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

• Sarmatism (pseudohistorical theory) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fresh article, ex nihilo. I don't know anything about the subject, but maybe someone could have an eye on it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the disambiguator could be shortened to Sarmatism (pseudohistory), akin to Torsion field (pseudoscience). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Just moved it to (pseudohistory}, because I agree and it should be uncontroversial. If there's any pushback I will just move it back and start an RM. As for the article, it looks pretty NPOV to me, but I am no expert in Lithuanian history! —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 21:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

[1] I wouldn't be surprised if this or something she writes shows up at some time in our articles. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, given that Wikipedia still contains claims that Columbus 'discovered' America, It probably wouldn't be surprising if that bit of ignoring-the-inhabitants boosterism gets in too. ;) AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't, but I don't follow all the related articles. Where do we say that? Doug Weller talk 16:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I was mostly relying on my memory of the Christopher Columbus article. Having looked at it again, it seems more nuanced than it used to be, though maybe I'd misremembered. It does however say this: "Between 1492 and 1504, Columbus completed four round-trip voyages between Spain and the Americas, each voyage being sponsored by the Crown of Castile. On his first voyage, he independently discovered the Americas. These voyages marked the beginning of the European exploration and colonization of the Americas, as well as the Columbian exchange, and are thus important to the Age of Discovery, Western history, and human history writ large." Of course, 'independently discovered' can be interpreted in several ways... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, the paragraph I've just quoted is sourced to the 1993 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Which now has a much more nuanced take on Columbus itself, and probably shouldn't be cited for something it no longer says, given the date, and the subsequent reassessment of Columbus and the merits of his claims to 'discovery'. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I avoid the Britannica like a plague. It certainly shouldn't be used there. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@ AndyTheGrump: I've tweaked the text and was reverted with the edit summary " the phrasing as is should stand. It makes clear that his voyage was not based on earlier European voyages)". [2] I'm not sure that we can state that as a fact, although it's likely, in any case. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have consolidated all the COVID-19/ivermectin content, which was spread across 2½ articles, to:

• Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Please add to your watchlist. This will likely soon need to be protected. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@ Alexbrn. Well done. It was an enlightening read. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Definitely worth an article, and will watch. Merry Christmas! —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

And now the pushback

Encyclopædius has removed the FDA tweet (and the lovely horse photo) on the grounds it is "propaganda" and launched a source-lite Talk page thread on that theme, claiming they're "seeing the same couple of editors putting out this propaganda", while repeating some talking points (ironically) that are propaganda from the quacks pushing this stuff (e.g. that that ivermectin is "approved" in Japan). More eyes would help. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

"The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro". Antiviral Research Volume 178, June 2020

Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study National Library of Medicine. "Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis at a dose of 300 μg/kg with a gap of 72 hours was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following month. Are NOT quacks...₪ Encyclopædius 17:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The first source is the one which kicked the whole thing off (as cited in the article). It's not WP:MEDRS and completely outdated by everything that followed. The second, in the PLOS ONE megajournal, is primary research so unreliable per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Gosh. I dont think I've ever seen somebody with such a history here on the project with so little WP:CLUE about WP:MEDRS - Roxy the dog. wooF 18:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

My most bursting question right now is: how has this user not been subject to discretionary sanctions about this? How long can you go pushing a POV absent sources and ignorant of MEDRS in a scientfiic DS area and avoid a TBAN? —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Now I know what it's like to have an idol like Linus Pauling and then see them devolve into Vitamin C pseudoscience. Very disappointing and disheartening. Silver seren ^C 18:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, in-vitro cannot be used to support any in-vivo associations/claims, obviously... — Paleo Neonate – 18:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

We have an admin with exactly the same amount of CLUE though. - Roxy the dog. wooF 18:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Just the one? Alexbrn ( talk) 04:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A friendly reminder to be WP:NICE and keep the discussion about content, not personal feelings about individual editors. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 18:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Report them, or stop with the wp:pa. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I suspect Encyclopædius is a compromised account, given the degree of fuckwitedness on show. The idea that an editor with over 600,000 edits doesn't know how to WP:INDENT and is utterly clueless about policy, seem improbable (or is otherwise one of the saddest indictments of Wikipedia ever). Alexbrn ( talk) 19:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, it's very different to write about films and places than to evaluate sources for medicine, — Paleo Neonate – 20:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Now at AE, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Encyclopædius. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

He says he's retired after 15 years here, and it'a all our fault for holding medical articles to WP:MEDRS when there's all this great stuff about ivermectin that we won't let him use. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

As they have reitred, and as it looks like they may be TBANed, let's stop this about a user stuff? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Somehow, Loftus' appearance in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial is more important than her main work now. The lede says she was "criticized by the prosecution" but not that she is "a cognitive psychologist and expert on human memory". I removed this UNDUE stuff before. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 22:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

On the talk page of the Warsaw concentration camp article, concerns have been raised about using this source's WP:ABOUTSELF usage to merely describe the main tenets of the conspiracy/fringe theory that the person propagated (her work was the seminal one to spread it):

Trzcińska, Maria (2002). Obóz zagłady w centrum Warszawy. Konzentrationslager Warschau [An extermination camp in the centre of Warsaw. Konzentrationslager Warschau] (in Polish). Radom: Polskie Wydawnictwo Encyklopedyczne. ISBN  83-88822-16-0.

K.e.coffman said that WP:FRIND forbids us from citing info directly to Trzcińska at all; on the other hand, I believe that citing the pages where her assertions about the camp may be found is only to provide context for the following sections, Refutation and Reactions+the article with that text passed the GA review on PL Wikipedia back in 2016, from which it was translated to English in September (though admittedly PL WP's policies don't include precise language of how to handle sources such as this for WP:ABOUTSELF purposes).

Is the framing and usage of this source in the article appropriate? Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 08:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF says, Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities

So, this would be an unusual application of ABOUTSELF, justified by what?

I would dump that source. ABOUTSELF applies to the article Maria Trzcińska, but not to the Warsaw KL article. Why would we need details on the fringe theory there? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the whole (pretty long) section should be moved to the Trzcińska article, leaving a much shorter section in the KL article. That way, the source can be used. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Trzcińska's activity was directly connected to the article's topic (she rallied for commemoration of the victims according to her theory of events), so I think it is included in "their activities".

As discussion in independent sources show, there are enough of them to establish notability for a section of their own, and the camp is primarily known to the Polish public precisely because of the conspiracy theory, and, to English readers, mostly due to the presence of Trzcińska's theory for 15 years on this Wikipedia and the whole controversy that came thereafter. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 09:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Putting aside ABOUTSELF for now, I think issues of WP:UNDUE apply to any usage of Trzcińska as a source. The theory may be notable and well covered in independent secondary sources, but if any aspect of the theory is not then I don't see a reason we should cover it. In other words, if the only source is Trzcińska, well then no one else cares about some specific aspect of what she said, so we don't either. Anything we cover should also be covered in reliable secondary sources. If editors just want to add it as an additional source since some readers may prefer it "direct" so to speak, personally I'm not fussed provided the source itself doesn't have BLP problems i.e. makes claims about living third parties. Others may not feel the same thought. I'd note that IMO using someone's self published source to cover their theories even if it doesn't affect third parties tends to violate the not unduly self-serving criterion anyway IMO. Nil Einne ( talk) 11:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, ABOUTSELF is for basic BLP article details and it's the analysis of more reliable independent sources that should be presented. When those are lacking about some primary material it's an indication of WP:UNDUE (and sometimes failure to meet WP:BLPN, but not in this case)... — Paleo Neonate – 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The theory may well be fringe globally, it was (in effect) both mainstream in Poland and even here for a while (indeed that is kind of the point). So yes we should mention it there. But she is not an RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• WP:FRIND is clear: discussion of fringe theories requires independent sources. Otherwise, we are giving undue weight to the elaboration of her theories. Not clear why cites to Trzcińska are needed for later refutation either; her conspiracy theory has already been refuted, by third-party sources. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  I hope it's better now? I've left the Trzcińska cites but coupled them with independent reliable citations, and deleted text to which I was not able find any RS citation. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 10:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is not really helpful and arguably makes things worse since now the fringe source is intermingled with a better source. In any event, there's no support for using Trzcińska -- either in this discussion, nor on the article's Talk page: [3]. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Global cooling (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• insource:"https://science.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138"
• insource:"10.1126/science.173.3992.138"

Two fresh December WP:SPAs (or maybe one wearing two socks) try to WP:WAR WP:FRINGE text into the article. The next revert should come from somebody else. Maybe they both need a bit of coal in the sock too. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I was too impatient and reverted it myself.

That article traditionally attracts accounts that edit only it, or almost only it: Special:Contributions/Entropics, Special:Contributions/A fresh avocado and Special:Contributions/Chenzia wanted to add exactly the same fringe source as Special:Contributions/Pi_Variant and Special:Contributions/The Canonical Project, and Special:Contributions/Climate expert deleted the same sentence. Looks like a massive sock farm. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Watching now. A good candidate for page protection if it continues. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 16:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding: Special:Contributions/2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:0/64 (blocked as part of range 2600:387:b:7::/64 since July), Special:Contributions/2A01:B747:16D:344::/64 (blocked as part of range 2a01:b747::/32 since September), Special:Contributions/2600:1700:4810:1490::/64 apparent WP:BE, like those accounts who are most likely the same person... It's been going on often enough recently that page protection may indeed be a good idea, — Paleo Neonate – 01:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Request filed at WP:RPP... – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It was already at RFPP, where it was declined as a content dispute. I noticed this and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pi Variant, which is currently pending a checkuser response. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 02:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RFPP is finished, both new accounts blocked together with User:Stemwinders, and Global cooling is protected. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the Tucker Carlson page about whether we can include an attributed Media Matters analysis of the show's COVID coverage. [4] Some editors are disputing whether the rhetoric on Carlson's show actually undermines vaccines or otherwise downplays COVID. More eyes would be helpful. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Such a lits seems ok, but I'm not sure about the sources used as criteria: "The list below includes those features which remain unconfirmed, each of which is ranked according to a three-step confidence level as indicated by the Russian Academy of Sciences, by Anna Mikheeva: 1 for "probable", 2 for "potential", and 3 for "questionable". Level 4 is given to discredited structures, which hence represent geological features other than impact craters. Structures with confidence 0 are considered "confirmed" (EID) or "proven" (Mikheeva) and should be placed in the lists of confirmed craters according to continent." Umm al Binni mentioned above is in note 1 said to be proven by Mikheeva, although the recent source don't agree. In fact, one of the two sources, Sissakian, V.K. and Al-Bahadily, H.A., 2018. The geological origin of the Umm Al-Binni Lake within the Ahwar of Southern Mesopotamia, Iraq, which I have, concludes:

1. The study of the Umm Al-Binni Lake using the available geophysical data and remote sensing techniques did not support the meteorite impact crater origin for this Lake as believed previously.

2. It was found that the Lake rather has a tectonic origin as indicated; for example, the straight NE and SW Lake rims coincide with the general Zagros Thrust–Fold trend (NW–SE). Doug Weller talk 14:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have had a problem with this list also. I agree that Mikheeva's list is unreliable, she doesn't appear to have any major expertise in the topic area, and what rankings she assigns to certain craters seem arbitrary. The problem with a list like this is that it becomes a dumping ground for all sorts of fringe impact claims, even if they are not credible. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

We should remove her as a source, leaving us with a criteria problem though. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I've gone and removed the confidence parameters from the table. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@ Hemiauchenia: thanks. Did you mean to leave Note 1 in? And I'm still wondering about including Umm Al-Binni Lake with two sources, one of which people might think supports it being an impact structure even though it strongly argues that it's not. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Organ theft (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user Beansohgod ( talk · contribs) prodded this page with a concern about giving undue weight to the credibility of certain accounts, mostly supported by mainstream media and books of dubious reliability.

The page is unencyclopedic and documents an urban legend as if it was a factual occurrence. The source material is questionable at best, and all of the relatively factual information can be transferred to other pages. Moreover, the article seems to be torn as to the credibility of its own subject, first asserting that the subject in question (organ theft) does not occur before presenting several examples of when it did.
—  User:Beansohgod

I deprodded it because the Snopes and Skeptical Inquirer references are likely reliable for statements about the incredulity of claims, and Encyclopedia of Science Fiction for statements regarding its use in science fiction. Beansohgod also failed to specify a potential merge target for the remaining potentially WP:DUE material. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I keep trying to read this article, but every time I do, I wake up in a bathtub full of ice...curious. Well, Happy New Year, everyone! Dumuzid ( talk) 21:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I added some sci-fi related material that I think is relevant and reliable. 172.195.96.244 ( talk) 07:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Just as an aside: related articles are

• Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Organ theft in Kosovo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The second one is a redirect. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not think of a merge at the time (more so confused at the stilted page as a whole). In retrospect, a merge sounds like a really good idea; either way, the Organ Theft article requires the cleanup equivalent of trying to clear up the Kuiper Belt of asteroids. Also, if I had seen that Snopes was amongst the sources I called bunk, then I would have retracted my statement and replaced it with something a modicum more intelligent. Beansohgod ( talk) 19:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Opinions on renaming? On removing the "erroneously termed" in the lede? (See Talk:Vaccine shedding#Rename? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Two Ips inserting material claiming a deep prehistory for the Tamil, which even that page doesn't claim. First version was sourced to media and not all of them mentioned Tamil, second version left out all but one source. Some was copied from Adichanallur without attribution, and that article does not claim Tamil origin either except for some urns dated ca 1500 BCE. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Also deals with the subject of race and intelligence. This link is actually to a review of The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium, by Joseph L. Graves, Jr. [5] Doug Weller talk 17:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The source is published by British Archaeological Reports [6] which should mean its reputable, but as it is a collection of papers from the Second Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Cambridge Conference, and SIS is a Velikovskian group [7] I'm pretty dubious. I don't see the term used in mainstream publications or at least with reference to SIS, and I'm not convinced it's used in mainstream academia. For instance, Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse doesn't seem to mention it. This introduction to the publication is useful. [8] Doug Weller talk 12:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have never heard of any substantial climate anomaly at that time, only around 4.2ka and 5.5ka. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This introduction to the publication is useful Benny Peiser? Does this mean the climate change denialists have gone Velikovskian?

