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

There's a content dispute on the Tucker Carlson page, see this [1]. The cited sources say it's false and it seems compliant with FRINGE to describe a clear falsehood as a falsehood. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's false. That editor is trying to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia. I have reverted them. Softlavender ( talk) 13:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I would use the word “incorrectly” rather than “falsely”... to me, the latter implies intentional deception. I don’t think that is the case. Blueboar ( talk) 13:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, given the evidence and statements by experts anyone who says face masks and social distancing "have no basis in science is being wilfully ignorant. To my mind that is pushing a falsehood. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, the question is not whether it's deliberate or accidental (it is definitely deliberate) but whether politically motivated bullshit should be described as a lie or as bullshit. In this case, Carlson knows that what he is saying is stated to be false by every qualified expert, and whether he believes it to be true or believes that it's more important to pander to a certain ego is largely irrelevant. So: falsehood. Guy ( help!) 19:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It is problematic to say "false". As Snoogans has been told before, "false" suggests a knowing intent to mislead. That is a POV issue even if the facts being presented are incorrect. Additionally the sources for the edit in question don't support the specific claim being added to wikipedia. [ [2]][ [3]]. Both sources are taking the comment about masks which was made in a specific context and pulling it out into a larger context that is not true to what was said in the original quote. The original quote (provided in both articles) is:

Many schools that do plan to reopen will do so under a series of restrictions that have no basis of any kind in science. It's kind of a bizarre health theater. Students will be kept six feet apart, everyone will have to wear a mask, class sizes will be limited...

The sentence added to the article implies this was a general statement about mask use in all cases. That isn't what the actual quote says. The quote isn't saying "the use of masks isn't based in science". The quote is saying the plans proposed by the schools which include X, Y and Z aren't based in science. That statement might still be wrong but it is definitely not the same as "the use of masks is not based in science". Springee ( talk) 13:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Carlson's comments are specifically about schools, which your added text is misleading about. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This concerns these edits: [4] [5]

One of the two citations is titled "Tucker Carlson wrongly claims coronavirus prevention measures aren't backed by science" and says "The comment, suggesting that social distancing and wearing face masks are not scientifically shown to reduce the spread of coronavirus, is wrong" and the other says "Fox News host Tucker Carlson has claimed, contrary to multiple scientific studies, that there is no scientific evidence to support wearing masks to slow the spread of the coronavirus" Should we have kept the "falsely"? It certainly is in the sources, and we have plenty of WP:MEDRS sources that say that the masks are effective. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We have to be careful about using article titles for any such claim. Neither article uses the word "false" the the body of the article. Both try to take what Carlson is saying out of context. These articles come off as the sort of political commentary/sniping articles we should avoid in general, especially when dealing with a RECENT, BLP article. None of this means the claims by Carlson are correct but, absent a study showing that these methods, as a package, are effective in this context Carlson would be technically correct even if I don't think he would be correct if such a study were conducted. Springee ( talk) 13:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that in schools masks may nullify social distancing or vice versa? O3000 ( talk) 14:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see the sources saying masks are effective among schoolchildren in reducing the spread of coronavirus. Where I live, children under 6 do not have to wear masks and pupils who have returned to schools are not required to wear them. Mr Ernie ( talk) 14:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Not all school children are under 6. Most staff are not either. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, None of the students are required to wear masks, including those in high school. The teachers are not either. Mr Ernie ( talk) 14:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Teachers are people too. O3000 ( talk) 13:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And there are not 100's of deaths a day, you do understand the difference between still ram[pant and under control? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@ Slatersteven: There most definitely are "100's of deaths a day", if it's only the US you're speaking about, where at least 700 people died just yesterday. GPinkerton ( talk) 18:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie lives in Germany, where the government has more than one brain cell among them, leading to an infection curve that looks like this at the moment. The risk of infection obviously depends on absolute number of infected people as well as how careful people are. Low number of infections leads to less careful behavior, which leads to more infections. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@ Hob Gadling: Thanks. GPinkerton ( talk) 01:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

He doubled down a few days later. It is clear he does not intend to comment specifically about schools. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to some of the suggestions above, the word false does not "imply intentional deception" or "suggest a knowing intent to mislead." False simply means "not according with truth or fact; incorrect." Other words convey intent, such as lie ("an intentionally false statement") or perjure ("willfully tell an untruth when giving evidence to a court"). This is pretty well established in the English language. If the reliable sources say that a statement is false (as they do here), we obviously have to reflect that in whatever text we have on the encyclopedia. WP:FRINGE comes into play. Neutrality ^talk 14:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, I may have missed it - which source said it was false? Mr Ernie ( talk) 14:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

See Guy Macon's two quoted excerpts above. Neutrality ^talk 14:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

[ [6]], definitions 3-5 all include an intent to mislead (or similar language). Thus this is a loaded term and should be avoided. Springee ( talk) 14:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I’m sorry, but that’s an adjective proceeding a noun, as in the case of “false friend”. This is basic English. “False” simply means something is untrue. Citing this seems like a case of searching for evidence to respond to an already pre-conceived and subjective notion which doesn’t hold water. A “false friend”, “false testimony” is not the same as saying a statement or idea is false. Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 15:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Neutrality; false does not imply a knowing deception. Journalists and professional fact-checkers frequently use the locution "falsely claimed" rather than "lied" for precisely this reason. It's about as tame and minimally loaded as we can get. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The dictionary disagrees with you. The definition clearly includes examples that include some intent to mislead. [ [7]], [ [8]] (intentionally untrue). Springee ( talk) 16:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"False" does not imply a knowing deception. "Lie" implies a knowing deception. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you think Merriam Webster is falsely saying false can mean: intentionally untrue, adjusted or made so as to deceive, intended or tending to mislead? Springee ( talk) 16:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It can mean that, but it can also mean "not genuine", "not true", "not essential or permanent" or "inaccurate in pitch". There is no necessary implication of knowing falsehood, which is why we get so many tame headlines about X falsely claiming Y. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it can mean that which is the problem. We already caution editors against the use of words like "claimed" since it can imply doubt on the part of the writer. Since the intent is ambiguous we have a problem. We should never put something in a Wikipedia article which would allow the reader to reasonably draw a false conclusion from the text. If we are talking about an expert witness in a court case would you read "his testimony was false" the same way as "his testimony was incorrect"? Springee ( talk) 17:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know much about the American language used for the compilation of the Merriam-Webster but in the OED the adjective "false" is defined as "I. 1.) Erroneous, wrong. a.) Of opinions, propositions, doctrines, representations: Contrary to what is true, erroneous. ... 2.) Not according to correct rule or principle; wrong. 3.) Of a balance, measure: Not truly adjusted, incorrect. Also, Of play: Unfair. Of dice: Loaded so as to fall unfairly. 4.) Of shame, pride: Arising from mistaken notions. ... II. Mendacious, deceitful, treacherous. a.) Of a statement: Purposely untrue; mendacious. Frequently in to bear (†speak) false witness: to testify falsely." Since the primary meaning of false implies only that what he said is false, this is the word that should be used. The fact that it also could be interpreted as "Mendacious, deceitful, treacherous", as secondary meaning, is to me absolutely acceptable and does not conflict with what the sources say. GPinkerton ( talk) 18:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

So the second definition of the OED supports the concern that the word implies purposely untrue rather/intent to deceive. In this particular case we are dealing with a BLP so why would we allow ambiguous language? You may read the sentence as "Carlson falsely (unintentionally provided incorrect information)..." but how can you reasonably claim a reader would be wrong to read it as "Carlson falsely (intent to mislead)..."? As a stand alone sentence can you tell us which definition of the word is correct? Springee ( talk) 18:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@ Springee: False is that which is the opposite of true, universally agreed. The primary meaning. We're not saying he "bore false witness that ..." GPinkerton ( talk) 01:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"False" encompasses both deception and non-deception. As we do not know whether Carlson is intentionally deceiving his viewers or inadvertently, it's the appropriate word. Furthermore, many fact-checkers use it as their go-to word for inaccurate statements. It's never framed as intentional deception, and no one interprets it as encompassing solely deception. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And the ambiguity regarding intent is the problem. It doesn't matter if fact checkers use the word. The fact is it can reasonably imply an effort to lie to the audience. We should never imply intent unless we have RSs that say as much. Springee ( talk) 21:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Implying intent is not the same as implying the possibility of intent, which is also not possible to deny. GPinkerton ( talk) 01:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

If we remove the ambiguity, if we state unambiguously that he did not intend to deceive, we are doing original research. Going beyond the sources and mind-reading Carlson is not allowed. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You are creating a strawman. No one is saying we should state that he didn't intend to deceive. Instead we should not state either way. The problem with the word "falsely" is it is strongly associated with intent to deceive hence "false testimony". In this case neither source actually said "false" rather they used appeals to authority to say Carlson's claims are incorrect. It would have been better had they asked the view of an expert in the field but they didn't. Regardless, it's SYNTH for us as editors to phrase things in a way that can reasonably be read as "Carlson knowingly lied to his audience and said...". Just as we don't have sourcing to say he honestly believes what he says we don't have sourcing to claim he knowingly lied. Additionally, claiming a BLP knowingly lied is a contentious claim that requires strong sourcing. Springee ( talk) 11:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

When you say the ambiguity regarding intent is the problem, I thought that implied that you want to say it unambiguously. My understanding was that we have this choice:

• "He said something false, and he may have done it intentionally or unintentionally." That is the ambiguity you want to remove, just in another wording. In my view, something like this is the only option.
• "He said something false, and he did it intentionally." Nobody wants that.
• "He said something false, and he did it unintentionally." That seemed to be what you were suggesting, since it removes the ambiguity.
• "He said something." That would add another ambiguity: what he said could have been correct. And it would violate WP:FRINGE.

So what do you want? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

RS says "MrC said X. Expert don't agree". From that RS we cannot know if MrC was ignorant of expert opinion, disagreed with expert opinion or knows the experts are correct and wants to mislead. All are possible based on the RS and the RS is neutral via no mention. What we put in the article needs to be equally neutral. If we say "MrC falsely said X" we aren't neutral nor true to the source since "falsely" can, by definition, mean to mislead. Thus we are hinting, dog whistling, etc that MrC was lying when the source did no such thing. That is the ambiguity we shouldn't have in the article. This is why we shouldn't use "falsely" unless it is widely used in RSs. Springee ( talk) 12:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Which RS say he did not say this? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking about my hypothetical example? Else your nesting makes it unclear which edit you are commenting on. Springee ( talk) 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Hill's "Changing America" is an "editorial channel" and (probably?) not usable for statements of fact in a BLP. fiveby( zero) 14:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• We don't get to decide that we disagree with a source and then delete sourced content. (From edit comment: "Removed as it distorts what a BLP subject actually said.") Imagine if we let the Scientologists do that. If you don't like what the sources we have now say, find better sources. In particular, look at the entry for Business Insider at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• ( edit conflict) Also, commenting on what Mr.Ernie said, generally, what guidelines a state or municipality sets have nothing to do with this. We don’t know whether they’re taking the advice of medical or scientific experts, or if they’re setting arbitrary guidelines for political expediency, gain, or based on uninformed opinion. I would guess that in the case of the former, they’re not, as this is pretty much universally agreed upon in terms of scientific expertise, both domestically and internationally. This is firmly in fringe territory. And in that case, call a spade a spade. Regardless, it has nothing to do with what the scientific and medical community says, or Carlson’s disputation of that consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 15:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this issue is worth getting all upset about. I think it important to WP:ASSERT that the quoted claim is incorrect, wrong, false, and mistaken. I don't much care which synonym is chosen, however. That seems to me to be an editorial decision that would be based on some nuanced readings that almost no reader is going to pick up on. jps ( talk) 16:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Did I give the impression I was upset? I’m honestly just a stickler for representing expert consensus when it comes to fringe views. Politics aside. I don’t agree that phrasing is a matter of minutiae when it comes to calling out such claims either, which is our community standard. I don’t know about your own experience, but not stating it that way tends to invite equivocating from new editors and occasionally veteran editors alike, from what I’ve seen. Which can be a time sink, because people have to iterate policy-based arguments, ideological editors want to create a wedge to possibly soften the wording, or people want to tilt at windmills and ‘educate’ editors who believe fringe views. Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 17:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the indentation messed up the situation. I meant to reply in general to the question as to whether the word choice regarding "false" was appropriate. As to your response to Mr.Ernie, that's absolutely dead on. jps ( talk) 20:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The edit omits two things in the sources: that Carlson earlier said face masks were effective and that his recent comments were in the context of schools reopening. So we have insufficient evidence to say that Carslon says facemasks and social distancing have no basis in science, even if that is a reasonable conclusion. In the future, Carlson could clarify his statement or become leader of the anti-masker movement. Or his comments could excite a major reaction that gets covered in mainstream sources. In the meantime, we are giving too much weight to his comments. Carlson has such a lengthy record that we don't have to distort what he said in order to make him look bad. Why not just stick with that? TFD ( talk) 17:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to wait to find out. As I linked upthread: "This is what happens when science intersects with politics. Both lose, and the country loses most of all. Keeping kids out of school, keeping the elderly inside, forcing everyone to wear a mask when there is no evidence that helps, all of these become statements of resistance and moral imperatives." - MrOllie ( talk) 19:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you're ignoring the more parsimonious explanation. Carlson is promoting whatever the Dear Leader wants to be reflected as truth, regardless of its actual factual status. Guy ( help!) 19:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Mark this day on your calendar. I fully agree with "The other Guy" on a matter related to politics. Imagine that you are a person who has been hired to go on TV and radio and promote pie. Every day you create content talking about how pies are nutritious, delicious, and All American, with a lot of criticism of cake. And you believe it; you were hired because of your love of pie, and now you are a millionaire because you say nice things about pie. Then one day disaster strikes. Something that does not reflect well on pie is in the news. The bosses at the network make it clear that you have to keep saying nice things about pie or they will fire you and get someone who can. So you label the bad news as fake news and start talking about the conspiracy to attack poor defenseless pie... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a nice story Guy. If only it had any resemblance to this actual situation we are talking about. Do you have any evidence to go with your claim that Carlson promotes views he is told to promote? Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you do realise that this is the charitable explanation, right? The alternative is that he really likes racism. Really likes it. Guy ( help!) 19:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Normally us mere editors have to provide sources for BLP violations like that. Mr Ernie ( talk) 20:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• National Institute for Health and Welfare (Finland) official recommendations in English: There is no evidence that the extensive use of masks by healthy people will help reduce infections. Finland currently has 0 people in intensive care due to COVID-19. -- Pudeo ( talk) 20:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pudeo, how deep did you have to dig to find that non sequitur? Wouldn't your time have been better spent learning "So Yo" on Just Dance? Drmies ( talk) 01:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• I think it should be noted that Snoogans falsely claimed the two articles in question say Carlson made a false claim. Neither use the word "false". Springee ( talk) 20:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• BI: [9] "Fox News host Tucker Carlson has claimed, contrary to multiple scientific studies, that there is no scientific evidence to support wearing masks to slow the spread of the coronavirus." In other words, the claim is false. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the issue. The problem isn't "was Carlson's statement correct". The problem is "false" can imply, per multiple dictionaries, at effort to mislead. Your BI quote doesn't say "false". Instead it says "contrary to multipl scientific studies". Yet when you added the sentence to the article you picked the word that clearly can indicate lying. That is a BLP issue. That the sources you used to add this to the article were an opinion article and a source of mixed reliability also raises questions of DUE but this isn't the NPOV noticeboard. Springee ( talk) 21:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it implies an effort to mislead; it merely says that it's false. But in any case removing only the "false" is plainly a WP:FRINGE / WP:MEDRS violation in that it puts us in the position of potentially spreading a patiently false statement by repeating it without correction. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Without delving into the politics of the issue, assertions that face masks and social distancing "have no basis in science" would be objectively and empirically false. However, if asserting that the claim was "falsely" made is contentious, perhaps a less contentious synonym could be applied, such as "spuriously". BD2412 T 21:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  BD2412, I'm not sure you've actually read the discussion or the sources. Carlson's claim about masks was specifically related to school children. If so, could you please point me to scientific sources saying that masks slow or prevent the spread amongst students? I have been looking very hard for such data. Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  I am speaking to the topic as framed in the header. If the subject made a statement directed at one group but ambiguously phrased so that it was susceptible to interpretation as applying to others, then the appropriate adjective might be "carelessly". BD2412 T 22:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Carlson's claim about masks was specifically related to school children This is untrue. The secondary sources we have indicate that he was making a general claim about the effectiveness of masks. If you have a WP:SECONDARY source interpreting it differently, go ahead and present it; but your own personal reading of Carlson's primary quotes has no weight in a discussion where the secondary sources plainly disagree. --23:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it's patiently false. And this falls under WP:MEDRS, so we have to follow WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing when discussing it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  I’ve been looking hard for this and can’t find it so far - could you please point me to scientific sources saying that masks slow or prevent the spread amongst students? That’s the crux of Carlson’s comments that everyone so casually labels as false. Currently most students in schools are not required to wear masks. Mr Ernie ( talk) 22:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ignoring for the moment the fact that students are in close contact with adult teachers and janitorial staff, and that many have at-risk grandparents at home, "CDC recommends all people 2 years of age and older wear a cloth face covering in public settings and when around people who don’t live in your household, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain." [10]. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Your idiosyncratic personal reading that Carlson was only talking about masks in schools, your gut feeling that this is a distinct topic and that masks work differently in this context, and your speculation that these things may change whether Carlson's comments are accurate or not are all completely irrelevant. On Wikipedia we have to go by what the sources say, and the source we're using here clearly indicates that Carlson was making an inaccurate claim. (The comment, suggesting that social distancing and wearing face masks are not scientifically shown to reduce the spread of coronavirus, is wrong.) If you want to argue that the source got this wrong or is paraphrasing Carlson inaccurately you should contact them requesting a retraction or correction or produce a second source directly disputing them; but until then, we have to go with the sources we have. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21299527/masks-coronavirus-covid-19-studies-research-evidence I think this will help. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 23:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• "For elementary schools specifically, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends children wear face masks, desks be placed 3 to 6 feet apart and that schools cohort classes. The organization recommended that middle and high schools enforce face coverings when 6-foot social distancing isn't possible, desks be placed 3 to 6 feet apart, and schools cohort classes, rotate teachers instead of students around classrooms, and utilize outdoor spaces when possible." [11] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson: Here is the video of the statements

