought that applied to mentioning an editor by name, but apparently it applies to anything that might be used to specifically identify an editor? Would it apply even if mentioning profringe editing on a page when there's only one editor involved? I feel like that note could be a little more specific on that. -- tronvillain ( talk) 13:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You said there was one specific new editor you were talking about, and you linked to a diff, so you directly identified the editor you were talking about, regardless of weather you typed his/her name. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

To be pedantic, the text says "mention", and is framed as a request "please ..." (compare WP:ANI's emphatic "must"). So no biggie. I find it's often helpful to put a short notice on the article's talk page alerting editors to any new thread at WP:FT/N - then everybody knows. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Irrespective of official rules tronvillain, it would have been simple courtesy to notify me. I don't mind that other read what I have written, and probably even like 'more eyes'. But you could have easily put something on the EHS talk page to state you intentions (e.g. "I'd like to ask the opinions of others on the FRINGE group, before softening tone because it might affect another page."). Without this, it gives bad appearance that this post could have been just an effort to intimidate me with a blast other people chiming in and weight the appearance of a consensus or majority view. Paul ( talk) 17:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Operação Prato (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Did You Know?...UFOs killed people by firing light beams at them? And the truth is not “publicly” available? Won’t be able to clean this up til after holidays, if anyone has time, be my guest. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems you have edited the article without reading the sources, and a priori decided Vallée's and Uyrangê's claims have to be deleted because the claims are "outrageous". This is just bad practice and discredits the neutrality of the edits. Claims are cited to Vallée's book on the subject, which is the main secondary source in English on this operation. He is reporting what the police reports, interviews with police, etc, told him - no more or less. The claims are what they are - what Vallée recorded was just what was told to him, by the local doctors and police. It wasn't a matter of opinion. Vallée was also personally invited to observe the military operation. Other claims are by members of the operation, including from the official report (which you can read and which did report "unusual sightings", and closed without public findings, not without unusual findings); and the final claims (which you have reverted to "conspiracy theories") are just statements of the commander of the operation himself. There's nothing related to conspiracy theories in the section, as it just reports what he said. His view is notable only because he was the commander of the Air Force investigation. Whether Vallée's views are plausible or not, he is the main English source, while Uyrangê was the main source for his own views, which are notable due to his being the commander of the mission. There's no reason for you to delete those views from the article. RobertGraves ( talk) 04:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

People being killed by magic missiles is WP:FRINGE, and "what Vallée recorded" is colored by his worldview, which contains elves and gnomes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Where is the evidence Vallée believes in elves and gnomes? I mean, do you have a citation of his belief in this? RobertGraves ( talk) 14:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me google that for you: [56]

One hit is this: [57].

If you are familiar with his work, you should know that he regards tales about elves and gnomes, as well as tales about aliens, as true accounts of encounters with paranormal entities. "His worldview contains elves and gnomes" is a fair rephrasing of that belief. As opposed to mythologists, folklore experts and so on, for whom those are just tales. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The source you cited doesn't say that he believes in the existence of elves or gnomes. This is not at all a fair characterization of his views either, and you would know that if you read his books. He believes these topics could still be mysterious and writes down what is reported, without speculation or any certainly at all in what they could be. He's also sceptical about the vast majority of cases - with this particular Brazilian investigations being one of the few exceptions, precisely because of what he was shown by the Brazilian Air Force. RobertGraves ( talk) 01:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If we are nitpicking now, I did not say he "believes in their existence" either. I said his worldview contains them. Replace "elves" by "hypothetical elves" if you want, I don't care. His opinions are still fringe, even if they are only on the outskirts of Crazy Town, instead of in the town center with Immanuel Velikovsky. Fringe authors often "ask only questions" and say "maybe" and "could", so he's right up there with Erich von Däniken, who uses the same rhetorical devices. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Please note the associated article, Jacques Vallée (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I reverted a set of edits to the lede made without references or discussion on talk. Looking at the article it seems to need some serious trimming, refs are definitely lacking. MrBill3 ( talk) 16:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A large part of the problem on the editing on this article is that the sources cited contradict what the sentences claimed. E.g. sentences are added that the operation "found no unusual phenomenon", while most of the sources cited at the end of that lede sentence imply the opposite, and none support the sentence. I'm not sure what the editing history was but there is no advantage to having the sentence contradict the cited sources, or editing this article (which appears to be happening here) without first reading those sources.

As for Vallée, you can consider him credible or outrageous and fringe. But that is what he reports, and he is notable enough to include, especially as he was part of the operation under discussion and invited by the Brazilian Air Force to help them. We are not making the claim ourselves about this topic, but just a claim about what the sources claim (or in this case, what Vallée claimed in his books, which are the most or only sources in English written on this). The text should qualify this as being Vallée's opinion. RobertGraves ( talk) 14:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"the military publicly reported they found no public phenomena, although the military had reported recording a number of UFO sightings". If there was no "public" record, what source are you citing for recorded military UFO sightings? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, after reading English translations of the first few sources, it seems the Brazilian military investigated rural UFO reports in the late 1970s and found nothing to support tales of aliens and flying saucers attacking villagers with light beams (i.e. "found no unusual phenomenon"). Years later, a local UFO club got hold of a few pages of the military report and made much ado in the press about some blurry photos of lights that are spectacularly inconclusive. Given the breathless WP:SENSATIONAL nature of Brazilian media stories, and WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims (government UFO coverup, etc) promoted by UFOlogists, the article should give little or no WP:WEIGHT to fringe assertions. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Where in the sources is the statement that they found no unusual phenomena. If you find the quotation in the source to support this, then add it in the footnote. Reading all the sources which are cited, none of the current ones state this in any way. WP:Fringe isn't a license to write sentences which are not supported, and contradicted, by the references cited at the end of the sentence. You need the sources to match the text, and at the moment they are in contradiction. See the Portuguese version of the article as well - we should probably ask those editors if they can help to edit the English version.

Can you understand the problem here is not whether this case is valid, or whether it is absurd. The problem is we are saying "it found no unusual phenomenon", when the Brazilian Air Force did not say this. Moreover, you are now removing what the leader of the Operation stated about the Operation, from the article. RobertGraves ( talk) 01:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Naw, we're removing poorly sourced WP:PROFRINGE claims. Please stop re-inserting them until such time as a consensus is reached on the appropriate article talk. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Over at the List of Cryptids, we have pseudoscience proponents (eg. @ Fyunck(click):) restoring large swathes of unreferenced content ( diff), although an RfC was clear that unreferenced items were to be removed from the list ("every listed item must be properly sourced"), and, of course, baseline Wikipedia guidelines that state that material challenged must only be returned with a reliable source (e.g. WP:PROVEIT). :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pseudoscience_Proponent_Restoring_Large_Amounts_of_Unsourced_Content_Over_RfC Ongoing discussion over at RSN. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would think that we would treat stuff like this the same as any other fictional characters. With the same level and quality of sourcing required. We don’t expect academic sources in a list of TV or comic book characters, so why do we expect academic sources for fictional creatures like Nessie? Blueboar ( talk) 20:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I would add the list makes it clear this is a fringe Pseudoscience, its not as if we are trying to claim these are real creatures. Slatersteven ( talk) 20:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

First, there's no cryptozoologist 'authority' in the subculture, they're all just declaring this and that "cryptids", and definitely not agreeing about what qualifies. One cryptozoologist's "cryptid" is another's alien or angel or whatever. There's zero organization. Now and then scholars study cryptozoologists, including what whatever group of cryptozoologists consider to be "cryptids".