I see, Peiser's article even cites "Reconsidering Velikovsky: The Role of Catastrophism in the Earth Sciences and the History of Mankind". He seems to be a real poly-innumerate (if that is the opposite of a polymath).

I think that stub should be deleted. It does not really do anything except maybe lend credence to wacky fantasy pretending to be science. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a citebomb in Umm_al_Binni_lake#Climate_change_and_impact_effects about this. Without assessing the merits or non-merits of these claims, I suggest to redirect the poorly-sourced stub to that section. It seems to me that no-one talks about the "anomaly" except in the context of the impact claim, which means that 2350 BC Middle East Anomaly is not an independent topic. – Austronesier ( talk) 10:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redirected the article to the lake per the discussion here. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect reverted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2350 BC Middle East Anomaly. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, that might suggest I reverted, which I didn’t. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Sociologist who wrote about Satanic ritual abuse. See last section of Talk page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• I had a look, it appears that some work has been criticised by legitimate sociologists like Mary de Young, but also be Bruce Rind (of the Rind et al controversy). 172.195.96.244 ( talk) 00:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

As in all cases, the question should not be "has this person's work been verifiably criticized?", it should be "is criticism appropriate to include, and if so, is it given proportionate emphasis and appropriate context?", per WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:VNOTSUFF. "Has been criticized" is not an invitation to include all criticism, and academic disagreements should not necessarily be framed as implying the critic is more correct. I don't know enough about the situation to weigh in yet, but from my experience criticism is too often over-emphasized and unduly framed as a negative or "controversy". It is apparent that Mary de Young has criticisms of Nursery Crimes. It is not yet apparent to me that Finkelhor's work has been "discredited", despite a passing assertion in North & South magazine. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That it is "not apparent" to you does not mean we should not have that quote about his discreditation. It does mean that context is missing and should be added. As I understand it, Finkelhor helped incite the Satanic panic back then and refutations of his work should be included, but that is not apparent from the article. If I just look at the article text, he could just as well have pointed out the weaknesses in the recovered-memory idea and been attacked (or, as the article puts it, "criticized") for it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Anthropologist who wrote The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge where he "hypothesizes that shamans may be able to access information at the molecular level through the ingestion of entheogens, specifically ayahuasca". Doug Weller talk 14:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Unnecessarily detailed boring stories of the sleeping prophet's daily life. If you like to delete entire paragraphs because they do not belong in an encyclopedia, this is for you. I only removed a few of them. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to work on William Napier (astronomer) and Victor Clube who have written about this and who Ed Krupp described Clube and Napier as "thoughtful, credentialed scientists" but went on to demolish their argument on this view of comets. I've got a review by Ed Krupp [9] which I can provide the text fo if you can't read it. I've used this a bit already in Clube's article. This [10] might also be useful although we'd need the final version. I've done something with my back and in too much pain to do much, so any help would be useful. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Jack Sepkoski and David M. Raup claimed the same thing in the eighties, but with a 26 My period instead of 30; they are mentioned in Michael R. Rampino, who is linked in Shiva hypothesis. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Also [11]. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller: This 2021 paper by Ignacio Ferrín and Vincenzo Orofinomay may be of interest:

• Ferrín I, Orofino V (November 2021). "Taurid complex smoking gun: Detection of cometary activity". Planetary and Space Science. 207: 105306. arXiv: 2011.13078. Bibcode: 2021P&SS..20705306F. doi: 10.1016/J.PSS.2021.105306. ISSN  0032-0633. S2CID  227210565. Wikidata  Q108888402. This high percentage of active asteroids gives support to the hypothesis of a catastrophe that took place during the Upper Paleolithic (Clube and Napier, 1984).
• Romero J (2021-09-30). "Swarm of Near-Earth Comets Linked to Recent Ice Giant Breakup". Discover. Archived from the original on 2021-10-14. Retrieved 2021-10-14. The findings are welcomed by those who believe Comet Encke and the other products of this astronomical event are responsible for many of Earth's most violent and consequential impacts over the last 20,000 years.

Unless they're being used to describe the history I'd be slightly hesitant to draw too much from older sources, things have come a long way in the last 40 years. Sorry to hear about your back, I'd be more than happy to help out where I can. Aluxosm ( talk) 20:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Pretty garbled, lots of connections to about everything else, including Ascended masters from theosophy. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 21:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Why me, oh Lord? I keep running into things I wish I hadn't seen. See [12], some or all of which was reverted earlier by User:Wiqi55. I'm a bit concerned also that the page was protected on the 10th of December after an AN3 complaint, [13] in part because of probable socking. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to do it unless it makes sense. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I fails to see how it would be independently notable. Even if it somehow were, it would still be best as a section of the ICR, rather than a seperate article. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It has made its way into a footnote of an academic RS [14], but that's not really sufficient per SIGCOV. Merging it into the main ICR page is a good option. – Austronesier ( talk) 18:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I oppose merging and will contest it (note: I am the article creator). The article cites three reliable and independent sources (including The Dallas Morning News and WFAA, and these articles focus on the museum, rather than mention it in passing). I also found this source (citation here) that briefly discusses the museum. The coverage meets SICOV. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 19:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

There's material, but not a lot of material, and it seems like the content would be better organized if it were a section in Institute for Creation Research. Having lots of tiny pages isn't always the most informative way to present the facts (though it's often not really harmful either). XOR'easter ( talk) 04:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Since it's part of ICR and that it's not particularly independently notable (there's not much to write about it using independent sources), I agree that a merge/redirect would be reasonable, — Paleo Neonate – 12:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources in the article meet WP:SIGCOV without a doubt. The cited sources are reliable, independent, and secondary, and there's no original research required for this article. I've seen many WP:GNG articles with far worse coverage than this. desmay ( talk) 19:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, per the comments on the necessity to use original research, it does not seem to need that. It has coverage in independent sources. Plus since the article is young it may need more time to be expanded further. Also perhaps it would be wiser to discuss the matter on the talk page than here too. Ramos1990 ( talk) 23:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

"It might have more content in the future" is not really a persuasive argument against folding it into another article now. If that section of the Institute for Creation Research page then grows too big and unwieldy, it could be split off, but that strikes me as unlikely. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that there is any significant disagreement that the article has reliable sourcing to justify its existence. The main argument for merging seems to be that the quantity of the content is insufficient. Is there a policy that provides guidance on the preferred length of articles? In monitoring new Kentucky-related articles, I see an awful lot of short articles created about (for example) Negro League baseball players who only had a few at-bats in their careers. These are just as unlikely to ever grow beyond stub status as the ICR Discovery Center article - perhaps even less so, as most of these players have died, while the Center has just opened and has the potential for additional coverage of related events. An appeal to precedent may sound like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but saying it should be merged despite sufficient sourcing just because it's short sounds a lot like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT to me. If, as XOR'easter ( talk · contribs) contends, there's nothing really harmful about leaving it as a short article, then I'm inclined to leave it as-is. There's some marginal benefit to having the facility show up in its related categories, imo. YMMV. Acdixon ^{( talk · contribs)} 15:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Another COVID "critic". May need more knowledgeable watchers. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the guy who said "we'll have herd immunity by April", referring to April 2021... Other than the blanking of paragraphs, what concerns are you seeing here? Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

No specific concerns. I just point it out as an article that would profit from a few fringe-savvy watchers. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

See [15] Interesting conclusion:"Demand-driven looting matters, and archaeologists, scientific journals, media outlets, and the public should never blindly and blithely support or foster these activities through clickbait claims based on pseudoscience." And earlier in the article, "when Boslough noted on Twitter that “pottery shards from Sodom and Gomorrah would have a much greater market value than shards from some random unidentified site,” Collins dismissed this salient concern, against all evidence. He responded, “Poppycock.”" Doug Weller talk 11:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Steven Collins. This one does not have an article, only a redirect to a section of one: Steven Collins (archaeologist). -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Hob Gadling: agh. Fixed it as it was unfair to the other one. I'd forgotten about the AfD. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Recent edits seem highly dubious to me.

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

is connected. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Rp2006 and something at RSN about Skeptical Inquirer. 12:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Doug Weller talk 12:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"Firestorm" is an apt description, I think, and rarely has such a brouhaha made me universally think less of those involved (including myself). Cheers, and Happy Friday! Dumuzid ( talk) 13:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Just read through all of it. Yuck.

@ User:Alexbrn: I recommend the term McCarthyism instead of witch hunt. The element of publicly denouncing people for having contacts to others who have contacts to... and so on, is present in all three cases, but a comparison to McCarthyism fits better here since nobody is being imprisoned, tortured or killed.

@Nobody specific: I myself am happy when fringe people accuse skeptics of witch-hunting because that is an easy-to-refute weakness in their reasoning. Sorry if I sound like a wiseass, but if we are the good guys and in the right, then we have good reasons and do not need bad ones. With that attitude, when we suddenly notice that we do, then we know we are wrong. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller, also, I wanted to say thanks to you (and the others) for that reasoned defense of so-called "backward editing." I had such an outsized and visceral reaction to that bit (I drafted a response using the term "thoughtcrime") that I ultimately decided discretion was the better part of valor. The calm responses that came from others were better than I would have done. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't regret my meagre contribution so far, but I will refer to gatherings of editors/villagers carrying flaming torches, scythes and pitchforks, rather than mobs, in future. I dont like the admin hounding of Rob very much though. - Roxy the dog. wooF 15:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a shame that all this commotion will likely detract from a larger issue: regardless of who wrote them, a lot of BLPs of skeptics are written in a laudatory, chummy, showcasing tone, with lots of choice quotes, heavy reliance on primary sources, and compilations of podcast appearances, conferences, and other minutiae. As I've argued earlier, this same type of article would be swiftly chopped to bits if the subject was a conspiracy theorist, fad-diet author, or UFO enthusiast. It's fine to have pro-skeptic proclivities in real life, but it should not permit unequal scrutiny or enforcement of policies and guidelines. I don't know if the galaxy of skeptic-related articles is more prone to this type of subtle boosterism than others (certainly some obscure but marginally notable academics get more effusive and detailed coverage from fans than some Nobel laureates), but it would behoove the community active on this board to be more vigilant against double standards or turning blind eyes. --Animalparty! ( talk) 17:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That point will probably be easier to make in a week or two, especially if a couple of the bulls currently rampaging in the china shop find something else to do in the meanwhile. MrOllie ( talk) 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Subtle body (disambiguation) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anybody want to comb through all the articles about astral, causal, etheric, subtle, mental, and illusory bodies and their relations to each other? Do we need to map the fantasies of Blavatsky, Steiner, and some Asians from pre-scientific times (or later, but with the same attitude) into an interconnected web? If yes, how should it be organized?

Do we use the signs of the zodiac from different cultures as a precedent for this, with one article per body, or more obscure fantasy worldviews where we omit details of this granularity?

I fall asleep after half a sentence of anthroposophic gobbledigook, so I am not the right person for this. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 22:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between being a type of subtle body (which these presumably are) and being called a subtle body, so this disambiguation page is invalid and has been prodded. Contents were:

• Body of light, a concept in Western esotericism
• Causal body, a syncretic development in Theosophy
• Etheric body, a syncretic development in Theosophy
• Illusory body, a concept in Vajrayana Buddhism
• Mental body, a syncretic development in Theosophy
• Subtle body, a concept in Eastern esotericism

Same with Astral body (disambiguation), which is identical in content except for also including Astral body and a redirect to Septenary (Theosophy). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It was deprodded by creator Skyerise ( talk · contribs), who offered an explanation at Talk:Astral body (disambiguation). It can be summarized as that the terms have degrnerated from their original meaning, and are applied diffferently in different spiritual belief systems. Any third opinions about the disambiguation pages and the listed articles? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Main Question: Are South Africans and international media rejecting name changes?

There has been a debate on Wikipedia for years as to whether or not South Africans are actively rejecting place names. All evidence I can find points to this being a South African conspiracy theory directly related to dissatisfaction following the end of apartheid. No other countries have had this many problems with name changes on Wikipedia. This post is for all renamed places in South Africa.

List of renamed places in Namibia and Nur-Sultan are just two examples that do not have this same issue.

A good starting point is List of renamed places in South Africa. Virtually every place on that list has had discussion about whether the new name is in use or not. Some names were changed over a decade ago and still do not have their page updated because it is not the WP:COMMONNAME. It does not make sense for Wikipedia to not use the name on street signs and used by media.