For those questioning what precisely was said, here is the video of the statements: [12]. -- Softlavender ( talk) 01:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Softlavender, this is all quite humorous. Here's a whole bunch of Wikipedia editors, trying to redo science, scoping the mind of a TV talk show host to figure out whether his intent was evil or whether he simply spouting a falsehood, and one of em found out what the Finns had to say. And for what? For another NEWSy thing that shouldn't even be a footnote in a biography of a person who lost touch with reality a long time ago. Drmies ( talk) 01:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not humorous to me, living in a country where hundreds of thousands of people are getting sick (and many dying) because of exposure to people who have been brainwashed by medical disinformation promulgated by Carlson (and other Fox News commentators). That's an important distinction; it wasn't merely an off-hand comment, so I don't agree that NOTNEWS applies if major outlets report on it. Softlavender ( talk) 01:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Having news outlets mention something does not necessarily give that something DUE WEIGHT. We are talking about Carlson’s WP bio.. so the focus should be on reporting events that are important to CARLSON’S life and career.

I don’t think the statement in question rises to that level. Carlson is a pundit. Pundits contradict themselves and say stupid things, ALL THE TIME... for them to do so is expected and routine. Thus, a specific example of them contradicting themselves or saying something stupid is not really worth highlighting in a bio article - unless the statement in question impacts the pundit’s career. If Carlson says something that gets him fired, THAT would be significant enough to highlight on his bio article. But his remarks about reopening schools did not rise to that level. It was merely the “outrage of the day”. A flash in the pan that will be replaced by the NEXT outrageous thing he says. Blueboar ( talk) 14:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The article about Wayfair is predictably receiving edits from some folks who think there is any amount of credibility in a conspiracy theory that they are involved in trafficking children in cabinetry. Extra eyes would be helpful. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A hoax, but an especially good one. Hyperbolick ( talk) 04:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Animate and the Inanimate ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The author seems much more wiki-notable than this particular book, about which very little has been said; possibly a candidate for merging. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Good merge candidate. jps ( talk) 17:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Merge proposal made. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Support a merge here as well. Hyperbolick ( talk) 04:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
        • If anyone wants to go ahead and call this a snow close and implement the merge, that's probably warranted by now. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and implemented the merge to William James Sidis (and did a few copy edits along the way). XOR'easter ( talk) 23:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

A newly created editor is quibbling about whether the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons actually pushes "scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism." Is the editor right to remove the text? [13] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised to see Lou Dobbs mentioned in this connection? GPinkerton ( talk) 18:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

probably because anybody can start up a group with an official sounding name for use as a personal viewpoint vehicle. Hyperbolick ( talk) 02:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I am noticing a series of questions / requests for help with no replies. If each of us who asked for help also took a bit of time to give someone else some help, we would immediately achieve word peace,^{[ Citation Need ed} universal happiness,^{[ Citation Need ed} intelligent and honest politicians,^{[ Citation Need ed} and an end to robocalls.^{[ Citation Need ed} -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I just took my own advice and tried to help on each of the unanswered posts above. It took an hour. You can thank me by trying to help with my two requests. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

In some cases, people are helping out at the articles and talkpages without responding here. jps ( talk) 03:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, they are not necessarily calls for help. Sometimes, I am happy if the Eye of Sauron sweeps over the articles I link here now and then without actually doing anything. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What jps and Hob say. - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Today I happened to magnify my browser window and and discovered that all this time I had been reading your sig as "Roxy the effin dog". Ah well. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah. It actually was "effin" for a brief while, until EEng pointed out my spelling error. - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 07:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

For anybody still unaware, this is an RfC at

• Talk:Ayurveda#RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence

which may be of interest to watchers of this noticeboard. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Should this be combined with the Ayurveda discussion up the page? Subsection? Hyperbolick ( talk) 03:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the only thing in common is the article. - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 07:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Interested eyes wanted on if the sources used here are reasonable in context: "A pioneer of aviation,[4][5][6] Ibn Firnas built the first human carrying glider[7][8] [9][10] and is reputed to have survived two successful flights.[11][12][13][14] His works led the late investigators to define and invent some of the basics of rational aircraft design. According to John Harding, Ibn Firnas' glider was the first attempt at heavier-than-air flight in aviation history.[15]". Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

There's been an effort to suggest that work by Heide Göttner-Abendroth is equivalent to more obviously reliable sources. I'm not happy about her article which is badly sourced - anyone interested might want to see what I've deleted as well. Note that the sources linked to matriarchy.info which I had to find using Wayback are copyright violations (not added by the current editor. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller. I agree that it would be appropriate to remove the "well respected" before Göttner-Abendroth's reference, as that might indicate bias. However, it is equally biased to try to entirely erase the existence of a large academic movement (of whom she is one significant figure but not the only one). Note that the people you're referring to as "more obviously reliable" have equal or lesser academic qualifications. For instance, take Cynthia Eller. She is a professor of Religious Studies and Women's Studies, whose dissertation was on religious arguments in favor of pacifism in the second World War. ^[1]. The book referenced in the Tiamat article was published by a NON-academic publisher, Beacon Press, which is associated with a church and no peer-review was done. As such, it can't be said to represent any kind of academic concensus.

Moreover, the book referenced in the Tiamat article was not received without academic debate. Historian Max Dashu's peer reviewed analysis of the book is even quoted here on Wikipedia to say that Eller mischaracterizes and misrepresents the theories she's arguing against. The_Myth_of_Matriarchal_Prehistory The abstract of this article explains that Eller has misrepresented the theories of matriarchal prehistory and that, contrary to her statements, there is widely accepted evidence of "egalitarian human societies... that embraced female personifications of the Divine, neither subordinating them to a masculine god, nor debarring masculine deities." ^[2]. Note that unlike Eller's book, this article is peer-reviewed, meaning that it has been accepted as legitimate scholarship by other academics.

I am not saying that Wikipedia should promote one or the other view of Tiamat. I am simply suggesting that it misrepresents the state of scholarship to ignore a sharp division within this field. When two different theories collide, it is not acceptable to just label the one an editor disagrees with as "fringe." I believe this misconception is based on outdated sources. It IS true that Robert Graves' ideas were dismissed by most historians during the 1960s. (Though it's worth noting that at the same time they were widely embraced by scholars in the fields of humanities and literature, due to their popularization in Joseph Campbell's work -- part of the reason I wanted to include more nuance is because otherwise it becomes harder to understand literary and artistic work that references these theories). However, it is also the case that these ideas have made a comeback due to the research of feminist historians. As Dashu characterizes the debate: "[the theory's] massive comeback as a result of the women’s movement has caused an alarmed re-action... All this polarization and oversimplification avoids the real issue." In other words, there is scholarly debate.

So what precisely makes Eller an example of an "obviously reliable" source and the people she's disagreeing with a "fringe theory"? You've updated Göttner-Abendroth's biography page to imply that her work was only widely accepted in Germany through the 1980s and that she only published through the 2000s (20 years ago). However, her most recent book was released in 2012 (more recently than Eller) and was released by the Peter Lang publishing group, an academic publisher who describes their publication process as follows: "manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review by respected scholars from the subject in order to guarantee the academic quality of the work." ^[3] Additionally, Göttner-Abendroth's most recent journal publication was less than two years ago, in the Asian Journal of Women's Studies, which is another peer-reviewed academic journal. (This publication is even listed on the page you edited, which makes me question why you had the dates wrong)

As if that weren't enough, Oxford University Press currently maintains Göttner-Abendroth's extensive bibliography on matriarchal studies, which was last updated in March 2020. ^[4] I do not understand how a scholar who was chosen by Oxford University's 'Oxford Bibliographies' program, and as such endorsed by them as "an authoritative guide to the current scholarship," ^[5] can be considered a fringe theorist? Nor do I understand why you would claim she was obviously less reliable when all of her published work has undergone rigorous peer review ... while the book you're supporting was published by a random church-affiliated press. How is that "obviously" more mainstream?

Now, I'm not say that Eller isn't legitimate. Outside this book, she has done excellent peer-reviewed work documenting the historical (pre-21st century) development of these theories and outlining some of the debates surrounding this issue. Neither am I saying Göttner-Abendroth is the ultimate authority, though I'd certainly trust her bibliography to be a good guide. I suspect the truth of pre-history lies somewhere in the middle. However, it is simply incorrect to suggest that only one of these authors represents the "real" academic perspective. Yes, Göttner-Abendroth's Wiki page was woefully under done. But that doesn't mean she's a crackpot.

If there were only one acceptable academic perspective on something as complex as pre-historical religious belief systems, then that would point less to academia's actual knowledge of the situation and much more to an unwillingness to engage in meaningful debate. Academics disagree on politically oriented grounds, and often different fields also disagree, and that's wonderful.

The only conclusion I can draw is that you, Doug Weller, personally disagree with Göttner-Abendroth and/or are potentially unaware of her significance to the relevant fields. I'm appealing to your better nature not to try to enforce an arbitrary order on this magnificent chaos by using your power as an editor to simply erase entire academic debates or lines of reserch (e.g., suggesting archeomythology or matriarchal studies are not "real" academia)

Erstwhile Crew talk

You wrote this twice, here and on Doug's user Talk. Instead, you should write stuff like that once, preferably on Talk:Tiamat because it is about the subject the article Talk page is for. And it should be shorter. And indented, using colons, like what I am writing now, so people can see who responds to whom.

The matriarchy explanation is fringe, it is promoted outside of established mythology, and it needs to be clearly described as such. Göttner-Abendroth is not a specialist in mythology; her academic position in other fields is not relevant for her lay position on Tiamat. You are muddying the waters by unnecessarily listing other pro-Great Goddess people and organizations: it is a mythology article and should be sourced to mythologist sources. Those who want to know more about matriarchy can click on some of the links, like Great Goddess. That you have problems with one of the quoted authors is beside the point: if Eller wrote something which was wrong, that does not make Gimbutas right, and including A cannot be justified by reasoning which can only be used for removing B.

Also, how did "more obviously mainstream" turn into "obviously more mainstream"?

The only conclusion I can draw is that you, Doug Weller, personally disagree with Never try to pull that one here. You have your opinion, someone disagrees with you, and instead of comparing notes to find out who has the better reasons, you simply declare that the other person is ignorant - since you are right and they are wrong, what else could it be? (Variation: they are paid to disagree with you. What else could it be?) That type of reasoning leads nowhere, and it is a mark of pseudoscienc proponents who need to use bad arguments for defending their position because good arguments for it do not exist. So, the only thing you achieve by this tactic is that you lose more standing. We have experience here with tricks like that.

Instead of defining away people like that, focus on what they say. What is wrong with it and why? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone else have the problem that they hear "Tiamat" and immediately go off quoting the dialogue about Marduk from " Stimutacs"? No? Just me? XOR'easter ( talk) 07:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling ( talk

My apologies for poor formatting, as I am still trying to figure out the interface. Thanks for the headsup.

However, you are mistaken in two respects. First, in thinking that this statement "The matriarchy explanation is fringe, it is promoted outside of established mythology, and it needs to be clearly described as such" is relevant to the situation. This is not a question of whether the matriarchy explanation will be in the article. Everyone accepts that it will be in the article, because it's under the section talking about interpretations of the myth and NOT under the section describing "established mythology." One can't really understand the historically shifting interpretation of the myth over time without discussing this theory. It's not being discussed as factually accurate ABOUT the myth, it's being discussed as factually relevant to what academic communities are SAYING about the myth. The meaning of the Tiamat myth in current culture is directly related to the fact that she was embraced by feminists as a primordial goddess. That's why it's vital to indicate clearly which people are interpreting it. The interpretation section is like the "popular culture" section, except for academic research.

This all comes down to the original edit, which had to do with whether Marija Gimbutas' theories were going to be described as 'rejected by academia and modern authors such as...' or as 'rejected by SOME academics such as....' I'm the one who added just the word "some," because there are many academics who continue to support Gimbutas' theories. But Doug removed "some" and claimed that NO academics supported this theory. And that's where Göttner-Abendroth entered the picture, because I figured that if just saying "some" instead of "all" needed citations, I should provide them by explaining who it is that does still agree with her, and what the debate is about.

Secondly, you are mistaken in regards to the bit about Göttner-Abendroth not being enough of a specialist in mythology. There's not any kind of established field for becoming a specialist in mythology -- a lot of different fields dabble in it. Mythology journals will include work from archeologists, classicists, literary scholars, art historians, religious studies scholars, philosophers, etc. Being recognized as a specialist doesn't require a specific degree path. Rather, studies in mythology inform many different disciplines. Göttner-Abendroth's peer reviewed book and her work for Oxford on Matriarchal studies both involve research into mythology, as does her involvement with the Institute of Archeomythology. She's as much relevant to the subject as someone who is looking at mythology as a religious studies major.

I agree that problems with Eller don't mean that Göttner-Abendroth should be included. But I don't actually think Eller needs to be removed -- her interpretation is important. It's just not the ONLY interpretation in existence. I understand now that it's not Wiki-acceptable to question Doug's motives, but I also cannot fathom any reason other than disagreement why it would be a problem to acknowledge in passing that the entirety of academia is not on the same page about this (especially since the main page on Matriarchy does at least acknowledge the existence of that larger debate).