Now that the attempt to keep cryptozoologist from being listed as a pseudoscience on the site has failed, there's an earnest push to skip around WP:RS and WP:FRINGE to get as many Young Earth creationist and anti-global warming "alarmist" sites as possible on the site by way of this list, in short. There isn't some kind of 'official cryptid canon', like you'd get from a television show or comic book series.

I'll also note that when reliable sources have been brought to the table, like Loxton and Prothero, they've been accidentally removed and simply not restored. WP:PROVEIT remains ignored and rejected by coordinating users. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Well you can always re-add them, and make that your only alteration to the article. Slatersteven ( talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, here we have 'We're coordinating our edits, so either this cryptozoologist's book appears on Wikipedia or we will continue to revert your edits and badger you with templates and notifications.' :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

How is me saying you can re-add them coordinating with anyone? Lay of the PA's this is getting tendentious. Slatersteven ( talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate your permission to restore one of the few sources on the article that meet WP:RS, you might consider restoring them yourself, so that you and Fyunck don't get your wires crossed on who to revert. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not have access to them, so cannot judge them. As su8ch it would be wrong to reinstate a source I have not verified. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I came across Coherent breathing today. Items such as "Thus the technique can be used to regulate mood" are cited to the Guidepost. It states in Wiki's voice "Coherent breathing promotes resonance". The whole thing appears to me as pseudoscience without any or many PubMed citations. Can someone with more experience in these areas please take a look at this article? Thank you, -- VViking _{Talk Edits} 14:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Reading that I'm wondering about the "bridges" the article mentions. They aren't mentioned in any of the independent sources cited in the article, and reading about them on the website for the people promoting coherent breathing tecniques it looks like a neologism. At any rate, I don't see the term "bridge" used the way this article uses it anywhere outside of this article and the website.

It looks like someone has already removed a lot of the content you object to above, but they left that bit about "bridges" and some other questionable things. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 21:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what "nominal" is supposed to imply in the intro. If I use this technique, will I actually be breathing at 5breaths/min? Or will I be breathing at some other rate that, for some obscure reason, will be described as 5 breaths/min?

It may just be an extra word added to make the sentence sound fancy, but I don't know, since I'm not sure what that sentence is trying to say.

ApLundell ( talk) 21:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Could someone who's an expert here take a look at the article? It's about a recently-deceased scientist who, among other things, worked on things that mixed Western and traditional Chinese medicine. It's been nominated for DYK and I just want to make sure that the article doesn't have any content that could fall afoul of WP:FRINGE. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 01:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm no medical researcher, but just want to note that Tu Youyou did similar research on traditional Chinese medicine at the same academy as Li Lianda, and won the Nobel Prize for her work. I have not attempted to describe Li's work in details, only broadly mentioning his research that won major awards. - Zanhe ( talk) 02:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that the Youyou prize was for real science that she did, not any TCM work. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

[58] [59] [60] - Guy Macon ( talk) 01:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm still topic banned from editing the Ark Encounter article by @ JzG: However, I see that there is some work left to be done on that page. Could I get a topic ban lift, JzG? jps ( talk) 17:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

On an entirely unrelated note, does anyone else mentally image a big talking ham? No? Just me then... Only in death does duty end ( talk) 21:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

My image had qualities like frothing and quaking and fists held with the thumbs somehow towards me ... why? - Roxy, in the middle. wooF 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I dream of the day that the Ark Encounter's losses are so large they stop interrupting my television programs with ads that encourage parents to miseducate their children. - Nunh-huh 21:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"does anyone else mentally image a big talking ham" Isn't there one already occupying the office of President of the United States? Dimadick ( talk) 23:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• If I may quote BSM Williams: oh dear, how sad, never mind. Guy ( Help!) 23:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Does this mean that the topic ban is lifted? jps ( talk) 12:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh, be a sport, watch this [61] and lift the topic ban. He isn't stupid, and surely ("Stop calling me Shirly!") realizes that a bunch of people reading this just watchlisted that page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I added the lower attendance in the last three months. That Ken Ham doesn't like the numbers is nothing new, I just kept that at the end of the paragraph. -- mfb ( talk) 20:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ham doesn't like the science education he received from a quality Australia university, but plenty of its other graduates do. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I will ask, is it usual in theme park/tourist attraction articles to include visitor numbers? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 21:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

If there's published numbers, it probably would make sense to list the attendance and indicate gain/loss from prior year, similar to company revenue. This one is tough because it's entirely possible for both sides to be correct. The numbers reported for the fees apparently only include daily paid admission which is not the same as total park admission. If we mention the attendance, we need to be pretty precise about where those numbers are coming from and what it means. POV by omission is still POV. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Normally it would be a marketing claim, though often taken as interesting and therefore included, but in this case it's notable information because Ham has been caught lying about it. Guy ( Help!) 14:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"I will ask, is it usual in theme park/tourist attraction articles to include visitor numbers"

It largely depends on the availability of information, self-reported from the companies which own them. The Disneyland Paris article reports an annual number of visitors at 14.8 million people, Tokyo Disneyland reported 16.6 million visitors, the Magic Kingdom reported 20.450 million visitors (the current world record-holder), Disneyland reported 18.3 million visitors, Hong Kong Disneyland reported between 8 and 9 million visitors, the Shanghai Disneyland Park reported 11 million visitors (which would mean it somehow doubled the number of visitors it received in its first year), and Parc Astérix reported about 2 million visitors. Note that the parks depend on fictional characters more marketable (and a bit more realistic) than Noah, such as Asterix and Mickey Mouse. Dimadick ( talk) 10:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Genesis flood narrative is not a myth?

Wikipedia has this strange predilection for calling Genesis myths "narratives". So. However, in our articles that link to the subject, I think it is poor form to do so in this kind of violation of WP:NEO. To that end, I've started a discussion about trying to fix this wording that was objected to by creationist watchdogs: Talk:Ark_Encounter#Genesis flood narrative is a neologism. Input would be appreciated (of whatever sort). jps ( talk) 20:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

In related news, we have Wikipedia users calling The Genesis Flood "authoritative". [62]. jps ( talk) 14:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

a narrative is an account of events, and can apply either to real or fictional ones. It's similar to the word story, which can mean either a short story or a newspaper story of the story of Jesus, as in the hymn I Love to Tell the Story. The Genesis account of creative is indeed a narrative, it describes a sequence of events, and the reader understands them according to their own mind. It's a neutral term, and I think used in Biblical criticism of all varieties, as well as many other fields. One can give a narrative of the events of WW II, or in an alternate history of WW II, or of the battles in Star Wars, or of the events in a dream. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The proper, academic term, for these narratives is myths. But the adherents believe that this term is demeaning. jps ( talk) 22:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is people of modern faiths are here too not just academics.... thus why we use the wrong terms in a few places.....that said the leads generally clear this up....so title is kind of a mute point. -- Moxy ( talk) 21:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a terrible justification for using wrong terms! I cannot believe that this is tolerated. jps ( talk) 15:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe you're this incensed over it. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 15:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

....must...resist...telling..."mute point" joke... (I suppose telling such a joke would be making a moot point.)   :)   -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but at the end of the day it is a realistic view. It is an uphill struggle to try and get (what are Myths) called Myths because for the opposeers it means that we are putting their deeply held beliefs in the same basket as the deeply held beliefs of a 1st C roman. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree that avoiding the term myth when it is the correct term for the sake of appeasing those who believe in a particular myth is not really in keeping with an encyclopedia or the policies and guidelines of WP. MrBill3 ( talk) 07:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Then try and change it. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