These articles highlight the protests from white Afrikaners who feel like their culture is being erased. All of these articles highlight the fact that these protests are almost exclusively voiced by white South Africans, who are a small minority within South Africa.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2002-03-02-0203020118-story.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4584211.stm

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/28/southafrica.rorycarroll

These are all academic articles highlighting the debates in South Africa over name changes.

https://journals-sagepub-com.libproxy.unm.edu/doi/pdf/10.1068/d2112

https://eds-p-ebscohost-com.libproxy.unm.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=1f56e06b-cc62-4bfa-8edd-2dba483cda46%40redis

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02572117.2007.10587293?needAccess=true

Significant evidence supports an understanding that these name changes are here to stay and in use by reliable, English language sources. These are all videos of South African media using the new names.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBVAAMGYBZo&t=99s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdzan5g9A9M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqnFQckkH0 - Afriforum leader opposes name changes

There is no reason to debate all 500+ name changes when it is clear that the only significant opposition these names have are from a small minority of South African society. If an English speaking South African uses Wikipedia, then oftentimes the name on the Wikipedia page won't match the name used on street signs and in media. Letting these fringe views proliferate makes Wikipedia worse. Desertambition ( talk) 21:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am confused… you say that the “new” names are commonly used by the media… but you also say that those who argue for keeping the “old” names do so based on WP:COMMONNAME? Surely if the first is accurate it would negate the second. So which is it? Blueboar ( talk) 21:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Blueboar That is a fair question. I am saying that WP:COMMONNAME is being used to stall this change when that's not a real issue. Some of these are tiny towns with 90%+ black African populations with very little written about them. The majority of South African society, as supported by my sources, either doesn't care or supports the name changes. This idea that the name changes aren't being used has been pushed by Afrikaners for years now. WP:TOOSOON has also been justification for years on these articles. It's clear that it will never be the right time for some people. Desertambition ( talk) 22:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Not a WP:FRINGE issue. Names are conventions and not theories, so, I'd try Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) instead. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 21:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hob Gadling I do believe this is a WP:FRINGE issue because it has to do with conspiracy theories and interpretation of facts. This is a political position being advertised as truth. No evidence these name changes are being rejected by South African society, which is what the issue is about. Desertambition ( talk) 22:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  You don't need to ping me: 1) I have a watchlist, 2) I live here, 3) I had my say anyway. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 22:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  There may be motivations that are WP:PROFRINGE for certain naming conventions, but getting the naming conventions right requires getting consensus at a different place than this noticeboard. If you want a centralized discussion that can measure consensus, try something like the village pump. jps ( talk) 05:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about this large edit. [16] It's actually not much about slavery but mainly about the Exodus, adding text from Richard Elliott Friedman and changing "Modern archaeologists do not believe the Israelites were ever in ancient Egypt in significant numbers and were indigenous to Canaan." to "Some archaeologists and historians doubt that Israelites were ever in ancient Egypt in significant numbers, and most archaeologists agree that the ancient Israelite culture was indigenous to Canaan." @ Aminomancer: it's the word "some" that bothers me, as I believe that the mainstream view is that they were not there in significant numbers. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Even if it were true, one could set a WP:WEASEL on it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and read the revision and it does not seem like WP:WEASEL words or undue. The prior version entirely discredited the events of Exodus and while there is a majority view there is also a significant minority that affirm it in some way or another Viktory02 ( talk) 17:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I must say I have qualms about describing the source's "the consensus of archaeologists" as "some archaeologists." Dumuzid ( talk) 17:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That "significant minority" are not mainstream archaeologists or historians. Here's what a mainstream treatment of slavery in ancient Egypt looks like: [17]. The Israelites / Exodus story do not even warrant a mention there. Any mention we make of them in this context needs to be consistent with WP:FRIND. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GR that The Exodus, a mythic narrative is not really relevant to the actual topic of slavery in ancient Egypt, and should only be mentioned briefly if at all. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Viktory02 reverted User:Hemiauchenia restoring the “some” version on the basis of this discussion. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Generalrelative reverted User:Viktory02 removing the inclusion of other points of view on the basis of the discussion. Viktory02 ( talk) 19:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Then it was probably a bad idea by User:Viktory02 to revert the revert. WP:BRD does not mean "I said something on a Talk page somewhere, now I can restore the BOLD edit again." See also WP:WAR. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The first concern raised about my edit is that "some" is too weak a term for what some have described as a consensus. I can add sources where other scholars have described it as not a consensus, or as a weak consensus, so I think that term can be justified, even though I should have referenced it; but I'm willing to compromise on this point to ensure the overall view that there were Semitic slaves in Egypt is adequately represented.

For example, this article overall wants to dispute the Biblical account of Israelite slaves in Egypt, but in doing so, it implies to the reader that there were no Semitic slaves in Egypt. After all, the validity of the Exodus account is relevant to this article only insofar as it proves or disproves the existence of slaves in Egypt whose descendants would be called Israelites. I think there's a good argument to be made for the Exodus narrative describing a real event, in line with Friedman's hypothesis, but at the same time, it's possible for the Exodus account to be totally, 100% legendary (fictional), and for there to have still been Israelite slaves in Egypt.

And indeed we know from several sources, both Egyptian and Near Eastern, that there were Semites in ancient Egypt, both slave and free. So I think either 1) the consensus that there were Semitic slaves in Egypt should be stated clearly, 2) the alternate viewpoint on the validity of the Exodus narrative should be fairly represented, or 3) the entire topic of the Exodus should not be broached at all, since by excluding affirmative opinions, we're tacitly endorsing the claim that the Exodus narrative is of little consequence to our understanding of slavery in Egypt, and since there are other ancient sources (that haven't become religious scriptures) that prove the Egyptians owned Semitic slaves.

To avoid going in circles I think it would be best, for the moment, to just say "most archaeologists consider Israel indigenous to Canaan and doubt that Israelites lived as slaves in Egypt in significant numbers." Reverting my whole edit because of a single word is obviously a pretty extreme response compared to just changing that word.

The other concern raised is that the Exodus account is not relevant. But other mythic accounts that constitute a primary source for ancient Egyptian slavery are discussed in the article, and many more would be relevant. The article is a bit sparse with regards to references that cite or analyze ancient sources. Of course, an ancient text does not stop being a primary source just because it retells a myth. Manuscripts of the Iliad are well accepted to constitute a primary source for ancient Mycenaean (and possibly Trojan) culture. (Maybe one of the best sources we have, even though the oldest remaining manuscripts are many centuries removed from the date of composition) The sources I cited specifically discuss the ancient book of Exodus as a primary source for the conditions of slaves in the Nineteenth Dynasty. That's definitely both relevant and notable.

Now, another option would be to add some nuance with respect to consensuses in disciplines. I should have done this in my first edit. Actually, Friedman goes into a lot of detail on this in one of his books: Since the 1990s, archaeologists are (generally) much stronger than textual critics on the argument that the Exodus is almost entirely, if not entirely, legendary. This has become increasingly controversial in archaeology in the last decade, but the issue is much more controversial in textual criticism and history in general. And needless to say, the consensus in theology runs in the opposite direction.

Because the article makes a pretty significant and extreme claim, (viz. perception of its veracity has a major influence on people's perception of ancient Egypt) balance and disciplinary representation is especially important here, even if it requires devoting more words to this narrow subject than are devoted to other narrow subjects. The fact that other parts of the article have inadequate detail shouldn't be used to argue against adding necessary detail to this part.

So I'm in favor of characterizing it as "most archaeologists" considering the Exodus either legendary or very small, while adding that textual critics are split on the subject. And then restoring the specific secondary sources I added to help characterize the conditions of slaves in ancient Egypt during 19D. By the way, there's some editorializing further down in the same section that apparently has flown under the radar. Aminomancer ( talk) 09:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I should add, WP:FRIND is not applicable to this edit since none of the references I added was written by (or cited) a fringe scholar or endorsed a fringe theory. Didn't I wikilink all the authors of all the sources I referenced? These are well-known, well-regarded, notable specialists with positions at major academic institutions and numerous, often-cited publications. They more than pass the muster for citation on Wikipedia, and my citations are of much higher quality than several that remain on this article. Presumably, the main reason they are being maligned as "fringe" is because they seem to endorse a view that is congruent with religious claims, and in so doing, attract disproportionate scrutiny from otherwise reasonable skeptics.

As I see it now, the best arguments against my edit are 1) that I didn't provide enough citations for refuting the often touted claim that a "consensus" of archaeologists disregard the Exodus as legendary; and 2) that the topic of the Exodus narrative is not relevant or notable enough to be discussed in detail in an article about ancient Egyptian slavery.

But like I showed before, if we accept the claim that there's an academic consensus (at least in archaeology) against the historicity of the Exodus, that means the entire topic is totally irrelevant to ancient Egyptian slavery. So you can't have a paragraph dedicated to discrediting the Exodus and simultaneously disallow a paragraph that presents the opposing viewpoint.

Either it happened in some way and therefore reflects historical conditions of ancient Egyptian slaves, or it didn't happen and is completely irrelevant. If it didn't happen, then its discussion here, in the current edit of this article, is pure editorial. Its only purposes seem to be to attack the religious story and to protect the reputation of ancient Egyptians from the allegations in the sources for the Exodus narrative. That is why I chose to edit this section, it just smelled of the kind of thing that happens all the time on here, sneaking religious or anti-religious polemic into technical articles.

By the way, we really ought to have a talk about what constitutes "significant numbers." With all the accusations of weasel words flying my way, I should think you guys would be more self-conscious about it.

If anyone is interested in this subject, I would recommend the book I cited (The Exodus by Friedman) as a good place to start. It helps to contextualize the claim of a "consensus of archaeologists" by first outlining the evidence (or lack thereof) that was analyzed by archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein (whose work I greatly admire) and Neil Silberman to arrive at the aggressive argument that the Exodus narrative is purely mythological.

It's a very different kind of consensus than, say, the "consensus of medical doctors that obesity is associated with type 2 diabetes," because it's based entirely on a lack of supporting evidence, not based on any physical or textual evidence that falsifies the legend. This represents a kind of prejudice too, because similar legends from ancient China, such as those of the Xia and Shang dynasties, are presumed (especially on Wikipedia) to be at least moderately credible historical sources until proven otherwise. Statements about those dynasties that are only attested in ancient, very legendary sources (and derivatives) are used to make unreserved factual statements in Wikipedia articles all the time.

Which is good — with history I tend to believe where there's smoke there's usually some kind of fire. But if historians can use the Bamboo Annals or the Shujing as historical sources to support non-supernatural claims about wars, politics, or the regnal dates of kings, then surely they can (and do) use the various manuscripts that recount the Exodus story to support non-supernatural claims about slavery in ancient Egypt. Which should mean WP editors are welcome to reference articles and books that analyze these primary sources. Aminomancer ( talk) 10:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with your comment about the Illiad- if that's the case, then our article needs rewriting. So far as our articles containing statements of fact based on Chinese legendary texts, we shouldn't be doing that. Nor should historians. It's worth reading page 99 of this book by Redford. [18] Among other things that might be more relevant (eg the dates), it's interesting that the Bible never mentions Egyptian rule of Canaan. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Also probably worth noting here that later chronicles of the Shang dynasty have been corroborated by extensive archaeological finds. See e.g. [19] or [20]. Nothing like that exists to corroborate the story of the Exodus. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Could use more eyes on this one. Lots of newer editors arriving on the talk page. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Might be worth a look or adding to watchlist if the subject is of interest. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not much interested in the subject, but it reads like an article desperately trying to reach a minimum word count. --Animalparty! ( talk) 01:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC) --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this really a separate thing from GWPF? Its article suggests it's just a "rebrand". Anyhow mentioning it here because "[t]he group says that they should be called "climate change sceptics", not "deniers"." -- JBL ( talk) 15:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The new article was converted to a redirect in this edit. -- JBL ( talk) 14:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The source is a tripod link which doesn't seem to back it up anyway. I couldn't find anything except woowoo. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hell, looking at the edits of User:Subhobrata Chakravorti it looks like we need more cleaning up of articles such as Vedanta Society of Southern California which is entirely self-sourced, Swami Sarvapriyananda etc. But I don't blame anyone for not wanting to touch any of this. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed the statement. Many of the other sources and statements in Paramahansa Yogananda#Death are also dubious, including claims that he died immediately after his speech and that his body showed no visible decay for about three weeks after death, and I may remove those as well. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That’s already been dealt with. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

These kind of claims are typical enough and part of many traditions (predictions, incorruptibility); If a better source mentions this in its context it would be better. There also was the Divine Interventions book, but it seems to present claims and folk beliefs as fact. Unless I'm mistaken, the publisher seems to be popular health oriented and the authors not particularly recknown for the evaluation of such claims. — Paleo Neonate – 22:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Columns at Skeptical Inquirer

From past experience, there will be people who WP:CLAIM [sic!] that my posting this here is canvassing. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm more annoyed at your use of [sic] here to be honest... ;) Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It discusses how much social media is spreading these ideas, and this is also interesting: "researchers like Miami University’s Card fear that for some people, alternative history — especially the belief that archaeologists are conspiring to hide the truth from the public — can be a gateway to other kinds of misinformation." [21] Doug Weller talk 17:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller: James L. Powell's contributions to the debate around the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis has made this even more interesting. ^{[1] [2] [3]} Hopefully his prior work changes the minds of some the climate deniers in that crowd!