I'm still posting here, rather than moving it, because I don't want Göttner-Abendroth to continue to be listed as a fringe theorist when she's literally recognized by Oxford University as the leading expert in her field. I'd be willing to walk away from the Tiamat article at this point if it weren't that there's not an even greater inaccuracy taking place (ie., that a significant figure in a newly emerging discipline is being dismissed in this way). Erstwhile Crew talk Erstwhile Crew ( talk) 08:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"literally recognized by Oxford University as the leading expert in her field" 🠔 citation required. Note that OUP is not the university, but a commercial publisher which publishes some right junk in their (perfectly proper) aim of making a whacking great profit. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Erstwhile Crew: This is not a question of whether the matriarchy explanation will be in the article True. That is why nobody questioned that, and there is no reason to bring it up.

But Doug removed "some" and claimed that NO academics supported this theory. I cannot find the place where he said that no academics supported it. Please provide a link. Of course he removed the "some", but because it is bad writing (see WP:WEASEL), not because he thinks all academics reject it. When we write "academics reject it", it should be very obvious to everybody that not every single academic in the world rejected it, if only because most academics, specializing in many different fields, are not interested enough to have an opinion.

enough of a specialist in mythology Dabbling is not enough. With that reasoning, you would have to accept Immanuel Velikovsky as a myth specialist too. The relevant fields for studying myths are folklorists.

I also cannot fathom any reason You are not supposed to fathom any reasons. See WP:AGF.

I don't want Göttner-Abendroth to continue to be listed as a fringe theorist This is not a "list of fringe theorists" or something like that. It is a noticeboard. Doug slapped a Post-it note here in order to inform others: "hey folks, there is a conflict over at those articles". And now we are scribbling all over his note. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hob. It would be great to see some clearly reliable sources discussing her ideas about Tiamat, that would go a long way to settling the issue. Meanwhile her article is promotional, quoting her publisher, etc. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

And not material such as "Between 2003-2011, Göttner-Abendroth's research into matriarchal society had an increasingly international focus, as her conception of Matriarchal Studies began to focuse on its relationship to indigenous studies and the direct input and involvement of indigenous peoples. This global outlook led to a series of international conferences on the nature and purpose of Matriarchal Studies, each year including progressively more participants from existing non-Western matriarchal cultures." [14]" The source is the 2nd conference. Besides the fact that we really need secondary sources for this sort of claim, how can the 2nd conference be a source for "a series of .... including more..."? In fact according to the web site, they had 2 world conferences in 2003 and 2005, then conferences in 2009 and 2011 with another one planned for 2021. There are no details about the 2009 and 2011 conferences. And why are we including "Göttner-Abendroth's "International Academy for Modern Matriarchal Studies and Matriarchal Spirituality" (HAGIA) was founded in 1986. It aims to combine the "intellectual, political, artistic, and spiritual" in its events" in the article? What significance does it have? I think being co-editor with Barbara Mann does give her some credence. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A decidedly sketchy "goddess" with next to no trace in scholarship: the only possibly legit sources I could find were in Spanish and Italian, neither of which I read well enough for this. My reading of the EnNglish sources is that it's a case of New Age reading by people who don't know how to read old Scandinavian poetry, but in any case it's up for AfD and could use looking at by people who are more familiar with the Finnish source material than I am. Mangoe ( talk) 16:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Surya Siddhanta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is the Society for Scientific Exploration a good source? Do "editors who are vandalizing the sections of dating of Surya Siddhanta" have "no standing in terms of modern science"? See also Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Surya_Siddhanta. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@ Hob Gadling:I can't answer that but I've put some links in the article to make the morass more navigable. I also changed the phrasing of the distance between the moon and the earth bit which made me a bit suspicious that the source it comes from is a little fringy: the distance is obviously not constant so I substituted a range (perige/apoge), but then I added a bit from the same source which talks about the age of the oldest manuscripts (15th century AD) and distinguishes authorship by a demon 2 million years ago from the oldest actual reference in the 11th century AD. The rest is quite obscure to me. GPinkerton ( talk) 22:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It's gone back to being written a silly number of millennia ago! GPinkerton ( talk) 15:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The ludicrous Nilesh Nilkanth Oak is to blame, he with the treatise on the historical reality and date of the Mahabharata. His fringe nonsense should be purged from the article and the editors reprimanded; I don't have the will. GPinkerton ( talk) 15:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Some of the wilder claims were sourced to an Indian Journal of History of Science [sic] so I posted here on another noticeboard. GPinkerton ( talk) 06:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Right now Ksharsutra (sometimes called Kshar sutra -- google both versions) redirects to Ayurveda but that article doesn't mention it.

The old article was just a bunch of promotional material, so it got redirected. [15] [16] [17]

Clearly we shouldn't have redirects to articles that don't cover the subject of the redirect. So, what to do? MfD the redirect? Create a new Ksharsutra page with some WP:RSMED sources (if we can find any)? Put in a mention on the Ayurveda page?

To complicate matters, Proponents of Ayurveda keep claiming that Ksharsutra is far superipor to conventional treatments, citing the usual dodgy sources. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Possibilities: RFD, AFD, retarget to Sushruta, mention in Ayurveda... — Paleo Neonate – 10:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of redirecting to Sushruta. The problem with mentioning this at Ayurveda is that there appear to be zero sources that mention it at all other than the many pro-fringe sources claiming without evidence that a thread smeared with the juice of of the devil's horsewhip plant (it also cures rabies and scorpion bites! see Achyranthes aspera) has somehow been proven to be far superior to conventional western medical treatments. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Retargetted to Sushruta for now, — Paleo Neonate – 09:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ulcerative colitis#Alternative medicine seems to have been loaded with pseudoscientific claims.

Turmeric#Medical research says "Turmeric and curcumin, one of its constituents, have been studied in numerous clinical trials for various human diseases and conditions, but the conclusions have either been uncertain or negative. Claims that curcumin in turmeric may help to reduce inflammation remain unproven as of 2020."

Ulcerative colitis#Alternative medicine says "Curcumin (turmeric) therapy, in conjunction with taking the medications mesalamine or sulfasalazine, may be effective and safe for maintaining remission in people with quiescent ulcerative colitis. The effect of curcumin therapy alone on quiescent ulcerative colitis is unknown."

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I read the whole section there and although the sources used are sometimes fine (i.e. a Cochrane review) some of the sentences stress that it's in addition to better medical treatment, which at the same time make the altmed claims implausible (other than that it didn't harm)... And the part about fiber, is it really altmed in the first place (other than perhaps using a particular product to increase them)? — Paleo Neonate – 10:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Lahodny is (we are told) "... one of the world's leading experts in ozone therapy because of his personal contribution to increasing its therapeutic effectiveness through a bold innovative technique—that he developed and perfected on his own".

So, there are issues with this article pertinent to this noticeboard. I have also raised this (with some more background) at WT:MED#Johann Lahodny – please comment there not here to keep discussion together. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: Now a redirect to Ozone therapy — Paleo Neonate – 23:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Editors with experience with fringe theories, especially as that intersects with the GMO topic area, are requested to weigh in at the following discussions:

Talk:Genetic Literacy Project#RfC about the word nonpartisan for the Genetic Literacy Project

Talk:Genetic Literacy Project#Should we merge with Jon Entine?

Crossroads ^-talk- 18:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this notice has been criticized as canvassing by NightHeron for apparently asking for those familiar with the GMO+pesticide subject to chime in on the article focused on that subject. I won't comment on the merits of such a claim, but since we do deal with behavior related to fringe subjects to a degree, I was hoping someone familiar with NH could chime in.

That comment is part of needling or needlessly escalating editors nested within polite language they're in dispute with on the article talk page that I've been trying to ignore, and Crossroads gave a good summary of it too. Part of that seems to be part of the Race & Intelligence topic mess bleeding over as CrossRoads mentions that I'm not well versed in as a wiki-topic. I also see that NightHeron rails about this noticeboard on their user page for things not long after they came back from their 2018 topic ban on medicine-related articles due to alternative medicine issues from what I can gather. Maybe Swarm has more insight as the closing admin. [18]

I was alerted to the page issues through this noticeboard since I took it off my watchlist, and have seen an attitude similar to their 2018 ANI since FTN editors have entered. It seems like they view the subject as a WP:BATTLEGROUND with comments like the editors with a strong pro-GLP POV [19] when there hasn't been anyone like that at the page (at least since we removed a bunch of COI stuff years ago). I've tried to gently refocus them a few times on things like WP:NOTFORUM as have others, but that's just ended up as blowblack on talk pages, so I'm trying to distance myself from them at this point rather than have it continue towards me at least. It wasn't until they focused on another editor that I thought it was worth bringing here. Their history looks complicated related to a few fringe areas, so I was hoping someone here more familiar with them could try to deescalate them to head it off before it continues further as opposed to the ANI/AE route. This really seems to be a case of coming in too hot. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like I simply closed that TBAN proposal during routine ANI patrol. I don't believe I have any unique insight regarding that user. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: now merged to Jon Entine by Crossroads after talk page consensus — Paleo Neonate – 01:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

More input requested here:

Talk:Tom O'Carroll#Proposed merge of Paedophilia: The Radical Case into Tom O'Carroll

Crossroads ^-talk- 18:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Commented on the proposed merge. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: Merged since (on 18th), — Paleo Neonate – 01:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The page Alex Berenson could use some more eyes. He's a former reporter who is pushing claims about the coronavirus that appear to contradict mainstream public health recommendations and findings. [20] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A fringe conspiracy theory that the CIA intentionally poisoned the population of a small French town, sourced to a conspiracy book author. I've been through the article a couple times before, attributing it as a conspiracy theory and trimming the excessive coverage, but the attribution is eventually removed and the excess coverage added back in with a heavy dose of WP:GEVAL. Some reviewing appreciated. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite the article in the coming days. The entire article is dedicated to the causes, with little to no information about what really transpired. This falls into a region of interest of mine, anyway. Acebulf ( talk) 00:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The CIA conspiracy theory book seems to have gotten its share of WP:SENSATIONAL press in 2009, so it probably deserves a mention, however it really shouldn't be given such WP:UNDUE weight with lavish descriptions of claimed "evidence" in the text. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There's also some leakage at the end of Project MKUltra § Deaths — Paleo Neonate – 21:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm and it's worth checking if book(s) by Albarelli have been spammed, I removed a dubious instance and noticed many articles cited him... I'm about to leave but could try to check again tomorrow, — Paleo Neonate – 21:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Foundational devotional text of the Hare Krishnas. No criticism of the book, purportedly a translation of the Bhagavad Gita, is evident on the page. Could use work from adepts of the fringe mysteries more knowledgeable in these matters than I, particularly on those areas where the great guru's reading differ from mainstream scholarly thinking on the actual ancient text "as it is [really]". GPinkerton ( talk) 17:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is about a particular translation with commentaries of a particular guru, so should probably focus on its own history and on where the commentaries make it differ from other major translations, rather than on the general message of the Bhagavad Gita (which has its own article). If sources can be found about it, that is... — Paleo Neonate – 16:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@ PaleoNeonate: Yes that's my point; the article at present is without scholarly critique of the contents of the Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is. It should exist aplenty, somewhere, since the scholarship on the actual Bhagavad-Gītā is abundant, somewhere. GPinkerton ( talk) 01:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a section on the Hare Krishna book in Davis, Richard H. (2014). "Chapter 5. Modern Gitas: Translations". The "Bhagavad Gita": A Biography. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 154–177, esp. 165–168. doi: 10.1515/9781400851973-008. ISBN  978-1-4008-5197-3.

GPinkerton ( talk) 01:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, a good one indeed, — Paleo Neonate – 12:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a RfC on the Arthur Laffer page [21] about whether to mention in the lead there is a consensus among economists that the US is not on the wrong side of the Laffer curve (i.e. consensus against the notion that tax cuts will pay for themselves). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed the RFC tag on this, but all are still welcome to discuss, of course. Why this is at FTN is beyond me, though. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The notion that tax cuts pay for themselves is a fringe idea, and the Rfc is explicitly about a scientific consensus on the subject. I hope that fixed your confusion. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I would think that consensus among economists would be more relevant than consensus among scientists. Or are we classifying economics as a “science” now? Blueboar ( talk) 15:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Economics is a social science, and social science is a branch of science, so yes, economics is a science. The relevant scientific consensus would be that among economists. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The dismal science, and one which tends to be overrated compared with, say, climate physics. Hope a mainstream consensus can be found, but there's been a surfeit of economic fads in recent years. . . dave souza, talk 15:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no 'consensus' here. Snooganssnoogans is citing a survey that asked about one particular tax rate in one particular country in one particular time. From this, Snooganssnoogans has concocted the notion that there is some consensus among economists against the notion that tax cuts always pay for themselves. That notion only exists in Snooganssnoogans mind. Bonewah ( talk) 16:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• From what I see as an non-expert, it's an active debate, and we certainly should preset all reasonable opinions. I thiingthe rules about fringe work well only in the exact sciences where it is clear what does constitute fringe, and I would be very reluctant to ever use the term in the social sciences , at least not for anything that has some academic or professional support. The only place I'd use it in that are would be outright conspiracy theories. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We already present this information in the article. Snooganssnoogans is trying to copy this information to the lede of a biography of Laffer himself. And he is trying to mislead everyone here about some kind of scientific consensus. The citation in question here is an informal survey about one specific application of the Laffer curve. It is in no way proof of some kind of consensus among Economists in general and is in no way a consensus among economists that tax cuts will pay for themselves or not. Its just a single data point that confirms Snooganssnoogans prior held beliefs. Bonewah ( talk) 17:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Above, you said that Snooganssnoogans has concocted the notion that there is some consensus among economists against the notion that tax cuts always pay for themselves.

But if all taxes are cut down to zero, the government gets nothing, while taxes higher than zero will get the government something. Which means that this tax cut does definitely not pay for itself. Obviously, that will still be true in some vicinity of that case. This clearly disproves mathematically that "tax cuts always pay for themselves".