We have. It's just not possible with the intransigent believers (or those sympathetic to the believers' POV) arguing that by calling it the Genesis flood myth we would be scandalizing our Judeo-Christian readership. jps ( talk) 17:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

A new this really happened for reals guys UFO sighting stub. Challenge: most of the sources (excepting a few clearly non-reliable ones) are in Finnish. Anybody here actually read the language? Simonm223 ( talk) 21:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

1969 Finland was on pretty much any great-circle route one could draw between NATO bases in the UK, US and Norway, and the vast Soviet military facilities in Murmansk, Archangel and on the Baltic coast. It would be more surprising if there weren't regular sightings of unidentified flying objects back in the days before satellite photography was viable and both sides relied on spyplanes. ‑  Iridescent 21:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The Soviets also accidentally launched a cruise missile inside Finland in 1984: The New York Times. Anyway, the first two sources in that article are good: Yle (the Finnish "BBC") and Ruotuväki (official newspaper of the military) but the rest are complete carbage. -- Pudeo ( talk) 01:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Seeing something in the sky does not mean there are aliens. Legacypac ( talk) 18:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Vice regent ( talk · contribs), who has never edited the article before, wants to dramatically expand and change the pov of the lede of this article, removing all mention of pseudoscience, and making no changes to the article body.

Given the history of the article and fringe nature of the claims around the product, this is my first stop before even responding on the talk page. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have not looked at the page before, so I took a look and my reaction was ambivalent. The distinction that the editor is trying to draw, that there are no health benefits to the lamp usage, while leaving unstated that there are no health benefits to direct consumption either, is not the direction to take the article. That being said, some of the material (percent impurities) the editor wants to add might be appropriate in the body of the article if appropriately referenced, though much too detailed for the lede. On the other hand, I see why they might have found the lede not up to the task. It has a short sentence saying it is salt from Punjab, then a complex sentence three times as long explaining that the health claims made about it are groundless and that it is pseudoscience. That seems disproportionate - 25% bare-bones description, 75% hammering on the non-science of the claims. At a minimum, the lede should mention the distinctive pink color and that it is used both as a food additive and for decorative lamps. I would also suggest shifting the long sentence about no scientific evidence and pseudoscience to the body, and using a simpler, more elegant way to get the point across at the top that doesn't dwarf the rest of the lede. Agricolae ( talk) 02:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

i moved the 'pseudoscience' claim to the section about uses where the FDA complaint is discussed. intro reads more normally now & no information has been removed. LeviaThinMint ( talk) 08:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• I expanded the sources that were used to make the "pseudoscience" claim. The reader will want to know why the health claims are pseudoscience and surely scientists must have reasons for what they believe. So I expanded that out. Ronz removed the material sourced to those very sources. Secondly, I added the claim that "some find Himalayan salt lamps to be aesthetically pleasing." I don't see how that is a fringe claim. I've sourced high-quality sources like The Atlantic and CNN for the claim that such products are popular. That's not a scientific claim. Its not a medical claim. Its a claim about fashion and trends. VR _talk 02:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• The second issue is, as Agricolae pointed out, is the wholescale removal of basic information from the article. How is Himalayan salt used? Removing that information seems counter-productive. And on top of that Ronz says "this is my first stop before even responding on the talk page." Ronz's unwillingness to discuss the matter on the article's talk page is also counter-productive. VR _talk 03:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The article provides the false impression that the notability of Himalayan salt rests on its position in pseudoscience rather than cooking. Pseudo-scientific claims have been made about all kinds of things. We don't spend 75% of the article on the rhinoceros debunking the theory that their horns cure impotence or devote most of the article on vitamin C explaining that it prevents colds.

Also, while there is evidence that at one time salt lamps were promoted as having healing properties, those claims are not made today. And while there are sources that the salt was used in "traditional medicine," there are no sources that elaborate on how it was used.

TFD ( talk) 17:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that the focus is skewed in making it a pseudoscience article rather than a culinary and lifestyle article with hints of pseudoscience, I can't agree with this last - claims are still being made. There is even a growing trend of spa rooms that are entirely constructed from Himalayan salt, that one sits within to improve one's well being or whatever bloody nonsense - basically some sort of total-immersion salt lamp experience. The point is, while the pseudoscientific claims shouldn't be the focus, neither can they be consigned to the dunghill of history (as well as they can be discussed in a manner consistent with NFRINGE). Agricolae ( talk) 18:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

There's very little information about them in reliable sources and readers are more likely to visit grocery stores or dollar stores where the salt is sold than visit salt spas. Here is an article about the spas in organic spa magazine. Apparently the claim is that sitting in a salt room is beneficial. Science-Based Medicine, which is a reliable source, has an article, "Halotherapy – The Latest Spa Pseudoscience", about it. But the claim is about salt, not Himalayan salt, although some of these spas use Himalayan salt. So why not edit the article about salt so that 75% of it debunks this and other pseudo-scientific claims about salt? See also Breath Salt Rooms, a spa in Manhattan. While its salt room is made from Himalayan rock salt bricks, it does not say that it is better than any other type of salt and it does not say what types of salt it uses for its salt beds or other halotherapies.

Anyway there is already an article about halotherapy and sceptic editors have for some reason not mentioned Himalayan salt there at all. But that's the place for it - fringe theories belong in articles about fringe theories.

TFD ( talk) 04:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed "How it Works": They inject "100% pharmaceutical grade sodium chloride (salt)" into the air. In other words, no Himalayan salt is used in the treatment. TFD ( talk) 05:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Would this be a fringe theory? The only possible third party source which was brought up at Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 4#Jeanne vs Yvonne. The rest of the discussion centers around this source: [63] which I pointed out has vetting issues with the author. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually Knowledgekid87 just proved they have not read the article sources or the discussion because their premise is totally false. Rather than fragmenting the conversation can I suggest we take this back the article talkpage? Legacypac ( talk) 18:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, the idea that this is FRINGE is ridiculous. This is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to explain the phenomenon of someone (apparently) living to 122+ years old -- five years longer than anyone else recorded -- to wit, that she's not actually the person she claimed to be, but that person's daughter. The article presents this for exactly what it is: a hypothesis, and gives appropriately little space to it for now, pending more commentary from other sources. E Eng 19:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that this story has to mature before getting a section. It's been published barely two months ago, way too little to determine what WP:WEIGHT it deserves or whether it's FRINGE or not. A whole section is too much. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It's quite clear what weight it deserves now i.e. very little. It's three sentences. You want the (sub)section heading removed? E Eng 20:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Probably just one sentence~, although I qualify my statement insofar as I am more familiar with biology than with impersonation techniques and their detection. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The "verification" of the longest lived person based largely on census data is pretty suspect. The idea that the daughter took over the mother's identity to save significant taxes is a much more plausible and reasonable explanation. In science the most likely explanation for an unbelievable discovery is more likely the true. Legacypac ( talk) 10:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

That is your opinion on the idea, the fact is that this is a controversy. I am in agreement with the one sentence inclusion unless you can show how it is mainstream and deserves its own section. This would be the case for any given article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Also you are forum shopping - the article talk page has consensus for the current content. Legacypac ( talk) 20:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying we shouldn't include the current content, I am saying it should be in a different form. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The hypothesis that she was 99 rather than 122 at death is hardly absurd or in contradiction of mainstream biology and there are several sources. It's not fringe. Jonathunder ( talk) 17:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

This may be of note to members [ [64]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This RfC [65] may be of interest. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I just reverted a very dubious and unsourced edit at Cueva de los Tayos. I don't know what Gates is claiming, but I'd be very careful about using him for Cueva de los Tayos and his article and the program's article need a bit of scrubbing. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Idk who Josh Gates is but from his article it seems that his documentary is (rather) fringe. From a quick look, articles such as Eiffel tower and Nile do not elaborate on documentaries or movies about them. Maybe the Cueva de los Tayos article should not have the 2018 Gates expedition section at all. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not really an expedition per se, more like a shoot for his television program. I think it would be okay with rewording. The cave article is rather short, whereas the Eiffel Tower has its own list of mentions article, i.e. Eiffel Tower in popular culture. -- Auric talk 03:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. A popular culture section might be a good idea. I've reworded the section heading. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

See Category talk:Pseudohistorians. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 3#European race

-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, I clicked on a link and this popped up. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Text/sources being removed re: "Scientists have unsuccessfully attempted to reconcile the flood narrative with physical findings in geology and palaeontology." Eyes needed on edit war. Softlavender ( talk) 06:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Citations being removed again. Softlavender ( talk) 09:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this one, I have no idea why it wasn't already on my list. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In spite of posting about this subject every few months or so, again today I reverted more of the same apologetics that keep getting shoehorned into the AAH article (as well as a weird replacement of a scientist with a filmmaker).