Aluxosm ( talk) 18:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but that’s a minor point and was made as a joke. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I just ordered Professor Card's book. I may go on a (non-promotional) backwards editing spree in the near future. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 19:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The prejudice against mātauranga as science derives from historical attitudes and concepts of Enlightenment science and that it is concerned about the history of science rather than the current scientific method.

There seems to be a kerfuffle in New Zealand, with the Royal Society there claiming that Mātauranga Māori is a "way of knowing" on par with science, and scientists being admonished for disagreeing. Jerry Coyne has been writing about it on [22] for a while, comparing it with the conflict between creationism and science in the US. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems very similar to the "Indigenous ways of knowing" article that was deleted earlier this year, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The quoted sentence should perhaps be rephrased as an attributed opinion. As for the broader concerns, well, American young-Earth creationists never used Biblical literalism to navigate the Pacific. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually the statement is true - European science does tend to unfairly discredit the knowledge of any other cultural group, without any regard for whether there's truth behind it. You've also not included the citation in your quote - it's not entirely clear from the way the paragraph is structured, but the citation at the end of that paragraph also supports the sentence you quoted. As XOR'easter said, it's no mean feat to navigate the Pacific (or, as another example, wipe out the moa). I can't comment on the modern rigour of testing in mātauranga, but I'll note that the Royal Society is hardly a fringe source, and that Jerry Coyne's blog, or the opinions of a small group of assorted scientists, aren't exactly RS. Don't be so fast to discredit other sources of knowledge - unless the goal is to begin believing a book (or a journal) knows everything.

In summary, find some reliable sources and don't guess. This is a complex topic. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 14:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What is "European science"? Homeopathy, maybe? That would be one European equivalent of, say, Traditional Chinese Medicine. Science is not continent-specific, and that any discrediting is "unfair" is just your opinion.

The logic "someone who knows how to build and use a ship and how to kill animals must be right about everything else too" does not really hold water either. "Other ways of knowing" are like "alternative facts", and please refrain from all those strawmen. Nobody said Coyne's website was RS. Coyne links to other sources though. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, science is not continent-specific. No, practical survival skills don't imply empirical correctness about all things. The point is that a body of cultural inheritance that includes actually empirically successful knowledge isn't analogous to American creationism in a straightforward way. (As Carl Sagan said in The Demon-Haunted World, Certain kinds of folk knowledge are valid and priceless. Others are at best metaphors and codifiers. Ethnomedicine, yes; astrophysics, no.) There are ways that "indigenous knowledge" could fit into a science class taught with a historical perspective, just like introductory college physics explains Ptolemaic epicycles. In turn, it is very easy to portray neutral-to-helpful efforts to do that kind of thing and make science more culturally engaging as nefarious attempts to devalue science. At a distance, through the haze of culture-warring, it can be hard to tell the former from the latter. This is particularly true when the efforts to do the former are described in public-relations pablum, in which the Royal Society Te Apārangi indulges as much as any Society. Coyne, who is willing to cite the Daily Mail on this, seems a poor starting point for a genuinely messy topic. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing about comparisons: if Mātauranga Māori were 100% identical with creationism, it would be a synonym and not a comparison. Every time somebody compares A with B, there will not only be similarities but also differences, and somebody else will unfailingly point out that there are differences, as if that would invalidate the comparison. Must be a natural law or something.

I just wanted to draw attention to the subject and say where I got it from, as a starting point. Coyne has a certain POV, but he quotes lots of sources in lots of blogposts, not just the Daily Mail. I had never heard about Mātauranga Māori before, but the conflict does remind me of Vine Deloria's creationism as well as of Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese medicine, and the claim European science does tend to unfairly discredit the knowledge of any other cultural group, without any regard for whether there's truth behind it surely reinforces those associations.

You are right: without concrete examples, the question "who is right?" cannot be answered, but that is not the point here anyway. The point is to draw attention to the articles connected to this, with ensuing improvement thereof. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I was also thinking of "allopathic medicine" vs "European science", strawmen to present a flawed description of "science", to disregard actual science, — Paleo Neonate – 21:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth checking out the articles on the authors of this letter, most of which were seemingly created by one editor as coatracks for criticizing them: Kendall Clements, Garth Cooper, Michael Corballis, Doug Elliffe, Robert Nola, Elizabeth Rata, John Werry. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Now those links are useful. The articles about the signers seem to be in large part identical. Copy-paste job. That is not how Wikipedia works. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The lede sentence about science was a bit garbled. The paper it references is actually quite good and identifies more than a few instances of the scientific method being applied in the context of this topic. I rewrote the sentence to align with this source, at least. jps ( talk) 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Coyne's comparison with creationism is clumsy. A better comparison would be to the Bible. I mean, we all (with the exception of the literalist fundamentalists) agree that huge swathes of the Bible are metaphor and lore and fanciful and unreliable, but it's also used as a reference point in scientific endeavors such as archaeology and the more science-y parts of ancient history, for certain. The critical theory being applied here isn't that all of Mātauranga Māori be accepted *uncritically*. It's that the tradition be given the same careful consideration that governments, academics, and so on give the traditional lore of the West. jps ( talk) 03:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, the source for the sentence quoted in the OP of this thread does not support that sentence at all! I changed the sentence to better fit the source. jps ( talk) 04:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a request for retraction of the paper cited there "A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea" Some of the details are here which is of course not an RS, just bringing it here for information. Interesting that Trinity Southwest University is located in a strip mall. [23] Doug Weller talk 17:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I have mentioned this before -- ironic that Trinity Southwest University is 15 minutes from the home of Mark Boslough, whose work was (erroneously) cited in the paper, and who is no fan [24]. Again, just for information purposes. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 19:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A fair amount of discussion has already taken place around a Skeptical Enquirer article from Boslough where he covers this. It's been in the article for a while 👌.

Relevant discussion at

→ User talk:Aluxosm#Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Aluxosm ( talk) 20:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Turns out that User:Aluxosm (see above) has now written 57.4% of this page. A lot of it is now based on James L. Powell, a respected geologist who sounds like a really good guy, but he seems to have gone off-piste here. His book Deadly Voyager: The Ancient Comet Strike that Changed Earth and Human History is self-published and the praise of it here [25] is from someone's personal website. And I guess no surprise, Hancock is also used as a source in that paragraph. I have no idea why Powell is used as a source for the first sentence in the lead instead of the earlier reference. Younger Dryas is if anything a bit worse I think. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller: I have not written anything near to that amount. The reason for the high percentage is because I've filled out almost every single reference on the page with wikilinks to authors and journals, as well as making sure they're all formatted correctly ( WP:CITEVAR). As I mentioned in the conversation I linked above, I've added arguments from both sides. You can use WikiWho do see where I've actually edited.

I did add the the reference to "someone's personal website"; I assumed that it would be okay after seeing Joe Roe recommend it him. The book itself is self published but the paragraph is about the source itself. You yourself have said that using a source is okay if they've " had a book published by a university", Powell has certainly done more than that.

I changed the reference for the first sentence because it had a more accurate date and contained the most recent description of the hypothesis. As with every one of my edits, this was thoroughly described in the edit description. If you have any specific issues I'd be happy to work through them but would appreciate it if you could use the talk page for the article so that others have a chance to respond. Aluxosm ( talk) 10:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I was a bit confused by the ping here since I don't remember ever recommending (or even reading) markdefant.com as a source, but I see you mean that I recommended a review written by Defant, published in a reliable magazine, as a reliable source on another topic. Not quite the same thing...

On the general question I think you've done great work with this article but the topic is a really tricky one to write about and Doug is right that we need to go over it with a fine-tooth comb, ensuring that the sources are the best possible. The citation to Hancock in this paragraph is an immediate red flag (why do we even need a second citation for a direct quote from the first?) and makes me wonder about other references to fellow travellers like Sweatman. –  Joe ( talk) 10:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Joe Roe: Apologies for that, I had meant to say "him" but only caught it after posting. I appreciate the confidence in my edits and agree that adding Hancock wasn't my best idea (it was a very early one, not something I'd do now), thanks for removing it and your help elsewhere! Aluxosm ( talk)

I intend to at some point. I used the "Who wrote that" extension for Chrome, and that did highlight a lot of text that you wrote. The bit about "book published by a university" is about a case where the book and the other writings are in the same field. Powell is not an expert on comet bursts, and he's much more prestigious than Colavito. Hard not to conclude that even his prestige wasn't enough to get a publisher to publish his book. Wikiwho looks interesting but I don't see how to use it directly with colour, etc. Xtools uses Wikiwho of course and that gives you 54.3% with 220 edits, the first being in 2020 when you added a COI tag. You are by a long way the major contributor to the article. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller: Powell is a well credentialed geologist who has written extensively about the history of other hypotheses. He may not be an expert in "comet bursts" but neither is someone like Boslough in geology, it doesn't mean we shouldn't reference them. I'm not surprised he couldn't get the book published, it's still a very controversial subject (as he describes in his latest paper).

I wasn't saying that I'm not a significant contributor to the article, I was just trying to point out that my contributions are not as sensational as you made them seem.

I do regret adding the COI tag, I think I assumed that Hoopes had authored works on the topic; it was misguided and I apologise for it. I do, however, think that the bias tag (which I added after) was more than justified and should have been there for a good while. I could point to numerous examples (take a look through the history), but something that stands out is my correction to this, surely it was just WP:SYNTH and an obvious attempt to discredit the hypothesis? Things like that haven't been a surprise; a significant proportion of the article (before my edits) was written by people who believed that this debate has been settled.

The WikiWho color thing requires you to run a Greasemonkey script. [26], let me know if you need a hand, it's really useful! Aluxosm ( talk) 12:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Aluxosm: How about Tampermonkey? Looks easier to use with Chrome, but I may be wrong. Or I could use Firefox. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller: I hadn't heard of that one, should be fine though. Looks like there's also one called Violentmonkey 😂. All three of them should apparently run the script but only Greasemonkey and Violentmonkey are open source (if that's an issue). I've only tried it with Greasemonkey on Firefox I'm afraid. Aluxosm ( talk) 15:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Thoughts on whether this article as written is WP:PROFRINGE and possibly a WP:POVFORK for Male privilege?

Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 17:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It reads more WP:PROFRINGE than WP:POVFORK to me. To put it another way, if we merged the content somewhere else, would we really want to merge it into Male privilege rather covering it in a broader topic like Hegemonic masculinity? Part of the problem is probably that it's a niche sociology topic, and one involving a value judgement related to the topic of discrimination. Small articles on controversial topics are definitely some of the most likely to attract fringe editing. There's an AfD for the article, but it looks like if the decision is keep it'll need a lot of attention to raise the level of sources and trim the WP:SYNTH. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, Bakkster Man, and I think you're right. I see that Flyer22 raised the issue of SYNTH on the talk page a while back in her characteristically thorough and persuasive way. Thanks to Orangemike as well for starting the AfD. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Just an update that the AfD has now become a target for SPAs, likely sock- or meatpuppets. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added the 'not a ballot' notice, which might help. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Sure looks like someone's posted about it off-Wiki. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I had a brief look on google earlier and didn't find anything obvious like a twitter post. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for checking. Three of the SPA !votes come from first-time editors, which is highly suspicious. On the other hand, the article does get about a hundred views per day, so perhaps some of those viewers are just especially invested? Generalrelative ( talk) 01:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Could easily have been in any part of deep web like a discord channel. Does definitely seem like someone has notified an offwiki community. Doesn't really matter as these votes shouldn't effect the consensus anyway, since they're so obvious and tagged. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Adding some related topics (sometimes it's good to have an idea if something should be merged or renamed, if the scope should be recast, etc.)
  • Gender role, including Gender role § Biological factors
  • Conscription
  • Some region/event specifics like Sex in the American Civil War (on the other hand, women soldiers exist ( Women in the military), so do children soldiers ( Children in the military)) and all are also potential casualties
  • Wartime sexual violence although women are not the only targets they were often considered part of the spoils throughout history
  • Women and children first

— Paleo Neonate – 06:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

New article from 6 Jan, of interest to this noticeboard:

• Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19 ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Alexbrn ( talk) 21:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I have no enthusiasm for such an article. But it's better than the fucking lists. Shoutout to PaleoNeonate, who noted those AfD's at the new article's talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 21:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC).
  • Agree it's of questionable worth/taste. But if it's to exist it probably needs to be done diligently. The whole thing smells a bit WP:SYNTHetic. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• • • It also smells of assuming that the United States is the entire world, though that is arguably one of its lesser issues. Delete per WP:NASTYAROMA. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 07:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

      That aroma is the smell coming out of the ground from all the grave dancing. Just because some media revels in it doesn't mean we have to. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 07:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

      • I'd like to quote a world champion athlete at this point - "it’s okay to be happy, even celebrate, when bad people die". This quote is extant on the project atm, though I personally dont agree with it. I dont have any problem pointing out all the "bad people" via wiki articles, but I'm not sure that even the circumspect way this is done on this article is acceptable. While we dont name the alleged miscreants (Translation - the dead covid deniers) in the text of the article, it is the first thing to be seen in the references. This has an "SPOV" such as can be found on Rationalwiki, and while I personally find this to be ironically wonderful, I would certainly go with a consensus feeling that this sort of thing just isn't cricket. - Roxy the dog. wooF 12:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
        • If we're at the point that we can't cover a topic that is well-covered in a dozen reliable sources because those sources name people whose feelings we don't want hurt, then we are no longer much of an encyclopedia. I took care to invite input from editors who had previously opposed having the "list" articles on this topic. Here's a source I didn't include, by the way – a CNN interview with a journalist who wrote an article specifically lauding gravedancing, and is defending his position on the topic. BD2412 T 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure these "Deaths" as a group are a topic in RS; that the first sentence (unsourced) of the article is SYNTH is telling. And there's a BLP angle. Not sure why you omitted the mockery video if you approve the article - courage of convictions? Alexbrn ( talk) 17:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