Are you really saying that there is no consensus among economists about that? You think that some economists are so extremely stupid (or dishonest) that they do not grasp (or pretend not to grasp) this simple math? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Im saying that the sources provided dont represent any kind of consensus. Implied, but not said, is that you should learn the sub basics about something before you comment about that thing. Bonewah ( talk) 11:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the theologist's gambit. "Shut up, you don't understand this. It's sophisticated!" -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't you reverse your example at the limits? If all taxes are 100% would people stop working and thus the government again gets zero? In this case would a tax cut indeed pay for itself? Anyway, it's not clear that this should be treated as a fringe idea the way we treat homiopathic therapies as fringe. I think it's also somewhat problematic that a dispute over if material is DUE for the lead of an article was brought here vs NPOVN which would be the appropriate venue for the question. Springee ( talk) 15:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Right. You just refuted the statement "tax cuts never pay for themselves". That is a different subject. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, what point are you trying to argue? I was under the impression we are here because Snoogs wanted people to declare the Laffer Curve to be a fringe idea. With evidence from econ text books I think we have shown the general idea is not fringe. Springee ( talk) 11:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I am arguing that Snooganssnoogans has concocted the notion that there is some consensus among economists against the notion that tax cuts always pay for themselves is bullshit because the statement "tax cuts always pay for themselves" is wrong - obviously wrong for everybody who is not innumerate. Independent of that, nobody here is claiming that the Laffer curve is fringe. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, we are in agreement regarding the first part. My impression was some were claiming the Laffer curve was fringe. If I misread the discussion then again we are in agreement. Springee ( talk) 11:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is silly being here. WP:FRINGE covers pseudoscience, hoaxes and the like, not minority academic viewpoints (see the third bullet point in WP:FRINGE/PS). By this logic, all non-neoclassical economics ( heterodox economics) could be classified as "fringe". -- Pudeo ( talk) 18:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The voodoo economics inherent in this conversation is a bit more "heterodox" than being simply a "minority academic viewpoint". WP:FRINGE applies. jps ( talk) 20:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That view is at odds with standard economic textbooks. Also, note the article in question is a Biography, not one on a particular academic viewpoint. Bonewah ( talk) 20:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Um. It's not at odds with "standard economic textbooks", ::eyeroll::. But anyway, it does not matter where the claim is made. If the claim is WP:FRINGE, the guideline applies. Being a biography doesn't make it immune. jps ( talk) 20:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Im looking at Case & Fair's 'Principles of Economics' and it most certainly does not describe the Laffer Curve as fringe, or anything like it. Nor Does Greg Mankiw, author of one of the most widely read econ textbooks in America. In any event, what part of WP:FRINGE do you think is relevant to this discussion? Bonewah ( talk) 20:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The Laffer Curve in-and-of-itself is not the subject of this section. If you are having problems with that comprehension, I doubt you are competent enough to continue in this discussion. Perhaps you can return to writing about ships. jps ( talk) 21:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Please remember FOC and CIVIL. 2. If the Laffer Curve isn't the subject of this section then this discussion was opened in the wrong place. 3. It seems a number of economists think the general idea is sound and it predates Laffer by a long time [ [22]], [ [23]], [ [24]]. The idea that the Laffer curve is "fringe" seems extremely dubious given it's in economics texts. The debate seems to be if we are on the rising or falling side of the peak. It certainly may be a fringe idea that we are past the peak where any additional increase in tax rates will result in a decrease rather than increase in revenue. But the general concept is absolutely mainstream and easily illustrated by a simple thought experiment. How much revenue is collected at 0% tax rate, 100% and some value in between. I'm sure all would agree that the maximum tax revenue would occur at a rate somewhere greater than zero but less than 100%. If so, we have the Laffer Curve. Springee ( talk) 21:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, Laffer is pseudoscience: he plucked his curve out of his ass, but diligent imagineering by conservative economists has sought to salvage some shred of legitimacy by retconning a proper theory to it, because it's quite the shibboleth. As far as I can see that's the actual academic debate - the thing that is sometimes lazily called the Laffer curve but which actually isn't because it's based on actual data, albeit bludgeoned into submission.

The idea that tax cuts pay for themselves has been tested a number of times, most recently by Sam Brownback. Spoiler: they don't. Guy ( help!) 14:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the question also isn't whether we on the rising or falling side of the peak, and it certainly isn't about "where on the curve we lie". jps ( talk) 22:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Does a single question posed to some economists via a survey from 2012 asking if one particular tax cut would generate more or less revenue represent some kind of 'consensus' against the idea that tax cuts will pay for themselves? The answer to this question is a plain No. Does this same survey response need to be moved from the body where it currently resides in this biography of Arthur Laffer, not an article on the Laffer Curve, but a biography about the man himself, to the lede? Again, the answer is a obvious no. Fringe has nothing to do with any of this and this whole noticeboard section is a giant distraction. Bonewah ( talk) 00:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In the context of American Federal taxes over the last 40 years, the claims that there exists economic data/models which show that a particular tax cut or tax cuts in general that "pay for themselves" has always been a fringe claim as far as I know. Can you point to an instance where this wasn't the case? jps ( talk) 02:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably, but what would that do for us? Im not here to prove or disprove the Laffer curve. This is a content issue, i dont know what Snooganssnoogans was trying to accomplish by coming to this board. As far as im concerned, this is being handled on the article talk page as it should have been from the start. Bonewah ( talk) 16:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. As it is, I see there being a direct relevance that you either don't understand or don't want to understand. jps ( talk) 16:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This recently created page has been getting some outside attention lately, receiving edits like this one. Fulton Brown is a tenured professor at the University of Chicago who has, for example, recieved media attention for promoting a conspiracy theory that the Christchurch mosque shootings may have been a false flag operation. :bloodofox: ( talk) 06:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that notability has been established here, for starters. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, that became obsolete quickly. After this revert, see the discussion. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There is now an RfC open at that page. XOR'easter ( talk) 06:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe#Request for comment: on the notability of the CTMU in 2020 with sources published after 2006 and "unredirect" of this page to Christopher Langan -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The CTMU's inventor himself is commenting there now. I read the "source" that he points to. It accepts Intelligent Design as potentially scientific and, if you ask me, is thus ipso facto unreliable, but that's just my take.... Langan himself appears to be calling it an inaccurate source, which is an unusual thing to do when promoting it as worthwhile, but trying to make sense of that is above my pay grade. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I suspect that putting up with this kind of time-sink might be why so few scientists I know try to contribute to Wikipedia. XOR'easter ( talk) 05:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

... Which means that they miss highlights like Coast to Coast AM being advanced as a reliable source. First I saw that, and then I heard that Twitter had to shut down all of the "verified" accounts because Bitcoin scammers had breached their system. The most normal thing I've seen on the Internet all day was the announcement that Kanye isn't running for President after all. XOR'easter ( talk) 06:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has now reached the "IP address arguing with themselves" portion of the program. If I could get popcorn without going out into the plague zones, I'd be having some right now. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Escalating

This is escalating. DrL, Langan's wife, has resurfaced, and is arguing aggressively for a standalone article; she and Langan are both checkuser-blocked as there are five technically indistinguishable accounts editing around CTMU; Tim Smith, the original creator of the article who also argued at length against its deletion and at DRV, is back (he has about 1,100 edits total since 2004); another editor has written a draft ( Draft:Cognitive-Theoretic Model Universe) and is (of course!) proposing changes to the notability guidelines to allow coverage of topics without significant reality-based coverage, and (of course!) arguing for a "change of venue" to remove editors with WP:FRINGE experience from the discussion. This needs more eyes at user talk:Chris Langan, Christopher Langan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. Guy ( help!) 09:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Northwestern European people asserts that there is such a thing. As someone who apparently falls into that group, my subjective response to that would be: Umm... no there isn't. Maybe some folks would like to go over the science and check. Vexations ( talk) 12:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting for context:

• Special:Diff/967680945
• Various sources do use "northwestern European" terminology, usually in relation to eugenics or genetic stock claims
• Some of Northwestern Europe also discuss eugenics
• Northwestern European Australians, Northwestern European Americans
• User talk:Peipsi-Pihkva#Proposed deletion of Brown Canadians
• Draft:Frederick Douglass Institute

The intentions may be good and it's not really my subject matter, but I have the impression that it's possible that Wikipedia is being used for original research like if it was a journal... — Paleo Neonate – 13:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding: some other contributions also seemed good, but also interesting is that there never was a single talk page reply yet, — Paleo Neonate – 14:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I just looked and commented at the talk for Northwestern European Canadians. it's WP:OR on the article creators part. I propose deletion, my normal solution for articles that shouldn't exist. - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There do seem to be a few like this. I am rather unsure. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It's all moot anyway, as the UK has left Europe. - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The USA is not in Europe either!, thought I might just point that out. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Peipsi-Pihkva ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it looks like the editor's work took something of a shift on about 16 January of this year when a peculiar "genetic differences" claim was added to the article on East Asian people: [25] jps ( talk) 16:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Western Hunter-Gatherer is definitely a thing, but the idea of "Northwestern European people" is OR and should be deleted. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I have created this wrong, I have certainly created the wrong page before now as has been pointed out with Brown Canadians, most of which would have been better served in the Canadian section of brown people, and some of which was reused for brown identity. In relation to this article, it was with a view to later creating the broad article requested at European people. I have created Eastern European people and Southern European people with this in mind, as subgroupings for that future article. It may have been better to split the article in question into Western European people and Northern European people, rather than Northwestern European people, but I did find academics referring to the group:

James Morris Blaut: "some with an amalgam of Germanic and Christian elements, some with medieval Northwest-Europeans"
Mary S. Hartman: "late-marriage patterns fostered obliged Northwestern Europeans to devise new institutions"
Ian Morris: "early modern Northwest Europeans around 1700 CE must have been consuming somewhere between 30,000 and 35,000 kcal/cap/day"
Herbert S. Klein: " the sixty years before 1640 more than seven out of every eight people shipped across the Atlantic by Northwestern Europeans were Europeans"
Steven Ruggles: These findings cast doubt on the hypothesis that Northwest Europeans and North Americans had an exceptional historical pattern of preference for nuclear families."
Arland Thornton: "it is not surprising that ethnocentrism encouraged northwest Europeans to place themselves, especially their middle and upper classes, at the apex of development."
Deirdre McCloskey: "for largely noneconomic reasons, the prestige of a bourgeois prudence rose around 1700, in the way northwest Euopean people talked, within an economic conversation still honoring a balance of virtues"
Laurence Hurst: "Over 80 per cent of northwest Europeans can, but in parts of East Asia, where milk is much less commonly drunk, an inability to digest lactose is the norm."

I can't find any evidence that the grouping is used usually in relation to eugenics or genetic stock claims, but I have created a section in Northwestern European Americans about the use of the category for racism and eugenics. It is also mentioned in the diaspora section of North America in Northwestern European people but I could work on making that a larger section. Peipsi-Pihkva ( talk) 16:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Related:

• Northwestern European Americans
• Northwestern European Australians
• Northwestern European Canadians
• Southern European people
• Southern European Americans
• Southern European Australians
• Southern European Britons
• Southern European Canadians
• Eastern European people
• Eastern European Americans
• Eastern European Australians
• Eastern European Britons
• Eastern European Canadians
• Whiteshift see RtD below

yikes.

jps ( talk) 16:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there even a RS to support the existance of such groupings? Watch out, or somebody will call Idris Elba an african american next. - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This editor is surely creating their own system of classification, this isn't proper at all. The whole thing looks to be a big OR project that needs discussion(/deletion). We already define people by nationality and language group; there's no need for more arbitrary categories, surely! GPinkerton ( talk) 18:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

People here may think I take a light hearted view of the place, but this walled garden warrants a great deal of attention, and forgive me as I will add to jps' list above whiteshift et al. Yikes indeed. - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

More articles created by this user (a complete list can be found here)

• White defensiveness 519 views per day
• White identity 52 vpd
• Brown identity 29 vpd
• Australian Aboriginal identity 29 vpd
• Whiteshift 21 vpd
• Eastern Europeans in the United Kingdom 17 vpd
• Māoriness
• Arab Canadian identity
• East Asian identity
• Eastern European identity
• African Australian identity
• Black British identity
• Black Scottish identity
• Māori identity

Peipsi-Pihkva are the Estonian names of Lake Peipus and Pskov respectively. I suspect that the user is from the Anglosphere and of Estonian ancestry, which would explain the obsession with ethnic identity and diasporas. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

So, I'm glad I was carefully almost neutral. - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see my way to why any of these articles should exist. The term usually used is white fragility for the highest vpd. I think most of these could be turned into redirects if there is any sense for maybe wanting to preserve this history. jps ( talk) 19:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I did a quick look at WikiProjects and found some peoples related articles tagged with WP:ANTHROPOLOGY, but I didn't find yet what I was really looking for: anyone know of one for collaboration and coordination for the coverage of peoples in general? Also, if we take an article like Arab Canadian identity, other than that it could be merged in Arab Canadians, it does cover its topic using related examples and sources... — Paleo Neonate – 20:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Northwestern here is supposed to be something distinct from either Northern or Western? I fail to see any scientific distinction between using such a term and using a term like Southeastern European to group together everybody from Spain to the Baltics. Hyperbolick ( talk) 00:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

For it to be a notable topic, we would need to identify a body of literature with a discrete definition, which hasn't been done. It seems that the sources use the term to refer to the same thing that people mean when they refer to Northern Europeans, which typically did not include Eastern Europeans even if they lived at the same latitude. Best to delete or redirect to Northern European. TFD ( talk) 14:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, an editor at the above article steadfastly maintains that this war was "a draw" and dismisses reliable sources as not "quality" somehow because they are, for example, written eminent journalist Pierre Berton rather than by someone with a doctorate in history. Therefore, by his count, more “quality” sources support his view than the alternate view that the British won, and therefore this view is WP:FRINGE and should not be included.

Note, this article concerns the US and Canada rather than the European theatre of the war, which has its own article. The article is currently badly written and poorly organized, and also extremely long, but the TL;DR is that each side invaded the other and was repulsed, and the war ended with very little change to the border.

Nobody is suggesting that the article say in Wikipedia's voice that Britain/Canada won, only that respected writers do exist who say this, because Canada is not currently a US colony. Some guidance would be welcome, since another editor has actually listed sources for him, and he does not seem inclined to re-read the definition of a reliable source as I have suggested. Elinruby ( talk) 08:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The Canadian-victory viewpoint was widespread decades ago but is no longer found in Canadian scholarly articles & books or university textbooks. It may still be taught at the high school level in Canada, but I think it's now "fringe" in mainstream Canadian reliable sources in 21st century. Old notions become fringe when the RS drop them. A main flaw from Canadian perspective is it ignores the massive losses suffered by Canadian First Nations, who are now considered full partners in Canadian history. Rjensen ( talk) 09:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Tecumseh's Confederation did, yes, suffer heavy losses. However, I am pretty sure that this policy is not intended to be applied in this way. Elinruby ( talk) 10:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

As with a parallel complaint at WP:NPOV/Noticeboard (about the use of the word "Indian"), this is a topic that has been discussed widely and earnestly for a very long time on Talk:War of 1812. (See for example six years of debate at Talk:War of 1812/Who Won? ). As a non-expert, I prefer to revert to a result of status quo ante bellum, because insofar as tangible things such as land are concerned, that was the outcome. "Inconclusive" is another possible term, although that suggests what didn't occur — that the shooting war continued later (with or without a conclusion). But, although it might not match some current scholarly consensus (of which I very much doubt there is one), and might even be wrong, the idea that no side won (although the descendants of the earliest inhabitants clearly lost) was so long spread by serious writers and so widely believed (on both sides of the 49th parallel and, for that matter, on both sides of the Atlantic) that it cannot, even if wrong, count as a fringe theory equivalent to the Chloraquine Cure. —— Shakescene ( talk) 14:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen I disagree with the assertion, that the "Canada won" viewpoint has disappeared, so it is now fringe theory. In my view, since the 200 year anniversary, there seems to be more focus on it as a victory for Canada, from the Canadian media at least. I haven't checked the dates, but I would hazard a guess there are probably more historians now that see it as a win for Canada, than say 10 years ago when it was largely a few people like Benn, Latimer, Pierre Berton and Donald Graves. Plus these guys went up in 2016 so clearly Canada still think they won! Deathlibrarian ( talk) 06:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The consensus view among modern historians is that the war was a draw, although the perspective that Canada won continues as a popular view in Ontario. The Canadian high school textbooks I have seen do not claim it was a Canadian victory. I would point out too that I have never maintained that the war was a draw, merely that that is what historians claim. TFD ( talk) 15:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, the real problem is that the actual participants thought they had reached a draw, stalemate, white peace, etc. Further, both sides thought that continuing the war was not worth the cost. Both Wellington's letter on the matter and the Prime Minister's instructions to the British negotiators at Gent are given as prima facia evidence of Fethe same. Historian's repeatedly referenced both but we seem to be ignoring that issue. That isn't my opinion, it is not TFD's opinion, it is a hard fact in history. Tirronan ( talk) 19:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I always recall Bill as saying "we're eight-one-and-one!" but that is mistaken, the quote is "we're ten-and-one!". Seems like the most appropriate source for this kind of argument. fiveby( zero) 19:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The Canadian-victory viewpoint is not in any way a fringe viewpoint, It's a viewpoint that is largely the view seen within Canada, while the opposing viewpoint, that is the war was a draw.... is the standard view within the US. Historians are divided along national lines on the topic. How can we adopt a PRO US viewpoint as the standard viewpoint, and disregard a PRO Canadian/British viewpoint as fringe theory? Also a number of eminent experts on the war support the view that the war was a victory for Canada.... Surely the viewpoint of eminent historians, must be seen as an alternative viewpoint, and not fringe theory??? These people aren't crackpots, they are recognised authoriites on History, and many, on the War of 1812 in particular. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 08:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Also in reply to TFD's comment, where he stated that there is a "Consensus by historians" that the war was a draw. That is TFDs personal belief, but it's not supported by any RS. There is a larger body of Historians who believe it was a draw (mostly American). There is a lesser number of historians who believe it was a win for Canada(nearly all Canadian and British). That's not a consensus for either, and it certainly doesn't make the view that Canada won the view "fringe theory" Deathlibrarian ( talk) 08:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one who is baffled by what @ Fiveby: said? It appears to be a cultural reference but I don't know what it means. Elinruby ( talk) 20:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A fringe theory, as defined in Wikipedia guidelines is "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field." They range from reasoned theories presented in academic papers to wholly unreasonable views. If you don't like the name, get it changed. 68% of Americans believe that the U.S. government knows more about UFOs than it is telling us. [26] That doesn't mean that we give equal validity to that view or - worse - claim that scientists are divided on the topic.