It would be good to get some more people to monitor this page.

jps ( talk) 23:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention this revert done. This is like a months-long slow-motion edit conflict with @ Mvaneech:. I thought we had resolved this last year, but apparently not. jps ( talk) 23:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mvaneech. jps ( talk) 23:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I've got it on my watch list now. Thanks for keeping an eye on this one. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I am now watching it as well. In the spirit of "I scratch your back you scratch mine", anyone reading this is invited to weigh in on the discussions happening on my talk page. Besides, whoever dies with the most talk page watchers wins. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Still having a lot of trouble with practicing acupuncturists who refuse to admit that they have a COI whitewashing the article. The whitewashing ranges from heavy-handed to subtle. Dealing with this is like *cough* being poked with tiny needles... :( More eyes needed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that a majority of editors at the RfC do not think that practicing acupuncturists necessarily have a COI when editing acupuncture, I suggest focusing on undoing any POV-pushes rather than accusing people of COIs. Tornado chaser ( talk) 04:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Given the policy concerns, which appear completely ignored by those voting for "no coi", I think it's good to remember consensus is not a vote.

Seek bans and blocks from ArbEnf if no one will do so because of the COI problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this edit justified? Does anybody know more about this? He seems to be at least a conspiracy theorist, but I could not find any good sources quickly. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't on my watchlist, but spookily, I've seen that before. Experts in one field making huge and unevidenced claims in another are difficult, but this one seems clear enough. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the cited source, and it certainly doesn't call him an AIDS denialist - it's saying that would be a naïve interpretation of his views, and that really he was arguing that the search for a cure to AIDS had been politicised. I don't know anything more than that, but from the source alone it would appear that the edit is justified. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit is a bit of a whitewash. The cited source may not call him an AIDS denialist, but he certainly was one. It's just a matter of finding sources. For example, in "Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy" by Seth C. Kalichman, Appendix B, p. 182, we read, "The late Serge Lang is a well-known and well-respected mathematician. He was on the faculty of Yale University and became a vocal activist for academic freedom. He also spent time at UC Berkeley and came to know Duesberg. Lang decended into HIV/AIDS denialism and protested what he saw as the unjust treatment of Duesberg. He conducted a flawed analysis of Duesberg's grant failings and called into question the entire NIH review process. He also caused a bit of commotion on the Yale campus when AIDS speakers visited. He protested the appointment of former Global AIDS Program Director at the World Health Organization Michael Merson as Yale's Dean of Public Health and launched a series of letter writing campaigns to Yale administrators about the role the university was playing [in] the global AIDS conspiracy." In Serge Lang's obituary published in the San Diego Union Tribune on 6 October 2005, [66], and in the New York Times obituary of 25 September 2005 identical passages note that "Controversially, beginning in the mid-1990s, Dr. Lang sided with skeptics who doubted that AIDS was caused by human immunodeficiency virus, arguing that the scientific evidence connecting them was weak and faulty. He criticized the denial of research money to Peter Duesberg, a skeptic on the HIV-AIDS link. He was never convinced otherwise. A week before his death, he mailed his latest file, a dozen pages of letters and e-mail messages about two papers he had written about the AIDS debate that had been rejected by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ." Our article goes on to say Lang (in 2006!) "maintained that the prevailing scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS has not been backed up by reliable scientific research" - a position which is pretty much the definition of AIDS denialism. - Nunh-huh 09:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Christians are persecuted in Denmark. This fringe opinion has been placed in the article "Persecution of Christians"( permalink). Attribution is given, but again the problems exist: A)too fringe opinion to be inserted, even with attribution B)Denmark, a safe heaven for religious freedom, is portrayed as a country where Muslims are oppressing Christian, which is a ridiculous pov. I did google-searched the term "persecution in Denmark" and the results are mostly related with (real) Jewish persecution during WWII. Cinadon36 ( talk) 17:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm on it, but the Europe-focused islamophobes are a particularly frustrating subset of Wikipedia to deal with so I make no promises. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You're "on it", meaning what, edit-warring like mad section blanking using this [67] as an argument? Khirurg ( talk) 17:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Regenery is a fringe source. And Dr. K is over the 3RR brightline so just whom are you calling an edit warrior? Simonm223 ( talk) 17:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Is Deutsche Welle a fringe source too? Also, no one broke 3RR, so slow down. You're not helping yourself by making wild accusations. Khirurg ( talk) 17:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Khirurg so, Regenery is fringe after all? Cinadon36 ( talk) 17:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Did I say that? Also, it's "Regnery", not "Regenery". Khirurg ( talk) 17:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Obviously some wild POV-pushing was going on there, with primary sources given undue weight to promote an agenda. Our articles need to be based on secondary sources, WP:REDFLAG is flying here, and remember WP:VNOTSUFF. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It’s also outside the defined scope of the article, and should be removed, along with other contemporary content. Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Khirurg the two of you are tag-teaming and are over 3RR taken together. Furthermore 3 reverts is not mandatory to show edit warring. This is especially the case when you show battleground behaviour like slapping the edit warring notice on another editor's page after they perform a single revert. So I'd suggest you consider self-reverting the WP:PROFRINGE content out and then we can put this mess to bed. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And I suggest you drop the wild unfounded accusations before you get WP:BOOMERANGed. Khirurg ( talk) 18:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You've already asked for that at the WP:AN/3RR thread. I'd suggest you won't get it. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you familiar with unclean hands? Khirurg ( talk) 18:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. I'll reiterate my core point: the additions about modern Denmark are WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims which you are supporting with a WP:FRINGE source and an opinion piece from a conservative think-tank. My section blanking was not, as you described it, disruptive but rather to bring the article in line with WP:PROFRINGE and your subsequent WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct has been galling. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The only thing that's "galling" are your wild unfounded accusations, and shrill uncompromising tone. Not to mention the hypocrisy of accusing other editors of tag-teaming, when one could easily accuse you and another editor of the same thing. Khirurg ( talk) 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel the scope of this article should be defined as persecutions that have some level of official backing. What is described in those sources relating to Denmark is more properly considered violence against Christians by individuals. Writers labeling that sort of thing "persecution" are being tendentious imo. Denmark is an officially Christian country with a state church, saying persecution of Christians happens there is misleading. Smeat75 ( talk) 19:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a valid point. But then that does not only apply to Denmark, loom at Persecution of Christians in the modern era. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