            Yeah I would tentatively support an AfD. I think this is making a phenomenon out of a bunch of independent events which are all fodder for quick click-bait journalism. I don't think enough RSes about this actual "phenomenon" exist to make this notable. There are maybe one or two, though. I think if we can find enough sources which discuss the phenomenon instead of individual deaths, then this is clearly justifiable as an article. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 17:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

            • @ Alexbrn: I prefer not to put citations in the lede for content reflected in the body, but I have added them there to assuage your concern. I'm not sure how a "BLP angle" can apply when no people, living or dead, are named in the article (unless, I suppose, you count the fact that the "Herman Cain Award" discussed in the sources is named after a person). I did not include the mockery video because I prefer to reference print sources, and it is duplicative of the source in the article: Richman, Jackson (January 10, 2022). " LA Times Under Fire For Column on Mocking Deaths of Anti-Vaxxers". Mediaite. BD2412 T 17:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have to admit to being torn, on the one had it is in bad taste and does smack of grave dancing. But on the other, if people read it and think "these people did not know what they are talking about, I will no longer listen" I think we have done that person a variable service. Very much unsure how to approach this isdea. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• I would definitely say RECENTISM applies. If high quality sources are still commenting on this in a year, I might change my mind… but at the moment I have to agree that such a list is inappropriate for WP. Blueboar ( talk) 17:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @ Blueboar: What "list"? The article specifically avoids listing names. I get the impression people are commenting on this without reading the article, or looking at the sources. BD2412 T 17:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    • My bad - given the plethera of lists related to this topic that recently got sent to AFD (as well as a category at CFD) I used the wrong word. My judgement on the topic, however, stands. I think this is inappropriate for a list, an article, a category, etc... but would be willing to revisit if sources are still talking about it in a year's time. Blueboar ( talk) 18:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Notability is not temporary, but given that there has been a steady flow of these stories for half a year, and there seems to be no sign that antivaxxers are going to withdraw from the field, there is no basis for expecting a change in the status quo of reporting of these events in any case. BD2412 T 18:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Then there is no harm in waiting. Blueboar ( talk) 18:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
        • The list... article AFD was closed as "Rough consensus is that a pure list of people who died is not appropriate for Wikipedia because of WP:OR and notability reasons, but that the topic is better covered in a prose article such as the one being prepared at Draft:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19 (into which the information in this list has apparently already been integrated)". The article we're now discussing here is that one. So the prose of this article already has "rough consensus" to meet OR and N standards within the past week. DMacks ( talk) 01:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• It seems to have a range of mainstream RS sources that discuss the actual phenomonon as a topic, not just stating individual name+cause-of-death or WP editors pulling together ideas and creating our own intersection-topic. In terms of bad taste, it's not written in a celebratory tone, and there are cites from other sources specifically commenting on the possible appearance of bad taste of the phenomonon (which again speaks to it as a known topic not synth) so it's not one-sided POV. What exactly is "fringe" about it? DMacks ( talk) 18:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think the "fringe" aspect is that it is regarding a group of people who have a fringe belief. That's the connection. I would agree there are some RSes which discuss the phenomenon and not individual instances. But the article should be basically all these if possible. Because those are the actual notable thing. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Right now the information we provide might save lives, if anything validates wp:iar it is that. In a year's time it will be too late for many. We have a duty and an obligation (yes here I am invoking IAR to ignore wp:not) to help in the fight against Covidiocy and to help save lives. So I am no longer in any doubt, this list (or article either works) might help do that. As such I can see a value to it, more so than most of the rest of the content people fight so hard to keep. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Should we also have an article on “ Vaccine advocates who died of Covid” to warn our readers that you can still get get Covid even if vaccinated? I would have the same reaction: no. Warning people is not the function of Wikipedia. WP is not the place to RIGHT GREAT WRONGS. Blueboar ( talk) 18:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Slatersteven: That's a laudable aim (and "having accurate health content" is one of the few areas where WP:RGW-ishness aligns with Wikipedia policy). However, I'm not sure this article will do that. And the reasoning behind it would allow for "Deaths of people following COVID vaccination" maybe. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources reporting on a phenomenon of "Vaccine advocates who died of Covid"? BD2412 T 19:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Blueboar ( talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you remember to add the redlink to your watchlist? ~ cygnis insignis 19:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This is why I think an article may be better than a list of deaths, so we can show the difference between the two. But I am unsure that "deaths due to ignoring medical advice, whisk encouraging others to too" is quite analogous to "death despite taking medical advice, and encouraging others too". But then that might just be me. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

One of the issues here is the implication (/assertion) that these people died "due to" being unvaccinated. Of course, the vaccines greatly reduce the risk of hospitalization and death, but we do not know in all these cases that the death was caused by not having the vaccine. This is part of the problem. It's analagous to those pushing for causal implications at Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Which is why we compare then (as RS have done) to say, "well the deaths among the unvaccinated are higher". Hence why article not list. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Couldn't agree more with AndyTheGrump, ScottishFinnishRadish and Blueboar. I think the article is highly distasteful and a misjudgement. I see we got here as a compromise from deleted lists, but I don't believe this article topic falls within the scope of an encyclopedia. Policy-wise, I think WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SYNTH and WP:5P1 (various aspects of WP:NOT, e.g. not news, not journalism, not blog/directory masquerading as a prose-based article) are all viable grounds for deletion. It also seems to be tiptoeing around WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy, as some of the individuals listed in "Notable instances" (and the removed list on the talk page) are likely WP:NPFs, so WP:BLPNAME should be considered (which explicitly warns against giving weight to the brief appearance of names in news stories). I'd support an AFD and may nominate it myself if nobody else does so. Jr8825 • Talk 20:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • AFD is not cleanup. Please make a good faith effort to fix issues with the article through talk page discussion first. BD2412 T 20:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  I recognise that, however my issue isn't really with specific issues such as unnecessary coverage of non-notable individuals, which is tiptoed around in the current revision by not directly naming them in the prose. My concern is the scope of such an article. I simply don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. Jr8825 • Talk 20:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps you should contact the New York Times and the Washington Post and the LA Times and Vanity Fair and The Hill, and ask them to retract their coverage of the subject, so that it no longer qualifies as a subject that meets the WP:GNG through coverage in reliable sources. BD2412 T 20:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• It's kinda amusing to me how some people here appear to have not read the article, assumed what it will say, comment about how awful it is -- and then refuse to backtrack when their assumptions are rebutted. Seriously, "distasteful" is not a reason to delete an article, if you have an issue with the article's content, then edit it? This is certainly a notable topic and people's dislike of it does not change that. Elli ( talk | contribs) 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, distastefulness isn't a reason to delete an article, but the policies I mentioned are. Jr8825 • Talk 22:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  You have not meaningfully indicated what the violations are. Bringing up a list of things you feel like the article violates doesn't count; I can't see how after reading the article you'd conclude that it's advocating anything. Elli ( talk | contribs) 23:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  @ Elli: I'm happy to unpack my reasoning. I make the point about advocacy cautiously, as by extension it's an accusation the article fails NPOV. However, I believe it applies because of the article's scope – special coverage of anti-vaxxers who died of COVID can be construed as making a point given the politicisation of the issue, especially in the US, which this article is focused on. To take a crude example, anyone can die of COVID, but we don't have an article about Deaths of musicians who died of from COVID-19, even though there'll be a greater quantity of RS sourcing covering deaths of famous musicians from COVID-19.

  The 5P1 (encyclopedic content), WP:NOT and SYNTH arguments relate to each other and are about the article scope and sourcing. The majority of sources are factual reporting of individual deaths, and bringing them together under a broader title discussing the phenomenon of a group of people dying is SYNTH. The main argument in defence of the current scope is that there are a handful of news reports that make the point of linking the deaths of several right-wing US radio hosts, therefore discussing the deaths of multiple anti-vaxxers together, and a handful of long-form journalistic pieces which directly contemplate the ethics of this coverage. NOTNEWS applies to directly translating the first group of articles into an article about their subject, and the second group of articles (the long-form analysis pieces) are partly criticising this first group for linking deaths in this way and using them to make a point about the damaging impact of right-wing anti-vaxxers, which reinforces my synth/advocacy concerns about the appropriateness of us following such news coverage. Additionally, the second group of articles are soft news published in current affairs magazines or lifestyle sections of newspapers (as can be seen by their URLs) – WaPo lifestyle section, NY Times style section, NYMag, LA Times' business column. I'm not saying these articles aren't good sources, but they don't indicate this deserves dedicated encyclopedic coverage – Wikipedia isn't journalism, they're not experts, our focus is academic/factual coverage. Both groups of sources warrant inclusion in an article about media coverage of COVID or COVID in the US, not an article about anti-vaxxer deaths.

  I think our article's current focus on discussing the media coverage itself is a well-sourced but off-topic (relative to the scope implied by the article title) fig-leaf for the title scope and coverage of notable deaths, which is inappropriate. Maybe a merge can resolve my concerns about the content, by my issue with the article title (even as a redirect) will remain. Jr8825 • Talk 00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is fine to have an article about people who compile lists of unvaccinated people who died from COVID, because the media is covering the topic. It's not fine for a Wikipedia article to list those victims since that would violate neutrality - the article itself would be advocacy. There is btw a section about the Herman Cain Award subreddit that does the same thing. You might consider however changing the title. Perhaps "Mocking anti-vaxxers’ COVID deaths." In time, a COMMONNAME for this activity might arise. TFD ( talk) 00:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I wrote the Wikipedia article on Mockery. Just saying. BD2412 T 04:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but it appears someone has gone and written 0.3% more of it than you. They really took the mick, eh? I'm sure a little copy edit will get you even though! Jr8825 • Talk 04:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean that I created the page. Wikipedia had no article on mockery. I made one. Everything added after that start is building on my work, which I'm glad to have editors do. The editor with that additional 0.3%, I sought out and invited to collaborate improve the page because I understood the utility of his knowledge base for that purpose. BD2412 T 05:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that as a light-hearted joke. Jr8825 • Talk 05:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the article actually about?

You know… I am not sure that I am clear on what this article is actually supposed to be about. From the title, it would appear that us is about the various deaths themselves. But on reading the lead, I would expect the article to be entitled something more along the lines of Media reaction to the deaths of Anti-vaccine advocates who died of Covid (as the lead focuses on “media reporting”). The body seems to be a “list” of media reports (albeit not in “list format”). So which is it? If the article is to survive a potential AFD nomination, it needs to more clearly define its topic and probably needs a complete overhaul once that topic is more clearly defined. Blueboar ( talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Well it's not just the media reaction, it is the direct phenomenon of people creating websites to track antivaxxer deaths and pouring into condolence sites to comment on the irony (all of which is reported in the sources). In other words, it is not just a media phenomenon, but a societal phenomenon. I note that it has been reported in the British Journal of Medicine (which has focused on antivaxxer responses such as accusing the doctors of intentionally killing antivaxxer patients), which is not a news cite. BD2412 T 19:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

David Oliver: When doctors are accused of faking covid experiences that article? ~ cygnis insignis 20:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that article (which is cited in our article). BD2412 T 20:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"We’ve been accused of pushing “experimental” or “untested” vaccines with alleged high rates of harm and death—despite …" is the closest thing I see a "focus" on accusations of "intentional killing" of antivaxxers by doctors. ~ cygnis insignis 20:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I think some of the content would be better off at Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic#Media coverage in the United States. Jr8825 • Talk 20:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be a merge proposal. However, there are two UK sources in the article right now, so it is beyond "coverage in the United States", and there are potential sources from other countries—Israel, for example, where " supporters of Shaulian have claimed that he was murdered by government authorities and that the establishment sought to silence Shaulian so that he would not disclose the truth about what they claim is a fictitious pandemic and a dangerous vaccine". BD2412 T 20:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm only seeing one British publication, The Guardian, and it's actually from guardian.com ( Guardian US content, which covers US news with a separate journalistic team to British output). Am I overlooking the other UK source? I think it's a bit much extrapolating a single Haaretz news piece to a global article about the phenomenon of anti-vaxxers dying of COVID, as the title of this article implies. Jr8825 • Talk 23:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you not familiar with the British Medical Journal, i.e., The BMJ? BD2412 T 00:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The BMJ article isn't about deaths of anti-vaxxers, its use here is synth. Its subject is abuse of medical staff from COVID-19 conspiracy theorists. There's also some context here as abuse of NHS staff has been a major issue in the UK during the pandemic (e.g. [27], [28]). While the BMJ piece does mention anti-vaxxers changing their views once severely ill, there's a synth-y leap being made as it doesn't indicate they were "deathbed converts" – the writer simply doesn't indicate whether these were people who survived and changed their views, or were about to die and changed their views, and it's not possible for us to read into his comments to determine what scenarios he has in mind, since he doesn't spell it out or discuss deaths of anti-vaxxers specifically. The only mention of deaths that's relevant is "repeated accusations that doctors are falsifying death certificates of people they looked after; that most of those patients died from other conditions and only “with” covid-19; or that most people with a covid diagnosis really just had a “false positive” test, despite the clinical features we could see" – this is about COVID-19 misinformation/conspiracy theories and vaccine hesitancy, not deaths of anti-vaxxers in the way that seems to have been discussed in the US. Jr8825 • Talk 05:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the scope of the article should be about coverage of anti-vaccination advocates dying or being hospitalized with COVID-19. Glenn Beck is in the limelight for that right now, with his reliance on Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine drawing a rough response. [29] BD2412 T 05:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately that link isn't available in the UK due to GDPR. I hope to continue this discussion tomorrow (perhaps with this section on scope moved to the talk page) as a scope change might be a way forward, although I still have reservations about appropriateness and how we'd make it work. Maybe "Deaths of unvaccinated people during the COVID-19 pandemic"? – a much more widely discussed topic (i.e. references to a "pandemic of the unvaccinated"), but then how would we clearly distinguish the subject from people unable to get vaccinated because of unavailability or medical reasons, and how would we justify having that but not "deaths of vaccinated people...". Sorry for bandying about the AFD threat so quickly above, it was tactless. Perhaps we'll end up there, but I'm open to exploring ways of re-titling the content and more clearly defining the topic, or possibly merging. Jr8825 • Talk 06:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