Incidentally, I am still waiting for someone to name the elusive Canadian textbook that allegedly teaches Canada won the war.

TFD ( talk) 00:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

No, you are using that out of context. Wikipedia says "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". In this sense, both the idea that the War was a draw, and the War was a victory for Canada/Britain are mainstream theories, each held by a body of respected Historians. The idea that the US won the war, and Britain and Canada lost, or that the Native Americans did well out of the war, THAT would be fringe theory, because it departs from the mainstream views, and is only supported by one or two historians (if any) Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The position that either the UK or U.S. won the war departs significantly from the prevailing view that the outcome was a draw. It seems that your main objection is the term fringe, because it conflates alternative theoretical formulations (such as position that either the UK or U.S. won the war) with pseudoscience and questionable science. TFD ( talk) 15:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There are two (at least) *mainstream* views.... that (1) The war was a draw (2) That Canada and Britain won the war. The view that Canada and Britain IS A MAINSTREAM VIEW, followed by MAINSTREAM HISTORIANS, for which I have posted numerous references.It is the mainstream view of Canada. Just because there are less of them, doesn't mean its a non mainstream view, or fringe theory. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Can everyone stop saying "Canada won the war" (and similar)! There was no Canada at the time and saying there's a theory that "Canada" won is a strawman argument and is obviously anachronistic. It's also quite silly to imagine that either historians' side could win by simple majority; there are more American academics than there are Canadian and British ones but consensus in the field isn't determined by national block-voting. It would be helpful to look at what is taught in leading universities globally, or what academics from outside the then-British empire have to say. GPinkerton ( talk) 00:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkertonI think most people know that Canada wasn't a country, but in discussion, when the phrase is used a lot, "Canada won the war" is just shorthand for "British Empire, fighting in conjunction with the North American British colonies won the war"... which is the technically correct way of saying it, but takes a lot longer to type! Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that Canada won the war. That is just a straw man that The Four Deuces is amusing himself with. Whatever you do, don't ask him about the textbook or you will get a week or two of unrelated statistics in sneering cryptic posts, and still not be able to get him to give you a straight answer. I'm here to tell you. And yes, we all realize that Canada was not a country until 1867, but as Deathlibrarian has said, it is shorthand for the British Army plus the British Navy plus six kinds of Iroquois (who didn't lose any territory either, but nobody claims they won either), a baker's dozen other indigenous peoples, numerous militia, freaking Tehcumseh, the Kingdom of Spain and assorted militia in both Upper and Lower Canada.

Forget the guy ranting about the consensus of historians. DeathLibrarian led him line by line through at least thirty sources and he started cherry-picking which ones were "quality" sources.

As the OP, let me make it really really simple. What I want to know is this: In the history of a war that everyone claimed to have won, does WP:FRINGE apply to analyses for which reliable and respected sources exist, and is this policy even meant to be applied to something like who won the war of 1812? Elinruby ( talk) 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Pierre Berton wrote, "Canada won, or to put it more precisely did not lose, by successfully repulsing the the armies that tried to invade and conquer British North America. [This] war was fought almost entirely in Upper Canada." (The Invasion of Canada: 1812-1813, p. 19 [27] He wasn't writing about the war overall, but the part that involved Upper Canada. Note his book does not explore the British invasions of the U.S. or the Atlantic naval battles. Of course Canada was not a legal entity and had no power to declare war or conclude peace treaties. Ironically, in his careful wording, he doesn't unequivocally declare that Canada won. TFD ( talk) 14:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the article content issue here? I see an NPOV tag on the article which does not link to a specific section. There's some uninteresting discussion around a 'result' for the infobox and many expressions of a "Canada won" sentiment. There's a memory and historiography section in the article with good detail (but an expanded summary would be nice). What is the content issue? fiveby( zero) 15:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is there for multiple reasons. Certain sections repeat some very old tropes in the voice of wikipedia (can't trust an Indian, for example, or invading Upper Canada restored US honor). I have raised this issue at the NPOV noticeboard. That would be enough, but the even bigger issue though (and why I brought the article here) is that a minority of users is using WP:FRINGE to avoid following WP: BALANCE. Elinruby ( talk) 16:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, there are two notice board discussions: WP:NPOVN#War of 1812, in which is very unclear as to what you are asking and where you say "there is currently no dispute" and "I repeat, there is no dispute here" despite adding the tag. Here what seems to be some "Canada won" argument (despite your assertions) based on a forty year old popular history text, which appears to be very engaging [28] but not terribly relevant for a topic with such a large volume of academic sources. Along with that some of your comments have been very poorly considered and are focused on a particular editor rather than article content. And no one is even interfering or reverting your edits to the article! There seems to be no actual content at issue so there is no way to determine if the fringe guideline should apply. fiveby( zero) 17:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of content at issue. The issue over at NPOV is racism, and at the time I said there was no dispute I had not yet met TFD and believed I was the only editor in the article. This is usually the case with listed articles. In fact there are many editors who would LIKE to work on the article but were on the talk page trying to reason with TFD's contention that sources he does not like are fringe. Generally, no, we do not discuss editors, but that goes out the window in cases of WP:OWN. Did you read the comments over there? You should if you are going to consider it at all. A dozen reliable sources do not equate to creation theory, as TFD told me last night. I mention his name because he is the contentious editor saying these things, along with questioning my honesty and grasp of reality. So look. WP:BALANCE requires that the article present ALL views of a disputed fact, and the question becomes WEIGHT. You can't just say that Canadians believe weird stuff and clearly the war was good because we got some land and nobody won because the border didn't change. There are sources who say that Canada won. I think they are just as wrong as the sources who say the US beat the British, but they are out there and they are by gosh historians, on both sides. Elinruby ( talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I flatly reject your contention that TFD is the issue here. I object to your trying to trivialize the issue by saying only one editor objects to your view. There is and always has been many editors working on this page. I've not seen any content rejected by him nor does he own the page. Most of the historians I've read have been pretty clear on the subject. And no I have not seen mainstream historians stating that Britain won, and I've never seen one that asserted that Canada won Tirronan ( talk) 20:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I assert again that the participants decided that the war was a draw when they accepted the status queue antebellum. I further object that you are trying by using this fringe theory as a trojan horse to change the outcome. If I walk outside the sky is blue no matter how many people try and tell me it is yellow. The entire argument is therefor false. Tirronan ( talk) 20:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Tirronan:: You appear to believe that I am saying that TFD is pushing fringe theory. On the contrary, it is my contention that Canadian history is not a fringe theory of Canadian history. There is a whole lengthy section on the talk page about this ;) Elinruby ( talk) 23:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby is mistaken when he says the article stated "invading Upper Canada restored US honor" It was defeating the British invasions in 1814-1815 (New York, Baltimore, New Orleans) that did that. Historians agree that restoring US honor was a major cause & major result of the war for USA. Rjensen ( talk) 22:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd support Elinruby that TFD is an issue here. I have gone to a lot of trouble to post numerous references, and he starts pulling each reference to pieces, debating the meaning of each reference based on semantics, ad infinitum. Even where it's BLATENTLY clear, a historian is saying that Britain won, he will still try to debate that they didn't say that in some bizarre fashion. I've given up debating with him about it on three separate occasions. I've also spoken to him on his talk page about his behaviour. Even the fact that we are here, because he decided that the viewpoint that Canada won the war of 1812 is *Fringe Theory* is stupid and a waste of time. NO RS claims that the view that Canada won is fringe theory, and to label respected historians like Pierre Berton, Donald Graves, Andrew Lambert, Donald Hickey, G. M. Trevelyan, JCA Stagg and numerous others as fringe Theorists is insulting to them. I'm sure those historian in this list, who are still alive, would be very impressed that Wikipedia has decided that they are pushing fringe theory. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks will not affect the decisions of this board. There has been enough mud flung about over the history of this page to fill several bins. If you can't take the higher ground this isn't the place to be. Tirronan ( talk) 17:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparently it was just fine for him to call me a liar and deluded, though? We're here because he seems to have trouble being civil about this. Let's get back on topic. The following are from the first mobile screen of results from a google of "Canada won the war of 1812". These are all reliable sources, which is (or rather should be) the standard here. I did not go beyond the first screen.

• https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-won-the-war-of-1812-u-s-historian-admits
• How we tricked the Americans to win the War of 1812

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4042489

• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/02/war-that-canada-won-1812-forgotten
• "The sufferings of Canadian civilians at the hands of American troops, and the legacy of burnt and looted communities along the frontier gave the people of Upper Canada a strong sense, not so much of who they were, but certainly who they were not. And it had been American bayonets and torches that had brought that realization."
• https://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/canadian/

Elinruby ( talk) 21:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

No I appear to say exactly what I said. All personal attacks should stop. This does not reflect well on any of us no matter how frustrated we get. Tirronan ( talk) 01:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No one has argued that one cannot find opinions expressing the view that the war was not a draw. The issue is one of WP:WEIGHT, not RS: is that view held by a substantial number of historians or is it held by a tiny minority?

Unfortunately a lot of sources provided are problematic. For example, the newspaper article about Eliot A. Cohen. Cohen is not a historian, but a political scientist and his book was published by a partisan publisher rather than the academic press.

But Cohen does not claim that the UK won the war, and rejects the popular American view that the U.S. won. As an aside he said that Canada could be considered the true winner, which we all agree could be true. But that is not a challenge to the mainstream view of historians that the outcome of the war was a draw between the UK and U.S. Canada was not even a political entity, let alone a nation with the ability to declare war or sign peace treaties. It's similar to saying that Quebec was a winner in the American Revolutionary War because the U.S. tried and failed to conquer it. But the info-box says the outcome was an American victory.

TFD ( talk) 04:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

see, here we approach the heart of the matter, yet I don't agree that this is what you said. It is also the currently expressed opinion of the United States government that we don't need to worry our little heads about covid 19. And oh by the way Quebec did win the Seven Years' War because the United States tried and failed to invade it. Quebec is indomptible, in that in refuses to be eradicated. Did the Allies not win World War II? But one thing at a time. Did you even look at the sources above? Can you understand that what we have here is the American narrative (Star Spangled Banner) and the Canadian narrative (Laura Secord and Tecumseh), and they do not agree. Look at that CBC link, and what it says about the siege of Detroit. That happened. There is no more gold standard a source on Canada than Maclean's and the CBC. Now go look at what the article says and ask yourself if you see a freaking difference. This is an article about a defining moment in the Canadian identity (see above) and yeah, it gets a say about what happened. I can't believe grown men are arguing about this. The United States does not get to define the history of Canada, Canada has already done that and why in the hell would its opinion about its own history not be mainstream. Seriously. Listen to yourself. This article spends more time on shipyard building in Barbados than it does on the Iroquois, even, let alone Canada. Elinruby ( talk) 04:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, other than being vaguely insulting, you are arguing that this is a page on Candian history? Here is what gets me, I don't care what Canada thinks happened. For that matter, I really don't give a crap about what America thinks about it either. A history article should accurately report the events that happened as they happened and little else. I could find about all sorts of histories that report this as an American victory, it isn't but using your process that would be ok too. I am not interested in making anyone feel good about history. I am interested in not twisting the article with lies to the public. The CBC is not a history service. There is a ton of crap history written on both sides of the US/Canadian border and to some degree there still is. Just how would we evaluate it all? If you feel that strongly about it go write a feel good hive off article about how Canada won the war. This isn't a history of how Canada feels about the war, it is just about the War of 1812. Tirronan ( talk) 04:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Um, actually, this is not only not a page on Canadian history, it is not a page on history at all. Instead, it is a page for alerting people who know how to handle fringe subjects that there is a page where they could help.

Imagine, ten years from now, someone looking for the reason why the page War of 1812 is the way it is, and the discussion above being the key event where it was decided, by judging that one side's insults were better than the other side's, or whatever. I think if would be more helpful for that person if the discussion above could be found in the archives of the article's Talk page, rather than the archives of this page. So maybe you should consider continuing over there?

Just saying. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

So the the War of 1812 is off topic for the Fringe Theory noticeboard, is this what you are saying? Because this is essentially my point. If not, I am your fringe theory problem, please educate me Elinruby ( talk) 07:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

My point is exactly what I said and nothing else. But since you draw false conclusions from what I said, instead of true ones, I will explain more.

The first few entries may have belonged here, because they were about alerting people to a potential problem. See above: it is a page for alerting people who know how to handle fringe subjects that there is a page where they could help. At that point, the readers of the board got an impression of what it is about, and they could decide if they could help or not. Those who thought they could help put the page on their watchlist and maybe participated in discussions on the Talk page. Purpose of messageboard served!

But no, this discussion goes on and on and on, and it will probably go on for weeks. So I thought, maybe I should hint at the actual purpose of the board, and maybe people will move the continuation of the discussion somewhere more appropriate.

I should have expected that it would not be so easy. Now we will have week-long discussions on whether this discussion belongs here, with WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST and WP:IAR and WP:everythingelse as justifications that it does. Count me out, I will just view it as white noise and ignore it from now on. EOD for me, and sorry I said anything. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, after I explained the problems with your first source instead of replying to my comments, you asked "Did you even look at the sources above?" Yes I did. But if your first source is problematic and you don't even defend it, I see no point in making a lengthy reply evaluating all of them. In my experience, that just leads to more flawed sources and a lot more words of discussion. TFD ( talk) 13:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In my own silly way that was my point, how exact and how would we limit the "RS/Weight" of histories of the War of 1812? It seems to me to be an endless swamp. The idea that you can have a fringe theory when you have signed peace documents really strikes me as very strange territory indeed. Tirronan ( talk) 14:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue is how those documents are interpreted. Yes the USA fails to gain what it wanted, but so (in a way) did the British. Thus both we go with RS, and they are divided. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@ The Four Deuces: I am going to ignore that slur. I haven't answered because I spent yesterday travelling and I don't know what publisher you think is partisan or why. This is what Wikipedia suggests we do with contentious editors, ignore them. AGF, you seriously misunderstand fringe theory. This article is also about foreign relations, the history thereof, and can be approached though multiple disciplines. We are arguing about WP:BLUESKY here and I am done. You are not the artiber of what constitutes an acceptable source and there is no consensus for restricting that pool to peer-reviewed history journals, and while I would prefer to work with you not against you at the moment it is clear to me that we will all be here for years if we try to include you. So. Have fun. Elinruby ( talk) 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

According to an article in Melville House Publishing, "[I]n 1983, Free Press began an era of controversial and conservative books, including The Tempting of America by Robert Bork and Intercourse by Andrea Dworkin. Gilkes published Alan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind." Other titles included Illiberal Education by Dinesh D’Souza, The Real Anita Hill by David Brock, and the Bell Curve. Brock argues tha Hill was lying, while the authors of the Bell Curve conclude that blacks are less intelligent than whites.