OK< do any RS say support the removed text? Slatersteven ( talk) 19:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm concerned; they're using a book about imigration from Regnery press, which is a fringe right-wing political press that mostly publishes the likes of Dinesh D'Sousa, and an opinion piece from a conservative American think tank that is operated by the Rand corporation. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Then this may need taking to RSN, I am not sure that political bias disqualifies a source. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Except that's clearly not the case, as anyone who has ever tried to insert something from AK Press into an article can attest. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This is definitely fringe stuff—appears to be the usual Fox News talking points dressed up as fact when discussing Scandinavia. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, on closer inspection, this whole article appears to need a serious audit. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there an article on persecution by Christians? That would be very long... Guy ( Help!) 19:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I keep asking the same thing about whether there's an article on mass killings in capitalist countries but for some reason people seem to think Anti-communist mass killings is the same thing. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A deletion review has been opened for Dingonek. Interested editors may join the discussion here. – dlthewave ☎ 23:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

So was the opinion of the closer that local consensus (or in this case, lack of, if you're just counting heads) can override a guideline like WP:FRINGE? WP:LOCALCONSENSUS seems like it would apply there. -- tronvillain ( talk) 23:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't mentioned in the closing statement, but when I brought it up on their talk page they said that "a guideline doesn't override consensus" and "I think the way to progress this issue as it keeps coming up at AfD may be to try to get agreement on notability guidelines for these sort of subjects." This struck me as odd, since the existing W:FRINGE guideline represents agreement that has already been gotten. – dlthewave ☎ 00:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Egypt SHOCK: Top secret KGB files reveal truth inside Great Pyramid. To be fair, it is in their "Weird" section. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

But how did they know to build it so close to the ring road? Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This brings up two issues.

1. We should be careful about content that can be sourced to a single, or small number of sources. Just because something gets published, doesn't necessarily mean it should be in a Wikipedia article.
2. I do not consider the Express to be a reliable source, generally speaking. It's about as bad as the Daily Mail and the Register.

A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The Express has a long history of publishing bollocks about supposed aliens. They are the Giorgio Tsoukalos of British newspapers. Guy ( Help!) 16:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to work on this a lot now, but this article needs better references. Tornado chaser ( talk) 14:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Related: Miracle Mineral Supplement -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I cannot believe that people can be persuaded to stuff bleach up their arses. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Just wait until you discover butt chugging. ‑  Iridescent 15:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hip kiddies do Alcohol inhalation. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Stupid is as stupid does. Blueboar ( talk) 16:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Alcohol is just Liquid Stupid anyway, so it all comes together. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Mainly they stuff it up the arses of their children. Lovely people. Guy ( Help!) 16:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I am uncertain if this is the correct forum, but the fringey Mutual UFO Network could use an eye or two. A new, SPA editor (plus an IP, likely the same person based upon the similarity of added content) has of late been making promotional additions to the page. For whatever it is worth, and as as I mentioned on the editor's Talk page, the editor's username suggests a COI with the organization. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 21:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

An article on wellness in today's London Times [68] is provoking heated debate on whether it's a parody or not. Whatever, it does air some fringey article topics which might be usefully checked out here for compliance with WP:FRINGE. I have for example just found we have an article on the Pomodoro technique and learned about the "secret UFO base" under Es Vedrà. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

There have been some disputes recently about whether articles on fringe authors should include a "bibliography" of their fringe works. This is happening again at

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

And note also that the addition was by an account named JohnLauritsen so there may be a COI aspect here too. In general the approach we seem to take is to list fringe books only when there is coverage of them in secondary sources (roughly what happens at, e.g., Deepak Chopra). Maybe it would be good to codify this somewhere. Meanwhile, eyes are needed at John Lauritsen where a "bibliography" of AIDS denialism is now being edit-warred in. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this biography even warranted? It seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG-level works are lacking. Mere mention that the person exists is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and we have only one of his books with an article currently. jps ( talk) 03:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The unexamined assumption in Alexbrn's comment is that Lauritsen's books are all "fringe". I see no evidence of that. Lauritsen's books cover a range of different subjects and they are not all about AIDS. Lauritsen has received coverage for his work on multiple subjects and it seems obvious to me that we should have an article about him. This noticeboard is not really the place for that discussion, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"I see no evidence of that" ← So, poppers cause AIDS and Frankenstein wasn't written by Mary Shelley. Right. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You removed the list of all of Lauritsen's books based on the unsupported assertion that they are all "fringe" in some manner. You have at no time presented evidence that each of those fifteen books is "fringe". You are the one making the claim so you need to support it with evidence. Prattle such as your comment above doesn't qualify. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The section title is "Bibliographies of fringe writers". Which Lauritsen is. AIDS denialism isn't "prattle"; it's quite serious. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, would you please present evidence that each one of Lauritsen's fifteen books is fringe? Your comment above is not evidence. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No, because that is not what I am asking about. Read the section title. I might as well ask you to provide evidence that each and every work is respectable. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The only thing your comments indicate is that you do not, in fact, have evidence that Lauritsen's books are all fringe. That being the case, you have no justification for removing mention of them. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah I remember him. Frankenstein not written by Mary Shelley dude. I swear, if this turns into another Shakespeare Authorship Question-like battleground, I am going to set fire to my PC. But to address the point, if an author has multiple books that have been reviewed/commented on by others, regardless of the content, then like any other author they belong in a bibliography. If they have one or two books which have got attention, and the rest are self-published-disppeared-into-black-hole-without-notice. Then it very likely doesnt. AFAIK Lauritsen could go either way. He really is only noted for his AIDS-not caused by HIV theory, and the Frankenstein nonsense. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 03:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The "bibliography" (actually a list of titles) that has been added is largely of self-published stuff (the Pagan Press is Lauritsen's outfit). Alexbrn ( talk) 04:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, I ask, are we sure he is widely known in WP:RS? I am trying to find mention of him as a person and am coming up short. Just because Camile Paglia favorably reviews a book of yours (rather off-handedly) does not mean you deserve a Wikipedia article. What prominent third-party works attest to his notability? jps ( talk) 04:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In this particular case the problem is there is probably something notable in this fringe morass. We've ended up with this article on the guy, rather than have an article on the fringe book(s). See here. Maybe this was a mistake? Alexbrn ( talk) 04:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Unless notability is clearly established the article does not belong on Wikipedia. I could be missing something but so far nothing notable. Littleolive oil ( talk) 04:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Well its two morass's. The HIV/AIDS rubbish and the Frankenstein one (which does have the benefit of having some evidence behind it, if not particularly compelling). There is an article on The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein which is about as good as its going to get. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 04:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I tried an EBSCO search for "John Lauritsen". It produced some 36 search results, which proved to include 21 unique articles. While that is comparatively modest, it certainly shows that Lauritsen's work has received notice. Again, to be clear about it, the articles are not only about AIDS; they concern a range of different things, and they discuss Lauritsen's work over decades. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 04:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:LOTSOFGHITS is unlikely to be persuasive at any AfD. Has the guy himself (not one or other of his books) got any in-depth coverage in RS? A initial search is drawing a blank for me ...will keep looking ... Alexbrn ( talk) 05:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A disingenuous response. I didn't argue for keeping the article based on the number of hits. Rather, the articles in question suggest that Lauritsen is notable and "has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time", per WP:NOTE. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 05:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

And the RS for this "significant attention" given to the guy (as a person) is ... ? A search result is not an argument for notability. Still looking. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that there was a single source showing that he has received "significant attention"; I suggested that the 21 articles I found on EBSCO taken together show that. Lauritsen is mainly notable as an author so the existence of multiple reviews of his books certainly suggests his notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 05:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

To write a biography we need sources which discuss the person, not just citing things the person authored. Are there any sources that attest to, for example, where this person was born, where this person was educated, what major influences in this person's life were? I think I might be able to dig up 21 articles that cite my publications. I am definitely not notable according to Wikipedia's standards. jps ( talk) 15:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

After my recent digital book tour I probably have 21 articles about my book. I am also not Wikipedia notable (I sincerely hope). Simonm223 ( talk) 16:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

... I don't understand. If someone is notable enough for an article, why wouldn't you want a bibliography? Even if the person's entire notability stems from writing books for crazy people, why wouldn't you list the crazy-people books that made that crazy author notable? ApLundell ( talk) 06:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Because we are supposed to be a respectable encyclopedia reflecting accepted knowledge. If some crank has self-published a load of books in a way which no serious source would grant bibliographic treatment, then why should we? Even for "proper" scientists who typically publish scores or hundreds of publications, we do not give bibliographies. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If a person's books are what make them notable, it's normal for their article to have a bibliography. Or at least an abridged one if they're especially prolific. It is not normal to require the books to pass some kind of judgement of quality by wikipedia editors.