...that said, broadening it beyond outspoken anti-vax advocates is also problematic because of stigmatisation ( [30], [31]) and the medically vulnerable, irrespective of the figures. Jr8825 • Talk 06:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That is what the first line and its three citations is about, and having that broader context solves a problem of scope. ~ cygnis insignis 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the concern with regards to the article is well founded. However, even as a critic of what the article could be, I think, so long as the article focuses on the phenomena and reactions to it we are avoiding grave dancing. Currently the Notable instances section concerns me. It was improved when specific names were removed but the links to the sources with names are all there. It's not clear why these are notable other than Wiki editors decided as much. That seems like a way towards creating a list (note, such a list does exist on the article talk page). Concerns related to RECENT etc are also reasonable in this case. At this time I wouldn't advocate AfD but I do think even oblique lists need to be removed and removed from the talk page. Springee ( talk) 22:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove the notable cases section (which I think is inappropriate synth and possible advocacy) and the list of individuals (currently relegated to the talk page and unlikely to return) and we're left with an article with a needlessly inflammatory title which doesn't match the content, which is entirely about one aspect of COVID media coverage (one which seems heavily US-based). I fail to see how a policy-complaint article can be created with the title "Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19", I just don't think it's possible. Maybe a future SPINOFF article Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is an appropriate article scope for where this content could belong, and the US subsection of Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic (I also linked this above) is a decent interim home for it. Jr8825 • Talk 23:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This should all really be at the article talk page, not a tangentially related noticeboard. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It's doubly odd that this is being brought up here, at a board devoted to maintaining Wikipedia's opposition to fringe views (because they are promoted by unreliable sources). Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, and we do not support fringe views, but support RS when they expose them, and anti-vax positions are fringe views. Keeping this hidden by not covering it helps to advance fringe views.

Alexbrn, have you stopped to think of who benefits from this? You're aiding promoters of fringe views and the unreliable sources which promote them. These self-promoting people died because of their foolishness, and their deaths should not be in vain but should serve as a warning. You're trying to bury the warning. -- Valjean ( talk) 02:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@ ScottishFinnishRadish: there are some useful points here and it'd be a bit of a headache if the conversation was split up and resumed elsewhere, leaving things in two separate places. Perhaps this entire thread can be moved to the article talk page, if nobody is opposed? Jr8825 • Talk 05:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not "devoted to maintaining Wikipedia's opposition to fringe views", but helping with the correct application of the relevant WP:PAGs for WP:FRINGE topics. Antivax and antivaxxers fall within the remit of WP:FRINGE so the topic is relevant here. It is naive in the extreme to think this page will "convert" people when the relevant health authorities have failed and it is not Wikipedia's purpose to WP:RGW. It's just as likely that readers will think Wikipedia editors are bunch of crass twats on a par with the antivaxxers themselves by trying to push the (somewhat over-simplified message) that these antivaxxers "died because of their foolishness" and using this as "a warning". Alexbrn ( talk) 07:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: the fact that WP, being an encyclopedia, has certain norms and standards about how to represent fringe views does not mean that it would be in any way opposed to fringe views. As pointed out by Alexbrn, since antivax is a fringe view, the article can be discussed here, if only because knowledgeable editors about it are likely to be found on this noticeboard. We should consider, however, that having such a lengthy thread about it here is probably as undue as the distasteful coverage about the topic elsewhere. But while I'm commenting spamming my new essay here anyway: I tend to agree that since reliable sources cover the coverage of antivaxxers dying of COVID-19, we have secondary sources, and it may be fair to have an article on it per WP:GNG. Then again, I'm pretty sure that it won't pass the ten-year test, and I do tend to think that fundamentally unencyclopedic articles like this create an unnecessary strain on WP's resources. ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 10:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I do think there's some content here relevant to journalistic ethics, probably useful at Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Think of it as evolution in action." just sayin - Roxy the dog. wooF 17:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Jr8825's concern about SYNTH are sound. Many of the sources even in the body of the article look like they are sourced to articles about people who died rather than sources about the phenomena the article is supposed to be about. Also, recent edits here basically added a name to the article body [32]. The edit was correct in it made the link more obvious but the source for the claim was about the death, not the phenomena of these lists existing or being reported. More and more I don't see how this article won't evolve into just a list of people who editors feel should be included in one of the deleted lists. Springee ( talk) 17:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, I came across a segment on YouTube on CNN about whether these deaths should be mocked. “Ghoulish but necessary“ is the LaTimes editor’s opinion. Technophant ( talk) 18:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think other articles came out as critical of that LA-Times article. That would be content I can see including. Examples of people who fit the criteria "anti-COVID-Vaxxer who died of COVID" is something we should not included unless the source talked about them in context of this type of reporting. Springee ( talk) 19:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The point of the article is not to say that anti-vaxxers are bad and those who died got what they deserved, but to say that there is a specific ongoing complex societal conversation to this end, which is itself the subject of objective examination. As the article says (per a source cited), "those who perceive themselves to be politically aligned against vaccination opponents taking pleasure in the suffering of perceived enemies". This is schadenfreude, amplified by the fact that the suffering is perceived to be karmic, and perceived to be happening to those on the "other side". BD2412 T 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A few comments: first, to me a title like Media reaction to the deaths of Anti-vaccine advocates who died of Covid sounds unnecessarily indirect. Whatever the article contains will be based upon media reports, so adding "Media reaction to the..." to the front of the title seems like moving COVID-19 to What reliable sources have to say about COVID-19. Maybe it's not completely redundant, but investing the extra words doesn't seem to buy enough extra clarity to be worthwhile. Also, I'm not sold on the idea that there is a WP:SYNTH problem (or at least one so fundamental that the article needs to be torched). Grouping together events that are obviously, manifestly related is mere juxtaposition. What new conclusion is supposedly being drawn here? To me, a true synthesis would require something like invoking these stories to bolster a claim about American culture that none of the sources themselves put forth. I'm just not seeing that in the text at hand. (Maybe this topic lends itself to such syntheses, but we don't delete articles just because the topic potentially risks violating NOR.) XOR'easter ( talk) 22:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

From the BBC a couple of hours ago - awful. - Roxy the dog. wooF 14:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the actual direct media coverage of these deaths (both vaccinated and unvaccinated, each potentially fueling someone's agenda), and the navel-gazing on the actual ethics of it, probably belong more as a subsection on one of our articles about the topic. Trimming the length will make WP:SYNTH less appealing to try and pad out the article, and it lets us cover the trends of both the 'look at this unvaccinated person who could have avoided death' and the 'this person was vaccinated but died of COVID anyway' articles. Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Herman Cain Award

I've nominated the related Herman Cain Award article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Cain Award. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Bad move. See the AfD. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope I didn’t miss seeing an earlier mention, if I did, sorry. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion on the talk page of Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy regarding the lead images used in this article. Please see the images for yourself, and I would appreciate any input from this project's members. See Talk:Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy#Lead image used in article for further discussion.

Not sure if this totally relevant here, but since someone has cited WP:FRINGE on the talk page, I suppose it makes sense to alert people here (and it is usually fringe groups that make this comparison; most animal rights groups tend to steer away from overt Holocaust imagery or messaging). — AFreshStart ( talk) 22:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. What a profoundly inappropriate illustration. Indeed, the main violation seems to be WP:SHOCK, but some of the arguments on the Talk page do seem to hinge on the question of what constitutes WP:FRINGE among animal rights activists. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The article didn't have a lead image until recently AFAIK, and was a lot better off for it. I think that the whole article suffers from being pro-fringe tbh, especially the section on PETA's claims and the long quote included there (PETA is considered fringe among animal rights groups; the Holocaust comparisons are just one reason why. To quote Time magazine: " Got Credibility? Then You're Not PETA").

Yes, the main violation was (or is, depending on if there's an edit war) gratuitous and arguably antisemitic shock-imagery. But I think Mathglot's point on the article's talk page – that that imagery is akin to Wikipedia's articles on the anti-abortion movements using pro-lifer stock images of mangled foetuses and the like in their lead paragraphs, whereas they don't use that imagery in their articles at all – is very telling. There definitely seem to be some people in this topic area (i.e. animal rights) who wish to push their fringe POVs into Wikipedia by any means necessary. I'm not sure how much attention this topic area gets from anti-fringe editors, but possibly another thing to add to one's radar? — AFreshStart ( talk) 22:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

An RfC which may be of interest to watchers of this page is currently ongoing at the linked talk page. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

More attention is needed on COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China where a couple of editors are outright censoring the fact that China deliberately underreported the covid-19 statistics despite the sentence being standing for 2 years.

They are relying on a study largely written by Chinese employees who work under Chinese government.

The discussion can be seen at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#The “2021 academic study”. TolWol56 ( talk) 06:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

PMID:33627311 is primary research and so not WP:MEDRS. The Chinese origin of the source which addresses "Chinese" issues is also a documented problem, which is why (e.g.) Wikipedia avoids Chinese research on TCM. AIUI COVID-related research in China requires govt clearance prior to submission for publication. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Alexbrn: Somewhat of a related dispute going on at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19#Zero-COVID. Specifically we're wondering if Zhong Nanshan's research is unsuitable. –– FormalDude talk 09:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This "China fudged their COVID statistics" issue reminds me of the COVID-19 origins issue. Scientific consensus says one thing, the mainstream media says another, and it confuses people. I'd argue that we must always go with the scientific consensus (relevant policies: WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:MEDRS), and I think most experienced editors would agree. However sometimes it can be challenging to convince newer editors of this. I think Thucydides411 lays it out very nicely in this post, and I appreciate them taking the time to do the research and type everything out on multiple talk pages. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it as anything more than whitewashing and betrayal towards WP:RS that the CCP controlled studies are not reliable sources, let alone using them to dispute the mainstream sources. TolWol56 ( talk) 07:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you stumbled over too many negations here: don't, more than, not reliable. Surely you mean "it is whitewashing that the CCP controlled studies are used as reliable sources"? And when you say "mainstream", you mean "US mainstream journalism" and not "worldwide scientific mainstream", right?

The scientific mainstream is a stronger source than the journalistic one, so, no whitewashing. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

But the research in question is meant to whitewash CCP's handling of Covid-19 thus it is not WP:RS. TolWol56 ( talk) 10:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Meant"? So you can divine the intention behind research? Do you use tea leaves for that, or horoscopes, or I Ching?

Sources are not defined as reliable or unreliable by checking whether you agree or disagree with what they say. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:IRS. It is not possible to provide a fact based research if the study is CCP controlled. Unless you want to say that TCM is wholly scientific, you should apply same standards for this faulty research as well. TolWol56 ( talk) 12:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:INDEPENDENT is evaluated separately from WP:RELIABLE. A source not being independent does not automatically make it unreliable, though it sometimes makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. –– FormalDude talk 12:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, "See WP:IRS" is something you tell a newbie who has never heard of reliable sources. RS has about 6000 words, and I will not check each one to find out if it says something related to what you say. And you seem to want to duplicate the Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China discussion here, which would be inefficient. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That is how content dispute is resolved. See WP:DR. TolWol56 ( talk) 02:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Please quote the part of WP:RS that talks about CCP controlled studies and fact based research.

Please quote the part of WP:OR that says content disputes are resolved by having similar conversations in two places and by linking a whole giant guideline without quoting the part relevant to the question at hand. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR? I said WP:DR. Noticeboards are used for finding more views. TolWol56 ( talk) 05:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Then, please quote the part of WP:DR that says content disputes are resolved by having similar conversations in two places and which overrides the sentence in the lede saying, Discussions can be advertised to noticeboards and WikiProjects to receive participation from interested uninvolved editors.

And please quote the part of WP:DR that says content disputes are resolved by linking a whole giant guideline without quoting the part relevant to the question at hand.