To reply to your comment, "I don't know what publisher you think is partisan or why:" I consider sources partisan when reliable sources say they are partisan. How would you classify this publisher?

TFD ( talk) 18:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Kidd, Kenneth. "The War of 1812, from A to Z". Toronto Star. It's become axiomatic among historians that Canadians know they won the War of 1812, Americans somehow think they won, and the Indians — who'd continue to cede land to American expansion — definitely know they lost, despite fighting alongside British regulars and Canadian militia. look.-- Moxy 🍁 20:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I will just add, we have asked for RS that clearly states the opinion that the Canada won viewpoint, popularly shared in Canada, is fringe theory. Been asking for days, and no one can provide one. All we have is a few Pro US viewpoint editors, like TFD who are trying to diminish an opposing view by trying to classify it as fringe. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 12:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again, what is the actual article content you would like to see added? There is a huge volume of argument on the talk page and three noticeboards, yet no one is making proposals for text in War of 1812#Long-term consequences, War of 1812#Memory and historiography or Results of the War of 1812. fiveby( zero) 13:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, I guess Deathlibrarian wants us to say Disputed military stalemate/British win rather than Military stalemate, but one of the many problems is that military stalemate is not really disputed as the proposed wording may imply; even those who say Britain/Canada won do not deny the countries fought to a military stalemate, but they claim that for example Britain won because the United States was going to annex Canada and it failed; then there are those who say the United States was not going to annex Canada and that it lost for other reasons, etc.

Military stalemate seems to be the fact that is established in a wide majority of historical works; the minority of opinions (i.e. American or British victory) do not agree on the result (or even on how they won), but the majority that claim stalemate have a consistent consensus of stalemate by mutual exhaustion. Both the American won and British/Canada won viewponts are fringe because they are not broadly supported by scholarship in the field and depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in their particular field. It seems to be that Deathlibrarian's main objection is the term fringe because it conflates alternative theoretical formulations (such as position that either Britain or the United States won the war, which is something that departs significantly from the prevailing view that the outcome was a draw and/or military stalemate) with pseudoscience and questionable science.

Despite me and other users explaining that it is used in this broad sense, Deathlibrarian insists that the Britain/Canada won viewpoint is mainstream, although it departs significantly from the prevailing view; and that we should give an unwarranted equal weight to the majority (i.e. mainstream) and the minority (i.e. fringe) viewpoints.-- Davide King ( talk) 12:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, please share with us your thoughts. This issue has not gone away.-- Davide King ( talk) 14:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, not sure you will like my thoughts on this but here goes: I would just remove the "result" field in that infobox rather than continuing to argue over it, and encourage everyone to do some needed work on the content in the historiography section. Deathlibrarian and Elinruby with their "Canada Won!" arguments are really fringe, using poor sources and often misrepresenting what good sources they do mention. WP:FRINGE guideline does have the language you refer to about departing significantly from the prevailing views. I don't like it and think the guideline should be more objective—stick to UfOs and such and avoid issues that are better handled by the core policies.

Good research should be the key here. Deathlibrarian mentions Lambert, Latimer, Stagg (didn't see Brian Arthur but there is a lot of discussion) and Hickey. This is a diverse set of opinions, there is a lot of disagreement and different perspectives. I think it's unfair to the authors to summarize as "Britain Wins!", as you say they don't agree as to why or what they mean by victory or defeat. I just hate the idea of applying the fringe guideline here, even though these authors are sometimes in the minority. If WP:FRINGE is applied for such as Don Hickey saying United States lost the war then there is something very wrong with the guideline. fiveby( zero) 13:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, if you do not like that, then you can go to change it, but until then I believe it is clear and that those views are fringe. Rjensen, who is a historian and has written "Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812", wrote above that [t]he Canadian-victory viewpoint was widespread decades ago but is no longer found in Canadian scholarly articles & books or university textbooks. It may still be taught at the high school level in Canada, but I think it's now "fringe" in mainstream Canadian reliable sources in 21st century. Old notions become fringe when the RS drop them. A main flaw from Canadian perspective is it ignores the massive losses suffered by Canadian First Nations, who are now considered full partners in Canadian history.-- Davide King ( talk) 15:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, are you saying that my view of fringe theory is correct, but that you disagree with its own wording? Well, then Deathlibrarian et al. need to change that because the wording is clear and exclude Canada Won! arguments; the onus is also on them to show us that this is actually disputed and we need secondary and tertiary sources talking about the result and writing that it is disputed. By the way, Donald Hickey does write in The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict, Bicentennial Edition (2012) that [t]hus, after three years of campaigning, neither the United States nor Great Britain could claim any great advantage in the war, let alone victory. Militarily, the War of 1812 ended in a draw. So one more misinterpretation.-- Davide King ( talk) 03:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, I just noticed this. You wrote If WP:FRINGE is applied for such as Don Hickey saying United States lost the war then there is something very wrong with the guideline. But Donald Hickey actually say it was a draw! See Hickey 2012, p. 228: "Thus, after three years of campaigning, neither the United States nor Great Britain could claim any great advantage in the war, let alone victory. Militarily, the War of 1812 ended in a draw. So they have completely misinterpreted him!-- Davide King ( talk) 20:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King i disagree that the fringe guideline should by broadly interpreted, but that is not up to me. Don Hickey does say in interviews that he thinks US lost the war, i do not know if he has published the same, and for the War of 1812 article only the best published works should be used. This nose counting with quotes taken out of context for what are generally nuanced opinions with differing perspectives is a poor way to proceed. Notice that Troy Bickham is quoted in the historiography section to seemingly say "technically a British victory", is this fair at all to Bickham and what he considers the primary issue of the war? It is simplistic to take single quotes and tally them in win/lose/draw columns.

"Most view the result as a draw" is said very often and i am sure well supported, but there are some very respected names who disagree. The fringe guideline would have us exclude these views because they "depart significantly from the mainstream." I would hope that each work on the war is in some way unique with a new perspective. If other historians view these works as valuable contributions who are we to say they are fringe? fiveby( zero) 17:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, I am referring to fringe only to the infobox's result; I am opposed to say Disputed military stalemate/British victory in the infobox's result. I am fine with the main body offering all those viewpoints. Do you disagree with the current infobox? Or do you think it is fine? Because that is the main issue. Thank you. Davide King ( talk) 17:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand my position (you really shouldn't take one editor’s word about another editor's position). I also suspect you haven't looked at Deathlibrarian’s sources if you think they are poor. BUT thank you for this:

If WP:FRINGE is applied for such as Don Hickey saying United States lost the war then there is something very wrong with the guideline.

This is precisely my point. Balance and weight should apply, not a dismissal of RS to outer darkness because of their conclusions, eye roll. Elinruby ( talk) 17:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to take the conflict off the table. Can we avoid identifying a "winner" and "loser" and instead just say both sides failed in their primary offensive objectives, and succeeded in their primary defensive objectives? CNMall41 ( talk) 04:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I have come to believe that the entire info box should be removed. Every bit of it contains something that isn’t quite correct, actually. Elinruby ( talk) 17:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@ CNMall41: I’d be open to something of the kind, but what was the British objective in DC? Was it retaliation or did they intend to take the country back? Article currently does not cover this, one of its many NPOV problems, since it spends a huge amount of time talking about how annoying it was that the “Indians” were able to get guns from the British. Elinruby ( talk) 17:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes tactics get away from strategies, so I don't know if it's possible to say that something like burning down the White House was planned as part of a bigger overall goal, but I agree that the article should talk more about the reasoning behind going into DC. I personally would have no problem with removing the infobox, but I think it would be a much harder sell to the military history project to have a war with no infobox. CNMall41 ( talk) 14:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

CNMall41, you wrote that Can we avoid identifying a "winner" and "loser" and instead just say both sides failed in their primary offensive objectives, and succeeded in their primary defensive objectives? But that is exactly what the majority of historians say and it is what Draw and Military stalemate imply. Some historians may say it was a military stalemate but that Britain, for example, succeeded in her primary defense objectives and so won; but the same is done to claim American victory.-- Davide King ( talk) 15:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what this is doing here as none of the discussed possibilities are "fringe" IMO a result statement is like any other statement in an article and requires sourcing. In this case, an extraordinary claim in view of it being unclear / disputed. IMO such a statement needs particularly strong sourcing to stay in Wikipedia. Being disputed, such strong sourcing probably does not exist. IMO that means completely remove the "result" entry. The desire to include the entry and fill in the blank does not override the wp:verifiability policy. Further, IMO a mere majority/plurality view is not enough to state it as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Further, IMO, in such situations trying to create one-word characterizations in an area where opinions are divided is not an encyclopedic quest. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 03:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. An American or British win's views clearly depart from the prevailling or mainstream views that it was a draw; we would need to change this wording first. I also believe there is some misinterpretation in that the ones who claim one side won over another are making an interpretation; because de facto it was a draw and military stalemate, there was not a de jure winner or something like that. Even the op says Nobody is suggesting that the article say in Wikipedia's voice that Britain/Canada won, only that respected writers do exist who say this [...]. The solution is simple; we say it was a draw in the infobox and add the interpretations in the main body, which are already in. We simply cannot say the result is disputed because it actually is not; again, there seems to be a confusion and conflation between the actual result (draw) and the few interpretations who claim one side won, without disputing the de facto military stalemate.-- Davide King ( talk) 04:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard M. Dolan

jps ( talk) 19:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead to Hockey stick controversy is very long (as is the lead to Hockey stick graph) and is overwhelmingly focused on criticisms before a final paragraph, which basically says that scientific consensus endorses the graph. Are the criticisms DUE and is their prominent and sizable placement in the lead consistent with FRINGE and NPOV? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead should at least explain clearly what the Hockey stick controversy is before it launches into everything else including criticism. The reader needs some basic information.

The lead is too long, too specific and too convoluted; it should summarize and give the reader a sense of the entire article. This lead fails to do this, and in my opinion should be shortened considerably and rewritten Littleolive oil ( talk) 19:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, at a rough estimate, it's at least twice as long as it needs to be, with an excess of detail and a misplaced sense of proportion. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, the "hockey stick controversy" describes the collective fossil fuel industry freakout when Michael Mann came up with a single compelling visualisation that showed what they have done to the planet. It was not and is not a controversy in science. I guess it should be renamed, because a deliberately engineered political campaign is not the same as a legitimate public controversy. I wish I had a picture of the scene described to me by a friend (PhD climatologist) who attended a talk by Michael Mann: about a dozen protesters waving hockey sticks and denouncing climate change as a hoax. Apparently the arriving audience pointed and laughed, and eventually they went away. Guy ( help!) 14:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, the attempts at denial began with earlier reconstructions, and were amplified when Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH99) featured with headline graphics in the IPCC TAR of 2001. Followed by various notable battles, starting with the Soon and Baliunas controversy, and followed by the North Report, Wegman Report and Climatic Research Unit email controversy, all of which featured "hockey stick" reconstructions. . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Was there actually a hockey stick controversy? I am dubious. There was a coordinate effort to try to discredit Michael Mann which failed rather spectacularly, but surely this is not a "hockey stick controversy" but rather one of many pitched battles by deniers against the scientific consensus. jps ( talk) 20:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

And herein lies the problem. From what I'm reading this is a pretty complex subject in part because it is embedded in the multiple battles to disprove climate change. I'm no expert on this, in fact, never heard of it, but seems to me when dealing with climate change we can't allow error or content inappropriately weighted against the mainstream view. My POV showing, but this is more than a serious issue and adherence to policy must be scrupulous. If someone has knowledge in this area, article should be scrutinized and at least, the lead redone. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, don't know if you noticed the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, wittily dubbed "climategate", but the hockey stick graph arguments were central to that. As in "Mike's Nature trick" . . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I did. And decided not to get involved in these articles, at least for now. I don't have the knowledge base to edit or engage in much discussion and these days don't have the time to learn enough to advance anything intelligently. I have a pretty good grip on policy and guideline in general but this is an area that needs experts and that's not me. Littleolive oil ( talk)

Very sensible! I'd been editing in the less contentious area of creationism, but the CRU affair attracted my attention, mainly for the UK dimension. So tried to get to grips with the complexities. . . dave souza, talk 18:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Kinda seems like WP:SYNTH to me. Is there another source which collates all these topics into one coherent "Hockey Stick Controversy" story? jps ( talk) 22:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, not finding one. It's quite likely that article should be nuked as a WP:POVFORK - it can be summarised in the hockey stick article as "the fossil fuel industry lost its collective shit and launched a propaganda campaign designed to create a conservative freakout, which had limited success because their sources were repeatedly shown to be wilfully dishonest". Let me know if I missed any important details there. Guy ( help!) 14:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

jps and Guy, probably the best source is Mann's 2012 The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, also well covered in Global Warming and Political Intimidation: How Politicians Cracked Down on Scientists as the Earth Heated Up. Raymond S. Bradley. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2011. A somewhat patchy 2010 account by Fred Pearce, The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming, also that year The Hockey Stick Illusion provides a deceptive account promoting climate change denial. . . dave souza, talk 12:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, I've read it. The problem is, the term "hockey stick" is actually only significant in terms of the wingnut freakout occasioned by the Mann graph. The "hockey stick graph" is just an informal name for the Temperature record of the past 1000 years. So we have a reality-based article on the graph and an article on the wingnut freakout that gives undue weight IMO to numerous rapidly-debunked attempts at scienciness. Guy ( help!) 22:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's already summarized at Global_warming_controversy#Data_archiving_and_sharing, could just redirect it there. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should AfD or merge-request RfC this rather than just acting based on our local consensus. This article had a lot of traffic one upon a time (was slashdotted?) in spite of it basically being set-up as a "dumping ground": [29] jps ( talk) 14:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't think that Slashdot blog was the main source of traffic, it was more about the Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation in which that nice Ken Cuccinelli set up his own inquisition into Mann's "hockey stick graph" work. Noticed his name in the news lately as Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, organising some heat in Oregon. Whooda thunkit . . dave souza, talk 13:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hockey stick controversy Guy ( help!) 21:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Elastic therapeutic tape could use a few more eyes. - MrOllie ( talk) 01:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, ah, presumably a non-branded name for kinesio tape, and all the bollocks that entails? Guy ( help!) 22:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, yes, exactly. - MrOllie ( talk) 23:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

CheeEng Goo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started to make unverified edits to trilobite pages ( Coronocephalus, Crotalocephalus), claiming to observe sexual dimorphism based on preservational differences. This both qualifies as original research and as pushing fringe theories. For context, CheeEng Goo publishes "Petrified Embryology", [30] a blog focusing on supposed petrified dinosaur embryos. These claims are not founded in any scientific methodology, and instead simply constitute misinterpretation of rocks. I think there is a good case for calling his work pseudoscientific. Elsewhere on the blog he supports an outdated view of dinosaur metabolism and extinction (that they were cold-blooded reptiles whose embryos were very sensitive to changes in the climate). His biography mentions that his Co-Partner in his work is a self-proclaimed "dragonologist". I'm not sure how administrators deal with fringe theorists publishing their own work on Wikipedia, are warnings, blocks, or bans the proper response? Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 13:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Content dispute in question [31] [32]