(If this person's notability does not stem from the books he's authored, what does it stem from?) ApLundell ( talk) 06:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

For HIV/AIDS, the notoriety of his views as expressed in his books and through other channels. In general what's been done in some similar cases is to (yes) abridge the bibliography to include only works which have garnered some decent secondary coverage. We know what to do with "proper" writers, but for fringe proponents there is no guidance ... hence this section. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that his notoriety arises from his role as a gay activist in the 1970s. And the books by and large spring from that. He's not famous as a writer, he was a writer because of his politics, and wrote because of his activism. Like all politically active people, he had some good ideas (needle exchanges), and some bad or ridiculous ideas (AIDS doesn't exist). I don't think the article as it stands makes his activism very clear and it probably should pay more attention to his politics. I would think a list of works would be informative rather than in any way promotional. - Outerlimits ( talk) 06:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Since it appears the list was added by Lauritsen himself, I suspect there is a promotional aspect. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It was a perfectly reasonable addition and it's irrelevant who made it. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 08:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

What we need is some way to decide what books are notable enough to list, some authors write many books, and we don't list them all, only the ones that are notable (we should use RS to establish the notability of the books, not OR). We also must not engage in OR and POV by selectively including books based on a judgement of the particular books. Tornado chaser ( talk) 14:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I'm looking for - perhaps to be enshrined in WP:FRINGE; bibliographies in these cases should be selective according to some criteria (covered in RS e.g.). Alexbrn ( talk) 14:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Whats FRINGE got to do with it? mainstream writers also publish long lists of books that would be clumsy to list, can't we use the same notability criteria regardless of the book' content? Tornado chaser ( talk) 14:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

For a writer recognized as a proper writer (say J.D. Salinger) I think it would be perfectly proper to have a comprehensive bibliography, mirroring the approach RS would take, which could include even obscure works. The issue is more with figures who are (fringe) advocates first and who just happen to write books / produce videos etc. as a means of advocacy. So do we want a complete filmography for all David Icke's videos for example? At the moment I don't there think there is any guidance on how to treat these kinds of situation. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

...mirroring the approach RS would take... so couldn't we just base the notability of the books on RS? Having different criteria depending on the content of the books seems inconsistent with NPOV. Tornado chaser ( talk) 14:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds sensible, but the problem we have (coming back to the start of this thread) is the dumping of complete bibliographies into the articles of fringe figures on the argument that they're a "writer" so deserve to have a full bibliography. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Well can't we just remove any books that are not discussed in RS? regardless of how fringe the writer is? Tornado chaser ( talk) 14:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes... nothing says we must list every book an author has ever written. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate facts. The issue here is relevance. For an author known for writing books on fringe topics, we can (and should) focus on those books that are relevant to what he/she is known for.. (ie the books about fringe topics). If a book has never been discussed by reliable sources (even to debunk it), we don’t have to mention it. Blueboar ( talk) 15:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable step, Tornado chaser. If a book/article/whatever is not a RS because it is self-published, away it goes. Regarding Alexbrn's larger issue, removing all SPS will eliminate the "full bibliography" concern, and I suspect that would apply to a great many other fringey "writers" as well. I recognize it would/will take a fair amount of mundane editing work to parse such lists...but that's why we get paid the big money, right? JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I just removed the SP items from the bibliography, with the result being a list of one. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@ JoJo Anthrax: I think you misinterpreted what I was saying, I meant we only include books that RS talk about regardless of whether the books themselves are RS. Tornado chaser ( talk) 17:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Self-reverted. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Outerlimits: I think your argument is so far the most compelling. Do we have good sources which document this person's activism so we can focus the biography on that? jps ( talk) 15:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Lauritsen's life and career as an activist are discussed in "Gay Liberation in New York: Year One", published in Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide; Jul/Aug2009, Vol. 16 Issue 5, p27-29. Note that while the article is by Lauritsen himself, it is published in a gay journal independent of him. The article is available through EBSCO. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No, we aren't in the business of using articles written as self-promotion to source biographies. jps ( talk)

You have no evidence of any kind that the article was written as "self-promotion". It would obviously be wrong to base a biographical article on sources written solely by its subject; there is no reason why we cannot use such sources in addition to others. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 20:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure AfD readers will see through your ruse. As to why you are working so desperately to promote this person, I can only guess. Perhaps you've got some vested interest? jps ( talk) 23:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope. You might want to consider that false accusations of COI can be considered harassment. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Though that doesn't seem to have actually been an accusation of COI, that kind of speculative question doesn't help anything. -- tronvillain ( talk) 23:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It would help if people could explain their motivations for content curation. In this situation, it seems that FKC seems particularly attached to sources written by Lauritsen. jps ( talk) 13:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

While I don't have to explain my motivations for doing anything whatever, I will in this case: my motives are to improve the encyclopedia. In general, people's motives for making edits are irrelevant; what matters for those of us concerned with improving the encyclopedia is whether the edits are any good or not. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 20:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

FKC is 110% right. Tornado chaser ( talk) 20:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Leaving aside histrionics and impossible standards of rightness for the time being, the problem as I see it is that FKC is arguing for inclusion of content on the basis of a lot of sources which make mere mention a person rather than being about the person. The absolute best reference that was offered here was to a two-page autobiography. The current article is written as a review of his writing, not about his person. I think the issue lies with whether the encyclopedia is better off with an article that is sourced only to reviews. jps ( talk) 00:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

In addition, one can note articles about Lauritsen's activism related to AIDS in Body Politic and the New York Native. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 20:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Not very extensive ones. I'll wait to see if Outerlimits responds with some new sources, but this response makes me think it is unlikely that this article would survive an AfD. jps ( talk) 20:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Lauritsen article

This should have been deleted in August 2010 under WP:CSD#G5. It was created 17:07, August 3, 2010 by Freakshownerd ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sockpuppet of ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), while ChildofMidnight was banned by ArbCom and blocked. Several articles and redirects were created by this ban-evading sock. So, that's a reminder to us all: check for page creations when block-evading socks are uncovered. Guy ( Help!) 10:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

If you think it should be deleted, send it to AFD Blueboar ( talk) 12:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I did it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lauritsen. jps ( talk) 13:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Not what I said. I said it should have been deleted then. Guy ( Help!) 15:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Mydavidpaine ( talk · contribs) is adding what is presumably their blog. [69] I'm off to dinner. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

His blog claims that Viking Altar Rock is part of the proof of Roman Catholics in pre-Columbian America. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

His blog also claims that Norse settlers walked from Greenland to North America, and that (Anglican) England was bound by the laws of the Pope. ‑  Iridescent 00:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi I am Myron ^[1] I have five blogs. The key link is LENAPE LAND. ^[2] LENAPE LAND is the first stanza on the Norse history (AD 800 - 1600) and links to other posts in the five blogs. The five blogs are: LENAPE LAND, The Catholics who spoke Norse called them selves, LENAPE, which means “abide with the pure.” LENAPE EPIC, which is a page of links to posts of information about North America before the Norse began to paddle their boats into the Mississippi River basln. LENAPE LEARNING (INDEX), which is a page of links to posts about events after the English invaded. PARADIGM SHIFT, which are posts that present evidence that the English suppressed the knowledge of Norse in America by omitted all evidence of the LENAPE. WYNLAND OF WEST, which are posts of the Norse settlement in Minnesota. Minnesota was settled by Norse because the land is the lowest elevation between the Christian Sea (a.k.a. Hudson Bay). Mydavidpaine ( talk) 19:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Mydavidpaine. Please post below the post you're replying to, and not together with the header, as that ruins the header code. I've moved your post and restored the header. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC).