Face it: Your reasoning was bad, and you can't defend it, so you are deflecting. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• WP:CON says Posting a neutrally worded notice of the dispute on applicable noticeboards will make the dispute more visible to other editors who may have worthwhile opinions. I commend TolWol56 for bringing this dispute here and getting valuable feedback. China has also promoted TCM as a COVID-19 treatment [33], and even outlawed any criticism of it [34], which is why we avoid Chinese research on such subjects. CutePeach ( talk) 15:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  It seems to have been a draft (a source confirming that it's official and is applied would be more useful), but that's also another topic and WP relies on WP:MEDRS for biomedical claims while allowing WP:PARITY for the criticism of obvious pseudoscience anyway. The current Indian government is known for promoting Ayurveda, it doesn't mean that by extension MEDRS involving Indian scientists should systematically be rejected... — Paleo Neonate – 22:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• It appears yet another page has been forum shopped by certain editors, as stated on numerous other pages, the studies in question are reliable and peer reviewed, and peer review is a reliable process. It is possible for china to both have censorship and for certain studies to be reliable, please stop bringing this discussion to a now 6th(?) page Xoltered ( talk) 16:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• @ Thucydides411, Mx. Granger, Novem Linguae, and Davide King: I will ping these people as they need to know discussion is happening here as well as they are involved in at least one of the numerous duplicates (sorry for not doing the suggestion, Novem, this seemed simpler to me) Xoltered ( talk) 16:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  No worries. I suggested using {{ Please see}} to help you stay out of trouble for violating the WP:CANVASS rule. Also consider turning on your email. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 17:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• This does feel a bit like forum shopping to me. On the content issue, my view is that for epidemiological information, peer-reviewed scientific studies are good sources for us to rely on. The BMJ is a respected peer-reviewed medical journal and therefore a good source for this topic area, especially compared to early media speculation. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• "They are relying on a study largely written by Chinese employees who work under Chinese government. ... But the research in question is meant to whitewash CCP's handling of Covid-19 thus it is not WP:RS." This does rings a few alarm bells. It is assuming too much about someone's nationality and discounting them, rather than simply being more cautious and attribute until fabrication claims are confirmed. FormalDude is correct: "WP:INDEPENDENT is evaluated separately from WP:RELIABLE. A source not being independent does not automatically make it unreliable, though it sometimes makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia." And since we are using Western publications—the BJM, Nature—not Chinese publications, what is the issue other than their nationalities? It is getting close to conspiring and assuming too much, and bordering on xenophobia, even if I that is not the intent. It does look like "Right Great Wrongs" — if there is anything that appear to whitewash CCP's handling of COVID-19, it is not a reliable source, which is how conspiracy theories and misinformation thrives; even a broken clock is right twice a day, and "[i]t is both the case that high quality research on Covid-19 has been done in China that does not raise alarm bells and there is evidence of pressure from the government that does. I think there is a need for increased caution, but sources need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis." Here, Jumpytoo gave a good analysis of those high-quality news outlets, and they either tell a different story or do not actually rely on experts in the field to support the statement in wikivoice. "News outlets initially reported concerns that the Chinese government under-reported the extent of infections and deaths" would indeed be a more accurate and better summary, though I would not give all of them the same weight; some of it are much better than others. Davide King ( talk) 14:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• This thing seems to have three layers to it.

1. The core POV dispute, all wrapped up in Chinese international (and internal) politics.

2. The source-quality debate of reliability and independence of sources as they relate to state-control (especially, the balance between potential censorship of scientists by nation states, versus peer-review in publications not subject to state censorship).

3. The return of the "is this topic WP:BMI subject to WP:MEDRS" question.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's possible to process one layer at a time. And anywhere on the continuum from a generalized to specific resolution seems like it'll be tricky and contentious. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Three Gorges Dam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In January 2021, the user Springnuts ( talk · contribs) removed much of Three Gorges Dam#Structural integrity due to allegedly promoting a POV promulgated by one scientist based in Germany, Wang Weiluo (王維洛), and largely based on a Google Earth image allegedly showing deformation, and which was supported by news sources they deemed unreliable for science and engineering topics. However, it was re-added in November that year by an anonymous user from Sydney, who disputes the claim that it is undue. Neither the removal nor the re-adition was adequately discussed, so now I'm bringing the concern here. The reaction to the panic may be okay, but how much coverage and what kind of references should we use for details about the deformation? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Anomaly-hunters found a glitch in google maps and assumed that a concrete structure had smoothly bent without cracking? Bent upstream, no less?

The google maps glitch is now corrected, so I suppose they now believe that the concrete bent back?

Even if a few news sources picked it up, that seems very WP:UNDUE to me. It's silly on the face of it. ApLundell ( talk) 17:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic tip: There is {{ lang|zh|王維洛}} as a shorter and standardized alternative to typing out <span lang=zh>王維洛</span>. — 2d37 ( talk) 22:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, removed. If it's restored, please start an RfC. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Lynne Finney (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Martha Beck (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another repressed memories thing. As these are fringe, the articles should written accordingly. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed a bit from the Finney article, as it was in direct contradiction to the source, then I nominated it for deletion, as she doesn't seem notable. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm also looking to rewrite the whole section on her book and the controversy, cutting out all the primary and SPS stuff. NYT says Recovered memory, in which a suppressed traumatic incident is recalled years later, has been one of the most disputed topics among mental-health professionals in the last 15 years. The American Psychological Association states that while "there is a consensus among memory researchers and clinicians that most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them," most leaders in the field also agree "that although it is a rare occurrence, a memory of early childhood abuse that has been forgotten can be remembered later." Would language along those lines be sufficient to get across the fringeyness of recovered memories? Since it's in the source, I can just quote the APA without running afoul of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That section is rewritten, and makes it clear the controversy was about the allegations of sexual abuse, as well as the recovered memories. I excised all the random cruft and primary/sps back and forth. Hob Gadling, does that address any fringe concerns? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It's better now. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Lynne Finney was also deleted. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A discussion on this page might be of interest to editors here. 2600:1012:B002:3AB0:752F:5712:DD20:5C21 ( talk) 21:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

After failing to add POV and remove NPOV, user now demands third-party sources. Anybody familiar with false memories? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I just removed a couple of those tags after checking the sources and their content. I'm sure most of these can be removed. Most of the tagged sources appear to be third-party, so I'm not sure what their issue is. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 01:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I just boldly went ahead and restored. Looks like drive-by tagging, not legitimate concerns. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 01:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was planning on doing the same, but was waiting for some feedback on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 01:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I would normally wait, too, but as an independent observer to the edits, they just didn't appear made in good-faith. Hopefully if more discussion is needed, it will take place. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 01:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

they just didn't appear made in good-faith I disagree. If you are someone whose worldview includes any of these:

• People getting sexually abused, then forgetting all about it, then recovering those memories in therapy,
• People participating in Satanic sects sacrificing children, then forgetting all about it, then recovering those memories in therapy,
• People reincarnating, then forgetting all about it, then recovering those memories in therapy,
• People getting abducted by aliens, then forgetting all about it, then recovering those memories in therapy,
• People being omnipotent aliens themselves, called Thetans, then forgetting all about it, then recovering those memories in Scientology sessions,

then Loftus and others who say that those memories are false and the therapies malpractice, are villains, their academic achievements based on fraud, lies, and conspiracy, and the corresponding statements in the article about her are false. For people who really believe that, demands of better sources are made in good faith. Of course, that does not mean they should not be reverted. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Xurizuri for vastly improving the citations! -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I took it as an opportunity to improve the article. And now it's hard to argue there's an issue with those citations! -- Xurizuri ( talk) 10:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Centers (Fourth Way) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wandered over to MfD and saw a ton of redirects being nominated for this article. Looking at the article it seems to just be an essay on the teachings. Tempted to send to AfD, but seems like the topic itself may be notable, just the content is inappropriate for an encyclopedia or at least the presentation. Anyway, coming here to get some eyes and opinions. Slywriter ( talk) 20:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

See here. I'm not reverting because there's no way I'm restoring Creation Safaris as a source, and I have other work to do more in my field of interest. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller:This notice might be easier for others to understand with a bit more context. Maybe I'm alone here, but it's difficult to read through those recent edits and see what specifically you're concerned about. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 19:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Pyrrho the Skipper: sorry. I thought I was clear. A straight revert, which in fact was done, would restore Creation Safaris as a source. I don’t think it’s an rs. I’ll add that the author of the source is this guy. Apologies for not being more specific. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There are other sourcing issues at the page (like christiananswers.com). I'm not familiar enough with coverage in the area to know which objections/rebuttals are due, in which case someone might add source improvement tags, or undue, leading to straight removal of poorly sourced content. Firefangledfeathers 19:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the Creation Safaris "source" but haven't yet gone through and evaluated any others. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this, — Paleo Neonate – 00:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller, no problem and thank you for elaborating. Sometimes I'm too impatient/dense. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 19:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fringe Theories Noticeboard,

I apologize if this is an awkward choice of a first question for me to ask here, but: some months ago, I came across an article on a book, I thought the article seemed problematic, and I thought that I was too inexperienced an editor to diagnose exactly what its problems are and then fix them but, I recall thinking, the regulars at WP:FTN likely would have a better idea. I recall thinking that, if the book were fiction, one could say that the article's problem was that it appeared to be written from an MOS:INUNIVERSE perspective. I don't remember that the book was promoting any specific "known" fringe theories per se, but it seemed to be criticizing "science" as an institution and a worldview, and the article seemed to be restating the book's arguments uncritically, which seemed like the sort of thing that gets taken to FTN.

In the intervening time, I've forgotten the name of the book; I think its author was a man, British I think, whose name started with the letter 'E'. In case I do find the article again, does that sound like the sort of thing that belongs at this noticeboard?

— 2d37 ( talk) 03:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe WP:NPOVN might be more appropriate? I guess it would be helpful if I find the actual article again. — 2d37 ( talk) 03:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The Brit who comes immediately to mind is Rupert Sheldrake, but there are doubtless others who have argued similarly. jps ( talk) 04:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Some quick sleuthing also reveals A Guide for the Perplexed which has many of the features you identified, though it doesn't seem completely in-universe. jps ( talk) 04:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And, yes, both of these subjects are relevant to this noticeboard. jps ( talk) 04:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

If it was Edzard Ernst, then he is now very much a sceptical writer. His name starts with an E and he has worked in Britain, but I don't see which article you might mean. Itsmejudith ( talk) 23:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

At the top of noticeboards are links to archive pages along with a search box. If these suggestions were not the book you are looking for, it may be possible to eventually find it again there. — Paleo Neonate – 06:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, jps, it was A Guide for the Perplexed, most likely in some version between Special:Permalink/938572991 and Special:Permalink/1021661539. (I seem to recall the version I read having the MOS:YOU that was removed in Special:Diff/1027044266, though that may be déjà-vu.)

It seems to me that the bulk of the article, everything in the open interval between the introduction and the "Reviews" section, simply gives the non-fiction equivalent of a plot summary, restating the author's message, with much detail and a lack of secondary sourcing (while there are thirteen citations to a review of the book, mostly for quotations, my Control-F doesn't seem to show the review containing any of the quotations for which it was cited). While this is all explicitly or implicitly attributed to the author, some said-bookisms are used that imply agreement with the author's arguments, e.g. (from strongest to weakest):

• Schumacher points out that though we can recognize life and destroy it, we can't create it.
• Schumacher explains that the bodily senses are adequate for perceiving inanimate matter; but we need 'intellectual' senses for other levels.
• Schumacher notes that within philosophy there is no field in more disarray than ethics.

While it seems problematic to me to imply that the author is right with no secondary sourcing, I see this as more of a nitpick compared to the bigger picture: that the article presents the book's arguments extensively without putting them in the context of their reception, whatever that might have been. In terms of journalistic ethics (e.g. [35] [36]), the article fails to give what it criticizes as "materialistic scientism" a chance to respond to the criticism; in terms of Wikipedia policy, the article seems to pay little or no attention to WP:NPOV, especially given that it seems to present the book as opposing mainstream thought in science and in society at large. I pass no judgement on the book's claimed conclusions, but the article's presentation seems to me altogether too credulous or uncritical for Wikipedia's intended (N)POV. Given all that, should I move this to WP:NPOVN? (Does the venue even really matter?)

As for "known" fringe theories per se, I'm still not sure whether there any here. I see two things that might count, though I don't think I'm experienced enough to say whether they're fringe theories per se:

• Criticizing 'science' for not viewing the universe as a great chain of being: For Schumacher one of science's major mistakes has been rejecting the traditional philosophical and religious view that the universe is a hierarchy of being. Schumacher makes a restatement of the traditional chain of being. ( Special:Permalink/1027048351 § Levels of being)
• Criticizing the acceptance of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for the development of consciousness, self-awareness, language, social institutions and the origin of life itself ( Special:Permalink/1027048351 § Evolutionism)

Ultimately, while clearly tangent to science, this is philosophy, and I've never been comfortable with philosophy. If the article does need to be cleaned up, maybe I can help (no promises! at all!), but I wouldn't know where to start, besides leaving this note here. I guess a second step would be to check whether there's a WP:WikiProject Philosophy (okay, yes, that's a bluelink) and to leave a note there (I would, but I figure it would be more polite to wait to see whether this thread is to be moved).