There's a content dispute on the Presidency of George W. Bush article about whether a particular line can be inserted into the body of the article in the section covering the Bush administration's refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol. In 2006, Bush stated here existed a "debate over whether [climate change is] man-made or naturally caused". I want to add a clarification noting that a scientific consensus existed at the time that human activity was likely a primary contributor to climate change (or something worded along those lines). I believe it would be compliant with WP:FRINGE to clarify that both for present-day readers and for readers in the year 2050 who are reading about the US withdrawal from Kyoto. I believe it would be non-compliant with the WP:FRINGE guideline to simply regurgitate Bush's claim that there was an active scientific debate on the subject without any clarification. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a source which clarifies this in terms of scientific consensus and lack of scientific debate explicitly? I imagine such sources likely exist, but it would be inappropriate to synthesize this if there weren't such sources as this statement may depend on context. Certainly there was debate within the hallowed halls of Congress over this matter, but who knows if that's what GWBush was referring to at the time. (From my memory, it is likely that he did not really know what he was referring to himself.) jps ( talk) 02:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, there kind of was a debate, but mainly sustained by dark money - it only became apparent years later that most of the contrarians were paid "merchants of doubt". Guy ( help!) 13:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• it really depends on who you are talking about... there was definitely a POLITICAL debate about “What to DO about climate change”. This bled over into a political debate about what causes climate change. That political debate meant that the scientific skeptics had a lot more influence among policy makers than they do today. While the scientific community had reached a solid consensus that it was indeed largely man made, the governmental and policy making community lagged behind, and still debated. Blueboar ( talk) 16:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • scientific skeptics had a lot more influence among policy makers than they do today Not sure about that. Will Happer seems to have a lot of influence today. jps ( talk) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans I dont understand why you seem to post every content dispute to this noticeboard without so much as discussion on the relevant talk page. WP:Dispute resolution says that "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution." Bonewah ( talk) 16:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the relevant talk page three days ago. [33] No one responded. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Snoogan, Bonewah is correct, why are you bringing so many discussions here vs other, more relevant talk pages? Why shouldn't this be at say NPOVN or BLPN? Same with the Laffer discussion above. Springee ( talk) 18:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a perfectly relevant page. Global warming denial is a fringe position. jps ( talk) 20:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't mean this is the correct page. Let's assume we are going to put a "flat earth" claim in the lead a BLP. On the article talk page there is an agreement that 2 decades ago the subject did suggest that the flat earthers might have some valid points. The BLP subject has said nothing about it since. Regardless some editor wants to put "Mr BLP said flat earther theories have validity" into the lead. This is opposed on grounds of DUE. Why would that discussion come here? No one is disputing the science or validity of flat earth theory. The point of dispute was weight. That is the same question here (and in the Laffer article). If the debate is about NPOV, not about the nature of the science/economics why bring the question here? Springee ( talk) 21:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Because the question of how exactly to discuss a fringe position in one way or another on Wikipedia is relevant to this noticeboard. It may also be relevant to other noticeboards. I'm not a big fan of these exclusionary opinions about where discussions need to take place. Anything that encourages thoughtful discussion is good. I see thoughtful discussion here. If you don't, feel free to ignore it and go somewhere else. jps ( talk) 21:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Well yes and no. If the question is, "do we call a flat earth statement" a scientific claim or a joke, that should probably come here. If the question is "should we discuss a flat earth claim in the lead vs just the body then that is a NPOV issue since we aren't trying to decide if the theory/science/concept is or isn't fringe. That snoog has decided to bring several NPOV discussions here vs NPOVN has the appearance of gaming the system in hopes that a "yes it's fringe" response here will support a NPOV question on the article talk page. Springee ( talk) 21:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

How does one game the system in a determination that a statement is FRINGE or not FRINGE? Discussing fringe claims in the lede of an article is absolutely in the remit of WP:FRINGE. jps ( talk) 02:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Two possible ways. First, it could be that the initiating editor assumes those who typically follow and reply here are more likely to be sympathetic to his/her editorial stance. That certainly is an issue with things like project pages but probably not as much with noticeboards. However, it can also skew the discussion. Was the content removed/added because someone is claiming it is/isn't fringe or because it is/isn't DUE. If the editor can get an affirmative response here to a related question that could be presented as support for a question that shouldn't have been about WEIGHT. Still, I will grant that is speculation. You would have to ask Snoog why they decided to post the question here vs the more obvious NPOVN. Before you repeat the view that since it's fringe content it can be discussed here, how does being fringe or not impact if the content is DUE in a case like this? What about the Laffer curve case? The issue was a sentence being added to a BLP's lead. Even if the Laffer case was considered fringe, how does that change the question regarding DUE for the lead? It doesn't thus this is an incorrect forum for the question. That an experienced editor repeatedly picks the wrong venue is a flag. Springee ( talk) 03:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me you might be over-personalizing this, perhaps because of the political controversy. At Wikipedia, there isn't a strong order of operations. DUE doesn't trump FRINGE nor vice versa, they work together. jps ( talk) 11:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems you might be reading what you want into the discussion. I'm not involved with the original topic. Yes Fringe and Due work together but if the question is legitimately one of Due it should be asked at NPOVN, not here. Springee ( talk) 12:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying? A question can be "legitimately one about WP:DUE" and still be relevant to WP:FRINGE. jps ( talk) 15:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I heard you but I don't think your argument is sound. If the status of the thing being "fringe" is not the crux of the talk page debate then why would a discussion of the edit inclusion come here? Springee ( talk) 16:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The status of a position as "fringe" can be important when considering whether its inclusion in an article is duly weighted. Not all fringe topics are fringe in the same way. Some require excising completely. Others require marginalizing. Still others deserve attention because, for example, non-sensationalist reliable sources have taken note. There are so many facets to this question to declare, "CANNOT BE A SUBJECT FOR FTN" is a kind of intransigence that just strikes me as being needlessly pedantic and derailing of possibilities for legitimate and enlightening discussion. jps ( talk) 16:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If the status as "fringe" isn't the central or even a minor point of disagreement then again, why come here first? Springee ( talk) 16:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me there is some question about the status of Bush's statement in 2006. Was it a WP:FRINGE position in 2006 to say that there was a "debate over whether [climate change is] man-made or naturally caused"? jps ( talk) 17:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

And as I said, if that were the crux of the issue then this is the place to do it. Since it the primary concern was DUE for the lead it doesn't matter if we are dealing with fringe or not. You can keep saying this was an OK place to bring the topic but I'm not the only one who questioned why it was here vs someplace else. Your arguments just aren't convincing and I guess mine aren't working on you so that would be that. Springee ( talk) 17:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't appreciate people complaining about where a conversation is happening on Wikipedia, it's true. If you don't like the conversation, feel free to stop engaging with it or ignore it entirely. Wikipedia has a grand tradition of that, after all. Ta ta! jps ( talk) 18:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• How about: Yes, climate change denial is fringe... but some fringe concepts are relevant enough to be discussed in related articles. THAT is a DUE/UNDUE question, probably best answered at the NPOV noticeboard. Blueboar ( talk) 22:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • We can answer it here too. WP:FRINGE addresses undue quite a bit. jps ( talk) 02:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Several good sources are cited in Hockey stick controversy, and for 2003 in particular, check sources in Soon and Baliunas controversy . . . dave souza, talk 12:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Springee, this is a noticeboard frequented by people who know how to handle fringe subjects. Its purpose is to make those experts aware of articles where fringe subjects are discussed, especially those articles where fringe proponents are threatening to insert their fringe positions into the articles. Since you are trying to keep users from posting those hints here, that means you do not want fringe experts to know about these articles. That means you want the fringe proponents to be successful in their attempt to insert their fringe positions into the articles. Since this is about climate change denial - exactly the same fringe position whose proponents you have been defending for months now, and even before that - your behaviour makes a lot of sense. Maybe a topic ban is order? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That is a load of total bad faith BS on your part. It totally ignores the issue that others raised and I endorsed. It also ignores the question at hand in the article. Springee ( talk) 10:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue you raised is that those who typically follow and reply here are more likely to be sympathetic to his/her editorial stance - which is the stance that tries to keep this encyclopedia from embracing fringe positions. There is nothing wrong with that stance, it is actually part of the rules, and I cannot imagine opposition to gathering anti-fringe editors being motivated by anything other than a pro-fringe position. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Then you need to try to think about it a bit more. Your incivility is totally uncalled for. Springee ( talk) 21:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That is one of the tricks fringe proponents sometimes try to pull: instead of attempting to explain, they claim that their opponent only needs to think in order to come to the same conclusion as them. Of course, since people are very different, that never works. I wouldn't even know how where to start, attempting to think like you.

You are obviously depicting this noticeboard as infested by people with an undesired "editorial stance". I do not know where you got that, but the obvious explanation is the one I outlined above. If you do not supply another, I will continue to have no idea except that one. Nobody can read your thoughts, unless you write them down. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Its simply not worth arguing with your bad faith accusations. Springee ( talk) 10:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Recently Falun Gong leader Li Hongzhi's comments about aliens, homosexuality, race, and so on have seen media attention again, particularly in light of Falun Gong's pro-Trump activities via its various media extensions, such as The Epoch Times.

Currently these articles makes little to no mention of these topics. As this is deep in fringe territory, I invite readers of notice board to see this talk page section. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a sequel to Cowboys & Aliens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hadn't thought about that one in a long time! :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at Lynching of Wilbur Little? There's a long thread on Talk:Lynching of Wilbur Little where the idea that this is a hoax is being pushed. It seems to me that we have a large collection of good sources from major newspapers, books published by academic presses, peer-reviewed literature, and a PhD thesis which all take the existence of this as a given. Against that, we have a small-town local newspaper claiming it's a hoax. What started out as what I considered reasonable coverage to the hoax idea has grown to take over the majority of the article. There's now a discussion about whether the title of the article should be changed to include "hoax" or "controversy". -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Starting here, but sure to spread to other articles. The question is, considering WP:EXTRAORDINARY, how much weight to give this kind of speculative reporting, and how to treat it neutrally. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a bag of it here somewhere. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

And [34] "he believed “we couldn’t make … ourselves,”", nough said. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If Eric W. Davis says it, it has to be true. No possible self-interested sensationalism or promotionalism there. Right? Right? RIGHT? jps ( talk) 18:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

And so the WP:SENSATIONAL coverage bandwagon begins to roll: [35], [36], [37]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I knew Wikipedia coding was alien tech. Take me to your leader. Randy Kryn ( talk) 18:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, must be true, it was in the Daily Express, and they have no history at all of publishing UFO bollocks. Guy ( help!) 22:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Still my favorite: Weekly World News published a huge headline: "UFO UNEARTHED BY BULLDOZER! SHOCKING PICTURES INSIDE!!" Inside there was a series of pictures of the bulldozer. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Ha! Perfect. Guy ( help!) 14:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

A new article related to this mess: Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force. I keep finding To the Stars affiliates quoted breathlessly in the media and ending up in our articles. jps ( talk) 19:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking...what sources would be accepted for such an extraordinary revelation? Is this a matter of semantics? No Swan So Fine ( talk) 15:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

One that is independent of the claim, and does not say " according to...". Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Do we perceive the NYT as having been ‘captured’ in such a sense by the claimants? No Swan So Fine ( talk) 15:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

What? What do you mean by "captured"? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If an RS such as the NYT reported that the US had such a craft would that be accepted as a source regardless of the reliability of the claimant within the newspaper article? Or are extraordinary claims still regarded as such despite the reliability of their publishers? No Swan So Fine ( talk) 16:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if they said it. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary (not just ordinary) sources to be reported as a fact. Otherwise it would (keeping in my wp:undue) as the NYT's opinion. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup, extraordinary claims would require multiple high-quality sources in the relevant field, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If the NYT really believed there was imminent proof of ETs they would make it front page news with a giant headline, and the story would quickly be picked up by most (if not all) news outlets around the world. There wouldn't be any questions about sourcing. In this case they've carefully attributed claims to an ex-official and put it on page 17. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there any compelling reason why Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force should not be merged with Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program? Despite the names and temporal disparity, the two groups/entities/whatevers certainly seem to be the same "thing." JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Merger proposal. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine. Also you need to be careful at Pentagon UFO videos to attribute claims to one pilot who says he was told something by a radar operator, rather than report them factually in Wikipedia’s voice. [38]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• List of active separatist movements in Asia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of active separatist movements in Africa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of active separatist movements in Europe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of active separatist movements in North America (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of active separatist movements in Oceania (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of active separatist movements in South America (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles are infested with so-called "active separatist movements" such as this added by @ Carvesoda3789:, which is referenced by nothing more than a wordpress blog with a domain name. That isn't an isolated example, any crackpot with a Facebook page or their own website advocating for the independence of somewhere is an active separatist movement. FDW777 ( talk) 20:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

A simple relevance check: Is a reputable media outlet outside this region reporting about it? If not it's probably irrelevant. If something doesn't have such a reference it's not a big loss if we remove it. -- mfb ( talk) 21:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Well that's the most sensible option obviously, but the SPAs infesting the articles don't tend to agree so more eyes on the articles would be welcome. FDW777 ( talk) 09:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This AfD may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

See A message to any journalists who end up reading this page on the above AfD. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

is "verified to be truthful and correct" now. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

[39] Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Amousey AGAIN. Add this to myalgic encaphalomyelitis, chronic Lyme, multiple chemical sensitivity and other fringe topics on which a strong PROFRINGE POV is exhibited. Guy ( help!) 11:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If that is a pattern then ANI or AE may be needed. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

My deletion was restored (ES "Invalid reason for removal"), then removed again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs

Please comment.

jps ( talk) 16:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks jps. Looking at the article's edit history - and not gonna name names (unless someone else wants to) - but when a user is going across many medical articles and consistently engaging in apologetics for fringe "medicine", such diffs should be collected along the way, and can eventually be used to seek a topic ban for tendentious promotion of fringe theories. Especially when we've recently lost a really strong defender of MEDRS in the person of Doc James, such behavior can't go unscrutinized. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

More comments are requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.#Request for comment on text removed from ACAB article. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure I see the relevance to fringe theories of this RfC. jps ( talk) 01:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Robert James Moon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article, mostly untouched since its creation in 2011, seems to oversell ideas that nobody has heard of. The subject apparently got involved with the LaRouche movement, and finding sources that aren't from that bubble is proving tricky. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Has there been a ruling on the use of punes, or plays on words, in this thread? - Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 23:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I made a second orbit and found a few better sources on his actual career, which I've added to the article, plus an item that's interesting but maybe too primary to use [40]. It's starting to look like he got into silly stuff after he retired, and the bad material crowded out the good. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge the small Raw veganism article into the larger Raw foodism article which already has a section on raw veganism [41]. One user Hawaiisunfun is continuing to make pro-fringe edits in regard to medical claims and content. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 14:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

See the background information at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz

If only poor Cedric was a creationist. Then he would get a highly-paid job at the Discovery Institute like Günter Bechly did. I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Global_warming#Requested_move_3_August_2020.

I figure some of y'all might have some valuable insight here.

jps ( talk) 14:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Stella Immanuel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BLP could probably use some work clarifying that her fringe views are fringe, and her medical advice re COVD-19 is not merely “controversial”. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Much improved after some brief scuffle. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW this article has been nominated for inclusion in Did You Know on the main page, as I write this the nomination is still in process. Won't proceed while that merge merge proposal is pending, though, if I remember the (highly convoluted) DYK rules correctly. -- Krelnik ( talk) 12:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Could some editors take a look at Talk:2020 Beirut explosions#"bomb of some kind"? I figured the people who read this noticeboard are more knowledgeable about undue weight and stuff.  Bait30   ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The current basis for any efficacy of Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (past discussions: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing_(EMDR). Currently open merge discussion with EMDR. I thought it best to bring it up here before a WP:MEDRS review, which it badly needs. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 17:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

From what I understand, bilateral stimulation is a lot broader than EMDR. EMDR, in fact, is probably overly weighted in that article. Merging with EMDR would be a mistake. jps ( talk) 14:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Stuart Hameroff (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Do philosophers count as critics of the claim that Gödel implies that the human brain has certain properties? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Orchestrated objective reduction could also do with some work. jps ( talk) 12:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I noticed as well that there is another physics professor (this time from condensed matter) making claims about nuclear spin being the thing that causes consciousness: Matthew P. A. Fisher. I don't understand what causes these people to jump into new fields. It's like they get bored or something. jps ( talk) 12:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

His paper

“

If you feel strongly that this simply cannot be true, maintaining that “I don’t believe quantum processing is possible in the brain at all” then you will surely be uninterested in any attempt to reverse engineering this non-existent phenomena. (Sorry about that.) But for me, to get of[sic] the ground, it was necessary that I suspend disbelief. Indeed, I am going to work under the assumption that neural quantum processing is present. And then seek to reverse engineer. If I’m not successful then probably my assumption is just not true. But if I am successful, well...