What is going on here? I keep making edits that I believe are valid. Those edits appear on other devices. I am citing the evidence that the English Crown attempted to remove Norumbega from existence. ^[1] In the right hand column, you should be able to read that the “High and Mighty Prince Charles” did replace “Norumbega” with “New England” in 1616. So Norumbega is NOT a “legendary” settlement. It was a Norse settlement that had its name changed by the English in 1616.

The previous Wikipedia author did NOT reference evidence that Norumbega was “Legendary” or a “somewhat mythical name.” In fact the name Norumbrega is on the map in two places and as valid as any other name.

Another name on the map is “COR TEREALIS” which is authentic because Wikipedia has a reference to “Gaspar Corte-Real.” (Corte-Real and Columbus were Portuguese observers in boats rowed by Norwegians. The English in 1616, who were planning to conquer America, did not want anybody to know that Norse were in America. Thus they called the “Norumbega” map a map of a Mythical Island.”)

By continuing the MYTH, WIkipedia continues the suppression of factual history.

Wikipedia has a LONG TERM PROBLEM.

The 17th century English created a MYTH by suppressing all knowledge of Norse in America, like they did he 1616 map of John Smith. In the right hand column, you should be able to read that the “High and Mighty Prince Charles” did replace “Norumbega” with “New England” in 1616. The previous Wikipedia author did NOT reference evidence that Norumbega was “Legendary” or a “somewhat mythical name.” In fact the name Norumbrega is on the map in two places and as valid as any other name.

Another name on the map is “COR TEREALIS” which is authentic because Wikipedia has a reference to “Gaspar Corte-Real.” (Corte-Real and Columbus were Portuguese observers in boats rowed by Norwegians. The English in 1616, who were planning to conquer America, did not want anybody to know that Norse were in America. Thus they called the “Norumbega” map a map of a Mythical Island.”)

By continuing the MYTH, WIkipedia continues the suppressing of factual history. Wikipedia has a LONG TERM PROBLEM.

The 17th century English created a MYTH by suppressing all knowledge of Norse in America, like they did on the 1616 map of John Smith voyages. We, all, learned the English MYTH. Nearly every one in the world believes the MYTH. So, Wikipedia authors do NOT have to provide evidence of statements of “somewhat Mythical.” Those, who believe the MYTH, will defend the MYTH by taking actions such as re-editing Norumbega to the original text. Is that what is going on?

If so, please introduce me to the author who keeps suppressing history by omitting it. We need to settle this editing. Thanks.

Mydavidpaine ( talk) 22:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that you are linking your own blog and engaging in novel synthesis from published sources, which is forbidden. Guy ( Help!) 01:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Right. Wikipedia doesn't have "a long term problem". The problem is that you, Mydavidpaine, aren't familiar with the editorial policies aimed at ensuring Wikipedia has quality content. You have a conflict of interest and should not be linking to your own blog. See WP:ELNO and WP:COI. At most, you can suggest such links on the talk page. Unless you are a recognized expert in the field, we cannot use your blog as a source. We can use the secondary sources you cite, but not for the purpose of synthesizing conclusions that those sources don't make themselves. See WP:SYNTHESIS. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 01:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(I've started a new section on this because it's distinct from the above general question about bibiographies). Digging around a bit further it seems we have quite a bit of iffy Frankenstein authorship stuff. I've trimmed Shelley Unbound: Discovering Frankenstein's True Creator but this looks awfully fringey. Alexbrn ( talk) 04:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I noticed awhile back that there is a Frankenstein authorship question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is on Wikipedia. I don't believe it's a "question" that exists in academia. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

WP has articles on many things that don't exist in academia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I seem to recall hearing about this concept back in the 70's. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Knew it [ [70]] "novel actually had dual authorship in that "Shelley worked on Frankenstein at every stage", though oddly I thought it was Byron I had read about. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Misogynists be crazy I guess? I mean I only minored in English but I took every course that touched on the history of SF/F and had Frankenstein on my syllabus about five times back in University. The "question" of whether Shelley was the author was never raised. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a "question" in the same way there's an "Obama's nationality question" or a "Moon landing authenticity question".Sure, proponents exist - but this is classic WP:FRINGE stuff not really treated properly here. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but as I said this has been around awhile, and I cannot answer for why your course did not cover this. Its not as if its unknown [ [71]], [ [72]] Now I have not seen here what exactly the issue is, how are we not treating this as a fringe theory?. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

There's also The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein, and yes, this is clearly a fringe theory and that Frankenstein authorship question article has terrible parts. In Wikipedia's voice we have: "Authors have examined and investigated Percy Bysshe Shelley's scientific knowledge and experimentation, his two Gothic horror novels published in 1810 and 1811, his atheistic worldview, his antipathy to church and state, his 1818 Preface to Frankenstein, and his connection to the secret anti-Catholic organization, the Illuminati. These revelations showed that the novel was based on Shelley's life, background, his readings such as John Milton's Paradise Lost, Ruins of Empires (1791) by Constantin François de Chassebœuf, comte de Volney, which also informed "Ozymandias", also published in 1818, Sir Humphry Davy's Elements of Chemical Philosophy (1812), a textbook which Percy Bysshe Shelley owned,[9] and the works of Dr. Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin, whom Shelley had earlier cited as a major influence in Queen Mab (1813), his views on religion, his poetic style, and his themes and ideas." -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yikes - yes! The article is mostly original research based on primary sources, advancing a fringe POV. It's a monster. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

But who is the real monster here? The article, or the people who created it? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Proposal - Storm the Castle.

An Angry Mob is being organised, Admins have authorised a donation of six groats for weaponry, specifically flaming torches and pitchforks. Acupuncturists welcome (they have their own specialist weapons.) The Baron gets home from work at 7:30, could members of the mob please make their way to the castle by 7:45. Thanks. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Endorse per WP:TORCHES. Guy ( Help!) 01:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

More

Note on this topic we also have:

• Shelley Unbound: Discovering Frankenstein's True Creator (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A book which seems to have been received with snorting contempt by serious scholars - which fact is getting push-back from reverting editors here. More eyes might help. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Again. I'd take it to RfD if the article is under question as notable. I'd note the publisher and author seem reputable enough. If we took out every publication on WP that receives poor reviews we'd have a lot fewer articles. I don't think Fringe enters into this. What matters is notability. We write about much that is fringe to the mainstream. Fringe does not disqualify an article from WP; lack of notability does. Littleolive oil ( talk) 23:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Still wondering if it's notable, but we don't want a WP:PROFRINGE article that misrepresents scholarly sources, which are dismissive of this non-scholar's work. Alexbrn ( talk) 02:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

To clarify my point above: The neutrality of the content is a second step; first concern is whether the article is notable to begin with. Whether fringe or not does not decide notability. Scott D. de Hart: "Ph.D. (Philosophy, Theology, Law) Wycliffe Hall, the University of Oxford Collaborative Research Programme Coventry University, England. Professor of Philosophy, Theology, Humanities, English Literature Professional Experience: Lecturer, Credentialed teacher, Conference Speaker, Consultant for radio, television, newspaper contributor, and Contributor to professional Journals. Co-author and researcher with Dr. Joseph P. Farrell." Littleolive oil ( talk) 04:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Just having a Ph.D. doesn't make one a scholar - I was thinking of Duncan Wu's (who is a scholar) comment: "Lauritsen may be a failed scholar and de Hart no scholar at all, but ..." (see: Duncan Wu [2015]. 30 Great Myths about the Romantics. WIley-Blackwell. p. 216. ISBN 978-1118843260). Alexbrn ( talk) 04:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

All scholars are not created equal. The question is, is he scholar enough and given his education I'd say he is. Further, academics criticizing other academics is pretty common place. I don't place a whole lot of credence on such criticism. Looking for one academic to determine the worth of another is somewhat risky and not likely to give a clear picture of the situation and its not up to us as WP editors, seems to me, to look that way to determine quality of the scholar simply because most editors are not capable of making those kinds of distinctions. You may be, but most others are not and I'm not sure we can take the word of one editor in such a situation. I'll leave it at that with no further input here and leave this to you and others to decide. Littleolive oil ( talk) 05:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

In point of fact it is absolutely for us to consider these matters in assessing source reliability and whether something is fringe. We have multiple eminent scholars with solid publication records pooh-poohing the work of these guys. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking above about determining whether something is fringe or not, I was talking about determining whether someone is a scholar. I actually don't consider fringe a dirty word. Most information is fringe in its beginning and we can determine fringe based on sources as they appear in the mainstream. The simple fact that Mary Shelley is considered the author by most in relation to those who don't is enough to determine the alternate theory is fringe. In most cases we can determine fringe content just by determining what the mainstream is. Littleolive oil ( talk) 05:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

And part of that is looking at the proponents of the views to see whether this is a disagreement within academia, with respected views in opposition, or whether the counter view is coming from a true "fringe". If the "Frankenstein's a man's work" position was held by respected scholars then we'd not call it fringe, the fact that it's coming from advocates apparently with no esteem from within academia is useful for letting us know this stuff is indeed WP:FRINGE.

If one scholar held one position and twenty scholars held another we'd be hard pressed to not label the single scholar's position fringe to the mainstream. In fact, determinations of fringe and sources are more interwoven than what anyone is saying here so this discussion really has no solution as an end. The solution is in the actual determination within an article and its content. And I said I'd leave this alone and so I will...Ack. Littleolive oil ( talk) 05:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, now see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Unbound: Discovering Frankenstein's True Creator. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Texans for Vaccine Choice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A series of 21 edits to the article on a Texan antivax group which, for example, removed the sourced fact that it started off as a Facebook group (normal for antivax, so not sure why it would be controversial), removed the sourced fact that they are linked to increased levels of unvaccinated students, removed the PMID sourced fact that they engage in fake news and half truths (again, normal for antivax so not a surprise and not controversial), removed the sourced backing of an (unsuccessful) hard line antivax candidate for state senate and so on. Please watchlist this article, experience indicates that this will result in an extended argument. Guy ( Help!) 15:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I was just about to post here, asking for help with the ensuing dispute, but I see JzG beat mo to it. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I dispute parts of JzG's characterization of my edits but this is an issue for the article talk page, as I am trying to avoid starting 2 parallel discussions. Tornado chaser ( talk) 16:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It is what you do TC. They are not the only ones who see this, as you know. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Related: User talk:Tornado chaser#Open to criticism. Key quote: "there has been some speculation that rubella infection during pregnancy could cause autism, so I think it is conceivable that live rubella vaccine during pregnancy could cause autism in rare cases" [73] What the sources say: Vaccines are not associated with autism. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"In the USA, UK and Germany, hundreds of women have been followed through active surveillance since the 1970s. This includes 293 who were vaccinated with rubella-containing vaccine within 6 weeks of their last menstrual period. None of the babies had permanent abnormalities compatible with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) [1]. A small number of babies (around 16) had evidence that they had been exposed to the weakened vaccine virus (from blood tests) but there was no sign that the vaccine had affected the development of the infant."

"Very large measles-rubella vaccination campaigns, run between 2001 and 2008, have targeted women of child-bearing age in South America and Iran [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Comprehensive, prospective surveillance of pregnant women during these campaigns has provided further substantial evidence of the safety of measles and rubella containing vaccines in pregnancy. During these campaigns over 30,000 pregnant women inadvertently received MR vaccine. The vaccine had been given either during pregnancy (the majority were less than 12 weeks pregnant) or up to 30 days before these women had conceived."

"In the above studies about 3000 women were susceptible to rubella, meaning they were not already immune and so at potential risk of the virus passing to the baby. Extensive follow-up of the outcome of these pregnancies was very reassuring. Whilst a very small number of babies were shown to have been exposed to the weakened vaccine virus in the womb, no babies developed Congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). There was also no increase in the risk of miscarriage or stillbirth in pregnant women who were susceptible (non-immune) when they were vaccinated when compared to those protected by prior immunity."

[74]. Yet another antivax trope. I don't actually blame TC for this, I think he just gets his information from the wrong place and is learning slowly that bullshit is not tolerated on Wikipedia. I do blame him for digging in so very often (e.g. at talk:Rope worms). Guy ( Help!) 17:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Fact Check: Does This Photograph Show Two Boys — One Vaccinated, One Not — Who Were Exposed to Smallpox? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware that there had been studies of rubella vaccine during pregnancy, in that case let me rephrase my belief on vaccines and autism: There is no credible evidence that vaccines cause autism, and many arguments that they do have either been proven wrong or have no evidence to support them in the first place, autistic enterocolitis, thimerosal, antigenic overload ect have all been refuted. Tornado chaser ( talk) 17:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, the original issue was sourcing in JzG's edits, what I personally think about rubella vaccines is really irrelevant. Tornado chaser ( talk) 17:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, since you've accused JzG of making ad hominem attacks whenever he points out that your editing pattern shows that you are sympathetic to the anti-vax movement, I would say what you personally think about vaccines is very relevant. Bradv 🍁 17:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Well I think they don't cause autism and are safer than the diseases they prevent. JzG has been saying that what I say should just be discounted because of my past edits, that is a bogus argument. Tornado chaser ( talk) 17:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. I can solve this. Here is my official ruling as the King Of Wikipedia:^{[ Citation Need ed} As of midnight tonight (UTC) nobody is allowed to make any reference to any of tornado chaser's previous stated opinions or edits regarding vaccines. We will all WP:AGF and accept his claim that he now believes that vaccines don't cause autism and are safer than the diseases they prevent. For his part, tornado chaser is hereby directed to be very careful to avoid writing any words that even his worst enemy could construe as supporting antivax. This is my official ruling. Anyone who does not abide by it will Face My Terrible Wrath.

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You disobeyed the King Of Wikipedia's^{[ Citation Need ed} ruling. Prepare to be talked to death." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course, My Lord. - Loki, the dog. wooF 18:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to comment on the content of the article, I just posted explanations for my edits on the talk page. Tornado chaser ( talk) 19:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)