”

One need not assume that quantum processing is present to engage in such speculation or even meaningful scientific investigation that may/may not be relevant. But for some reason, this motivated reasoning seems to be all the rage for those who want quantum consciousness. WHY IS THAT? jps ( talk) 12:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I think their problem is that they do not understand consciousness, and they do not understand quantum mechanics, so they want to merge both, in order to have only one thing they do not understand. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I imagine that they don't "understand" turbulence either, but for some reason that doesn't ever seem to be something invoked to explain consciousness. jps ( talk) 16:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Of the two, Fisher's proposal is almost incomparably far more serious and respectable than Hameroff's. Fisher asks, if quantum physics matters at all for what neurons do, what chemistry could possibly support that? He argues that if A, then B, with B sufficiently precise — entanglement of nuclear spins in pyrophosphate — that experiments could rule it out, so we could say not-B, therefore not-A. He mentions "consciousness", but it's really about information processing, a way to build a liquid quantum computer in a test tube. Crucially, Fisher takes known science as correct, whereas Hameroff says that quantum mechanics is wrong and we need to replace it with his made-up story that also — poof! — "explains" consciousness. Fisher says that there's one possible loophole in the otherwise very good arguments that quantum computation doesn't happen in brains. Hameroff is ... well, it'd be impolite to say he's out to make bank grifting the quantum self-help lecture circuit, but that hypothesis is consistent with the available data. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that's fine, but Fisher's motivated reasoning is still motivated reasoning. There's no reason to explore extravagant loopholes unless you really want quantum mechanics to be relevant. As such, this looks like a giant distraction from, y'know, actual research. jps ( talk) 23:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Anne Frank#Sexuality in the Diary -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Lots of activity on that page saying that it is mainstream and not fringe. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the reason that these diaries are still remembered. People wonder why simians point at humans and laugh so much. O3000 ( talk) 01:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I know! I have no idea why everyone focuses on minor details like hiding in an attic or being killed by the Nazis when everyone know that what Anne Frank is best know for is her sexual orientation. Go figure. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This is definitely one of the cases where WP:FRINGE runs into WP:UNDUE. Since there is such limited serious scholarly discussion approaching this pet theory (compared to the much larger body of scholarship discussing her other sexual curiosities), any mention of it at all is problematic. CNMall41 ( talk) 05:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This fringe theory is being discussed for the fifth time at Talk:Anne Frank#Sexuality in the Diary. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice forum shop, Guy. In spite of what Guy Macon has said before, there are a number of RS that have discussed sexuality in her Diary, including the chapter "Anne Frank and Wartime Experimentation" by J Krongold in the Palgrave Handook of Holocaust Literature (2020). That wouldn't generally be considered "fringe". Newimpartial ( talk) 18:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Odd isn't it? You claim "a number of RS" that support your claim, and yet for some inexplicable reason the RfC is currently 11 to 3 against you. Go figure.

Given your history of confusing what a source actually says with your conclusions based upon your reading of the source, may we please have a direct quote where Krongold says that Anne Frank was lesbian or bisexual? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying that Anne Frank was lesbian or bisexual. None of the sources are saying that Anne Frank was lesbian or bisexual. What is under discussion on the Talk page is whether or not the reliably sourced material relating to LGBT sexuality and the Diary should be included in the article. It is not an RfC, and nobody would look at that Talk page discussion (without an agenda) and see an 11 to 3 split of policy- and evidence-based !votes. There are a number of low-quality !votes, and also a good deal of BLUDGEON from the two of us. But I do encourage new eyes to take a look. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I've read the chapter "Anne Frank and Wartime Experimentation" and see nothing that refers to Anne Frank's sexuality. I have the text in front of me. (Google books has it) I honestly have no idea what you're referring to as "sexuality in her Diary". It's not there. Vexations ( talk) 19:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies, Vexations. I see that I made a serious error. I didn't have access to the source (could barely find the citation), and I thought it was related to the direction of work represented by this and [42], but at a higher level. I see that was mistaken. Now that I have found someone with access, I will strikethrough my earlier comments. Thanks again, and I will take appropriate caution in future.

For what it's worth, I still don't see the topic as FRINGE. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Anne Frank talked about sexuality in her diary is not fringe. The fact that her father censored those passages and that there are now censored and uncensored versions available is not fringe. And the Anne Frank page covers both. The claim found in the following headlines...

• As a Queer Jew, Learning Anne Frank Was Bisexual Is a Game-changer --Haaretz
• Anne Frank, My First Bisexual Hero -- Arre

...is absolutely a fringe theory. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

And yet neither of those was the source that "set off" the current discussion at Talk:Anne Frank. It was the PinkNews piece, entitled Anne Frank was attracted to girls, which makes no unsubstantiated claims and yet which you used as a pretext to launch a preemptive discussion on the Anne Frank talk page. I still don't really understand why, but it was a foolish and unnecessary move. It looks like another botched forum shop, to be honest. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I have made it perfectly clear on multiple occasions that what that "set off" the current discussion at Talk:Anne Frank was this edit: [43]. I realize that you want to make this a discussion about the reliability of PinkNews, but the place for that is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This is Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and I am discussing the attempts to promote the fringe theory that Anne Frank was LGBT that were removed in the following edits: [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, not all of those edits were "attempts to promote the fringe theory that Anne Frank was LGBT", and some of them make appropriate use of quite mainstream sources and so do not represent FRINGE views of any kind. The one that "set you off" for example was an inclusion of the Anne Frank page in WikiProject LGBT Studies, and I'm not sure about the propriety of you as a non-participant in that project removing that label. It is certainly not a requirement that Project LGBT studies only include the pages of LGBT individuals in the project.

I am not going to discuss all of the edits here, and I certainly would not defend any of the ones adding categories or labels in Wikivoice. But many of the edits do not do either of those things, and this edit for example added two new, relevant academic citations, which somewhat belies your repeated insistence that interest in this issue is FRINGE. Anyway, there is now a properly formulated RfC at Talk:Anne Frank, so we shall see what happens. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

@ Newimpartial: what are these "academic citations" you are referring to? I'm curious because I did a library search and draw a blank. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This edit cites Rachael McLennan, Representations of Anne Frank in American Literature: Stories in New Ways, Routledge, 2016 and Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Jeffrey Shandler, Anne Frank Unbound: Media, Imagination, Memory, Indiana University Press, 2012. I have not read either source, but Routledge and Indiana UP are generally good. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I see. No page numbers are given for those books, which make the citations next to useless from a WP:V perspective. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it was a good edit; I was saying it isn't necessarily FRINGE and it undermines Guy Macon's argument that only FRINGE sources discuss this topic. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

And you expect Alexbrn to verify that the source says what you claim is says... how? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm not claiming that those sources say anything in particular, that would be hard to do: mind reading is notoriously difficult. I am merely pointing out that they exist and aren't FRINGE material. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

And we are to verify your "I am merely pointing out that they exist" claim... how? Alexbrn asked you "what are these 'academic citations' you are referring to? I'm curious because I did a library search and draw a blank." It's a simple question. Pointing out that a book on Anne Frank exists and claiming that the acedemic citation is somewhere in that book but you won't tell us where isn't much of an answer. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, I withdraw the question. I watched the show once. I don't need to watch the rerun. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Such an adroitly dropped WP:STICK. <slow clap>. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This type of thing comes up again and again with historical figures. Unless there is an explicit description of actual sex described by either the historical person or eyewitnesses, the matter always amounts to the dubious practice of trying to guess someone else's inner feelings. I think we need to require that any source is a longterm historian who has thoroughly studied this particular person in depth, otherwise the author has absolutely no hope of knowing what Anne Frank was "really like". That means: 1) No dabblers who flit from one subject to the next, writing a book on a different subject every year. 2) No authors from outside the history field, in fact no one from outside the subfield of WWII or mid-20th century history. 3) Absolutely no political activists, novelists, playwrights, etc. 4) Preferably someone who has written at least three or four books on Anne Frank or a closely related topic. That means even if the source is an article in the NYTimes (normally an RS), if it was written by a fashion editor trying to link a historical person to their favorite political cause then that's just an opinion by someone who doesn't have anything relevant to say about the subject. This is frankly just the normal procedure for an encyclopedia, which is supposed to rely on scholarly academic sources written by respected specialists on a relevant topic. BillsYourUncle ( talk) 00:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Slow clap. -- Guy Macon ( talk)

(Referring to the first paragraph of Applause#Slow handclaps in film, not the second.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has been about two different things. There have been no !votes to classify her as LGBT, and only one !vote clearly in favor of including sources which use the word bisexual to describe her feelings (if I understand correctly). I along with at least one other express support for including information about Frank's own words which describe her feelings about women's bodies. Most editors do not address this question. The section Anne_Frank#Unabridged_version notably leaves out mention of the homoerotic text, and the article body leaves out Frank's best friend Jacqueline van Maarsen even though her name is in the template below. We do not need to guess Frank's feelings; she describes them herself, so let's not censor them. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

People keep adding and removing claims that Anne Frank was LGBT: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] ...and that's just from January 1st. I posted a comment on the article talk page and here specifically about those additions and removals. Then all hell broke loose. If you do not want to talk about my report regarding more attempts to promote the fringe theory that Anne Frank was LGBT and instead want to talk about something else, you should create a new section.

Re: "We do not need to guess Frank's feelings; she describes them herself, so let's not censor them", that's not how Wikipedia works. There are specific policies against doing that: WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

What are you doing? Yes I could create a subsection to prioritize adding text about her homoerotic entry over categorizing her sexuality, but I don't understand your inferences about my arguments.  Obviously we can find secondary sources with "information about Frank's own words which describe her feelings about women's bodies", as I suggested.  We don't need to guess or interpret what she's thinking; we can just relay her own words as the secondary sources do.   Kolya Butternut ( talk) 04:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The argument for inclusion has to explain why the material is not WP:UNDUE. It seems that the only way to do that is to argue that those passages from the girl's diary reveal something important about her, namely, her sexual orientation. That claim is fringe, even though some opinions expressed in RS (such as Haaretz) have made that claim. The suggestion in Haaretz and elsewhere that it's important to talk about Anne Frank's sexual orientation because this helps the self-esteem of Jewish queer people is bizarre, and is a disservice to the LGBTQ community. The gay and lesbian people I know find self-esteem elsewhere, and do not need to find it in speculation about the sexuality of a child. NightHeron ( talk) 11:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it need not "reveal something important about her", NightHeron. We are not writing a novel. It must be significant, which it is not, because no actual sex act is alleged to have taken place. Bus stop ( talk) 19:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how "fringe" this notion is, but from a (admittedly non-exhaustive) search of the literature I don't see that the LGBT-ness (or not) of Anne Frank is much discussed in the WP:BESTSOURCES, of which we have many. Therefore I think straying into this area risks problems of WP:WEIGHT/ WP:NPOV. I did find something about how the Anne Frank Human Rights Memorial is somehow used to re-contextualize Anne Frank for American consumption, in part as a beacon for LGBT Idahoans, and since the source is good I modified that article accordingly. [61] I think it's fair to say that Anne Frank is a politically contested "site" and (seemingly like everything else around here) suffering from the insanity of American political and cultural skirmishes. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, exactly correct. Beware activists trying to claim one of their own, stick to academic sources. There is no shortage of academic sources on Anne Frank. Guy ( help!) 14:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The argument for inclusion is that the text is about one of the most important relationships in her life: her best friend. And the text is notable because it was expurgated and a reason for potential school book bans. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Lee Carroll ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Via this edit by David Eppstein at Golden ratio (which I have watchlisted), I was led to this paragraph at Duodecimal and thence to Lee Carroll. There may be enough in the "Criticism" section to establish wiki-notability, but even granting that, the page looks like it could stand a good trimming. XOR'easter ( talk) 07:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles relating to Indigo children have always been something of a problem here. jps ( talk) 10:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm I see typical medium/spiritualist apologetics presented without any cited source there (like that any inconsistent result is normal because...) Much work needed indeed. — Paleo Neonate – 03:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I started cutting, but I need to go and do other things now, so I'd be happy if anyone would like to step in. XOR'easter ( talk) 03:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Posting here because the discussion touched upon QAnon. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Could someone evaluate content on the Ben Carson page regarding the notion that the human brain is incapable of forgetting and can be electronically stimulated to remember everything? [62] The long-standing version appears to say that Carson's claim is incorrect, but a new editor is arguing that the evidence for the claim is mixed. I do not know enough about the topic and do not have time to read the sources thoroughly, which appear to be WP:SYNTH. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 04:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Back from running errands! It's definitely WP:SYNTH. None of the sources mention Carson or make nearly as dramatic claims as he did. (The Alzheimer's study mentions possible worsening in patients below age 65 years with stimulation, interestingly.) CTV News and The Conversation fail WP:MEDRS, both studies mentioned probably do as well on account of being primary, and this page from Harvard is mislabeled as a "study" (it's just a website). XOR'easter ( talk) 04:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Norwegian Child Welfare Services ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Centre of numerous conspiracy theories and target of (probably exaggerated) criticism apparently centred on Eastern Europe and supported by various fringe perspectives and (possibly justified) other criticism of various sorts. Many of the sources could use a look; nearly all are non-English language and potentially tainted by a curious mixture of political and/or religious biases of various colours. GPinkerton ( talk) 21:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Not to be all "anecdotes are data" or anything, but I actually had a friend who fled Norway because of Norwegian Child Welfare Services. It's apparently a known issue [63]. They seem to be particularly harsh on foreigners. jps ( talk) 00:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The controversy is obviously real enough, but there are wide-ranging consequences of the various interpretations of it, and there are those political and religious factions that are now frothing wildly about evil Norway's secret plan to impose its child-snatching regimen on poor victimized Eastern Europe. See the report by the same BBC journalist on the Bulgarian angle to the issue, which is stuffed with patent absurdities echoed by some of the claims in the article. The reliability of the media quoted in the article I can't assess. GPinkerton ( talk) 13:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, histrionics are histrionics. I remember one blog which was written by an American who lost custody of her children frothing at the mouth over the influence of Satan (they were of the fundamentalist Christian ilk). The best thing to do is stick to reliable sources ( WP:RSN could help). BBC has some pretty good coverage of the subject that seems more-or-less balanced to me. jps ( talk) 14:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As I told on the talk page, Norwegians expect that one is honest about spanking his/her children (yes, spanking is child abuse according to Norwegian law), say they are willing to improve and there is no big fuss. It's when one denies any wrongdoing and goes into attack mode that creates problems. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Children's Past Lives (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Carol Bowman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Discussion: Talk:Carol Bowman § Merge Children's Past Lives in Carol Bowman

Two previous deletion discussions resulted in a weak keep and there were some convincing merge arguments then, but they are still distinct, so I started the formal merge discussion. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 19:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is The Media Fund a reliable source? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

For the interested, there's an ongoing discussion on what birther should redirect to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is this discussion taking place? I don’t see anything at Talk:birther. Blueboar ( talk) 21:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind... I found it at the Redirects for discussion page. Blueboar ( talk) 22:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Odd that Birtherism isn't its own article, no? Hyperbolick ( talk) 02:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)