— 2d37 ( talk) 05:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It's an old book that may not be getting a lot of recent attention but I think that your assessment includes fair criticism, — Paleo Neonate – 23:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I want my money back; I came here expecting Maimonides. Aside from that, cheers, all. Dumuzid ( talk) 23:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If no-one has objections by, say, the end of the month, I guess I'll move this thread to NPOVN and notify that WikiProject. — 2d37 ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess what bothers me most about the article is the "Levels of being" section and how it seems to be implying (1) that life, consciousness and self-consciousness ultimately cannot be explained by science-as-we-know-it and, thus, (2) the existence of souls, or some such thing, to account for his posited discontinuities. I don't mean I would want Soul to say "souls aren't real!", but I'm uncomfortable with the article's seemingly implying some such seemingly unfalsifiable concept is real (or, rather, is needed to explain reality) either — but enough of my own POV. I don't know where (if at all) #1 should fall on the spectrum of fringe theories if considered as science, let alone as philosophy. I'm more confident that #2 is undesired in wikivoice (or de-facto wikivoice — even if the claims are attributed to the author, his POV and the article's POV seem indistinct). — 2d37 ( talk) 19:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a variant of god of the gaps argument, — Paleo Neonate – 00:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Patrol blimp in WW II crashed sans crew; the "theories" section plays up fringey ideas but ignores USNI explanations which are apparently too prosaic. I'm going to attempt a clean up but could use other eyes. Mangoe ( talk) 05:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates#Recent_WP:SPS_additions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This is turning into an argument about Cheikh Anta Diop. Doug Weller talk 23:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_preprint_quoted_in_an_article_by_someone_not_a_DNA_specialist_ok_as_a_source_for_DNA?? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 23:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This new article, Mass formation, born out of a discussion here, seems to argue that supporters of COVID vaccination are a angry mob who are not acting rationally. Thoughts? - MrOllie ( talk) 14:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted to the redirect to Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Nearly the entire article was relating to fringe claims by Mattias Desmet, and there's apparently also a redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_8#Mass_formation_psychosis without a mention on the page to send it to Robert W. Malone. Seemed like a pretty simple WP:COATRACK to treat the COVID-related claims as the primary thrust of the article. Personally, if there's a discussion to be had, it's probably best to point to COVID-19 misinformation. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I got into a tiff at Robert W. Malone with a user wanting to include a somewhat long quote about this very thing. jps ( talk) 02:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

To wit: [37]. jps ( talk) 03:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, he really went full Godwin's Law? Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That has occurred to me too. Of course, none of the reliable sources spreading Malone's new "theory" seem to have noticed this redflag indicator. I have a hard time imagining Anthony Fauci as having fascist tendencies, but maybe I'm just stuck in my mass formation psychosis bubble, right? jps ( talk) 19:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And it seems to be confusing a monumental international effort to address a public health emergency with mere groupthink, a moral panic, or similar... — Paleo Neonate – 06:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

And this has gotten dragged into the mess: Draft:Mattias Desmet jps ( talk) 05:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I almost filed an edit warring report, one more chance (and I may not have to do it myself)... — Paleo Neonate – 06:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hiding an off-topic discussion is labeled "disruptive editing": [38]. jps ( talk) 00:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, awesome, found the people I'm looking for. It was puzzling me why your actions seem to be so coordinated. Anyways, it's not a long quote, and it's barely even a theory in the sense that Malone's language can't really be proven or disproven (and also happened to be presented on an entertainment talk show). It was off-hand conjecture which happened to use intellectual phrasing. That's not equivalent to a fringe theory. The quote in question is noteworthy because it involves a neologism ('mass formation psychosis') that's been reprinted extensively in secondary publications. I'm super open to people contextualizing it with third-party commentary and hope someone will. My point is that it's clear from existing coverage of the interview that the quote is the primarily noteworthy asset from that event and its inclusion is necessary. This hasn't been contested on Talk to an extent that's produced consensus. I would absolutely appreciate it if this were worked out using the tools available to us (you know, the Talk page), so that consensus do the work.

Also, yes: single-handedly closing an on-topic thread is disruptive. There was an attempt to edit-war something that was already included in the article, and it was done in a way that ignored review or Talk consensus. To follow that up by smothering attempts at Talk consensus by unceremoniously closing threads ( jps) was underhanded and unnecessary. Bleepenvoy ( talk) 01:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems you've mistaken Wikipedia for a pub-based discussion group or a collegiate debating society. We are here to coordinate the creation of a public-facing website with a goal of providing summaries of reliable sources. We don't need to have drawn out discussions about topics that are so prima facie marginalized as to be ridiculed more-or-less without comment in WP:MAINSTREAM sources. Nor do we need to discuss endlessly about how people feel about the noteworthy-ness of this or that. You either start producing sources and explain how we can write the article based on them or you should find a topic where that is something you can do. jps ( talk) 02:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Now that you've eloquently established that this is not your blog, act as such. Please use the Talk page instead of forcing edit wars over content you dislike. Bleepenvoy ( talk) 02:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You were reverted by 3 different editors, none of whom forced you to edit war. MrOllie ( talk) 02:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of using the talkpage according to the rules we have for how to use them! In fact, I note that since this edit, you seem to have contributed nothing to the conversation. I am still waiting for a source -- any source -- which talks about the quote you are in favor of including at length in the article-space. I am happy to see what you come up with. jps ( talk) 03:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

jps, the comments were 2:1 against your change. Here's some sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Notice how they all reprint the quote and contain commentary about the quote. Bleepenvoy ( talk) 06:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm back from a wikibreak and I see a bunch of sources that possibly could be discussed, but notice that the discussion at the article talkpage has been archived away with the text basically the same from before, so perhaps we're okay with the current text? Or maybe not. Anyway, hello everybody! jps ( talk) 22:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyone know much about him? I wasn’t sure of the recent edits, and just looking at the lead there are some statements that probably at least need attribution. I didn’t get further than the lead as I’m off to bed. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've worked on this a bit. The main problem I still see is discussion of some of his views using sources that don't mention them, to show that they are either wrong or supported, thus original research. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

My OR tag I put on the article has been removed with an edit summary "All of the peer-reviewed sources refer to Diop's work. Doug Weller has been heavily critised as a editor by several account users for omitting evidence to present a highly misleading view of African historical topics. This is poor, biased editorship and complaints will be raised against his account". The problem is that some of the sources do cite Diop's work wbut don't actually discuss it - some of the text I've got issues with was added in 2007 by an editor whose only edits seem to be these. [39] Doug Weller talk 16:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"Physicist"? Sesquivalent ( talk) 23:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Turns out, yes. For those with access, the article about him in the Oxford University Press Encyclopedia of Africa (2010) is a decent source: [40] Apparently he founded the radiocarbon laboratory of Dakar, which specialized in the dating of Africa’s oldest archaeological and geological materials. Continuing his scientific work during the 1960s, he published Le Laboratoire de Radiocarbone de l’IFAN (1968, The Radiocarbon Laboratory at IFAN) and Physique Nucléaire et Chronologie Absolue (1974, Nuclear Physics and Absolute Dating). In these works he discussed IFAN, his scientific work there, and diverse methods of dating archaeological and geological samples, especially those used in research at IFAN. That's not to say that many of his ideas about race and history aren’t FRINGE. Clearly they are. It's also not to say that he made contributions to theoretical physics. But let's refrain from sneering at the man's real accomplishments. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool. There was no support for it in the article, and it sounded like promotion, as these FTN things usually turn out to be. Nice to see the exceptions that have satisfying stories behind them. Sesquivalent ( talk) 01:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the older versions of the article, it seems to me that some of his positions on the genetics of Egypt and East Africans were settled much later as definitely wrong, and the balance of evidence was never in his favor, but he had some reasonable (if motivated) objections to the state of classification in his time. I.e., his fringiness may be exaggerated by association with some of those who followed. Sesquivalent ( talk) 00:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

PS: I had peeked at this article earlier and was overwhelmed by the shambles it was in. Thanks so much especially to TrangaBellam for taking a much-needed sledgehammer to the article. Hopefully now it can be rebuilt properly. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

N.b. Diop is certainly well known in Black Studies circles. For example, he is listed as one of the forerunners of Asante's proposals. He is famous for adopting certain approaches that now read, if not quaint, then outright blinkered, but this needs to be seen in the light of the 1950s and 60s thrall of scientific racism within history, anthropology, and Egyptology. His opponents spent much of their time arguing, without any hint of self-reflection, that Egyptians were *actually* members of the "white race". The counter by Diop, somewhat spectacularly, was to use that very (what we now see as) pseudoscience on its own terms to show that they were Black. I think he probably was something of a race realist himself, but he did not live long enough to engage with the scholarship that showed how race is a social construct rather than a validated biological identifier. jps ( talk) 21:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

JPS, I do recall that an earlier version had at least one quote from him where he distanced himself from any kind of essentialist view of race. The social construct view of race was already present in the 1940s when he began his studies, which is why it's important that we retain that idea from his thesis that "negro" etc. are Bergsonian "immediate givens". I haven't read enough Bergson to know exactly what that meant, but it seems to be a compromise to allow him to have operational concepts, and a pragmatic response to an academic world that still took racism for granted. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point. The groundwork for our current WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of race was present, but Diop was engaging with groups (and entire fields!) who basically did not acknowledge this possibility, as far as I can tell. jps ( talk) 12:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, if I understand Bergson correctly, my guess is that Diop is arguing that the racial percept be taken as seriously as one would take any other percept. jps ( talk) 12:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I've got a paper from this source [41] called Gunung Padang and the Indo-Malaysian megalithism: archaeology and Pseudoarchaeology which looks really useful to edit Gunung Padang (note I am finding this promoted in other articles as ridiculously old). But it's in Spanish and I don't have anything that will translate a multi-page document. Anyone? Too much work to do by hand. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I had good experiences with Google Translate [42]. The first paragraph comes out pretty well, modulo minor adjustments:

"ArqueoWeb, the first Spanish electronic journal specialized in archaeological research, emerged in 1998 from the hands of Ana Piñón Sequeira, Óscar López Jiménez, Beatriz Díaz Santana and Ignacio Prieto Vilas, then PhD students in the Department of Prehistory at the Complutense University of Madrid ( UCM), who were later joined by Antonio Uriarte González. They themselves say that it was during a course taught by Dr. D. Gonzalo Ruíz Zapatero, in which the first four coincided, that the idea of creating this magazine arose and that without the advice of said professor everything would have been much better. more difficult." -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Hob Gadling: but the article itself (I think you're translating the website) is 36 pages long, not counting references. Doug Weller talk 08:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that's why it did not sound like the intro to an article about Gunung Padang. Well, the character limit is about half the text of the page, but even with that, it would take just a few minutes to copy 36 pages in and out of Google Translate. If that is too much work, you'll have to wait for someone suggesting another tool. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I've never tried that much, but I just did and got "The archaeological site of Gunung Padang, an example of megalithic heritage of monumental dimensions on the island of Java (Indonesia), has recently been mythologized by pseudoscientists based on geological investigations of dubious methodology, carried out by Danny H. Natawidjaja in 2012. His defense of Pleistocene chronologies, as well as the artificial nature of the mountain and its stone blocks, has inspired unsubstantiated fantastic theories that have quickly gained adherents and publicity throughout the world, due to their sensationalism. and revolutionary affirmations contrary to official academic currents. These speculations have connected with the also incredible proposals made by Stephen Oppenheimer in 1998 about the antediluvian Sondanese origin of the Neolithic and urban culture, so that Gunung Padang has come to be considered not only as the oldest pi - branch of the planet but also as supposed testimony of the existence of an advanced ancient civilization in Southeast Asia, even identified with Atlantis.

However, each of these wild claims can be easily dismantled, and should not confuse the lay public. Archeology places Gunung Padang within the regional typology of earth and stone terraces with a stepped pyramidal appearance (punden berundak) built during the Metal Age (Bronze-Iron) in the Indo-Malay archipelago (c 500 BC-500 AD), which can be related to other megalithic structures of the Austronesian tradition, such as the Polynesian marae. Likewise, it seems sufficiently proven that the ancestral origin of the people who built the ceremonial precinct of Mount Padang is found in Tai-wan, two thousand years earlier, instead of migrating there from Java." So I guess I should go that route. Thanks Doug Weller talk 08:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

And done, a bit messily because of the way the original document was formatted after conversion from pdf, possibly a bad thing to have done. But it's sufficient. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a (strange kind of) subscription of DeepL Translator; can put it to use if you link the pdf. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks but I’m ok. Doug Weller talk 21:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about Gunung Padang, the latest paper that I have found about it is:

D. and Foe, A.W., 2021. Indoneasia’s own ‘pyramid’: The imagined past and nationalism of Gunung Padang. International Review of Humanities Studies, 6(1), pp. 125-137. Paul H. ( talk) 02:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Predatory and/or low quality. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Predatory? It’s published by the university of Indonesia. Doug Weller talk 21:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This particular article is decent, (probably) because of where it was presented for the first time. I do not oppose using it.

Mine was a comment on the journal with which I am acquainted due to my interests in Dutch occupation of Indonesia. The quality of their articles vary radically from damn excellent analyses to incoherent ramblings (check archives - OA); hard to feature material of both kind, unless you have some predatory aspect.

Fwiw, being published by a reputed university is not a bar against predatory or other shady practices. India under the current political dispensation being the best case. TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Lots of academic publishing is low-quality but not predatory. -- JBL ( talk) 20:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

International Review of Humanities Studies: Not-predatory and uneven quality. It's not monetary aspects which create this strangely uneven output, but internal pressure within the academic organization. Sometimes, non-scholarly merits (like long-time teaching or administrative carriers) are honored with "pushed" degrees (UI is less prone to that than regional universities, but still) and publications based on the theses that come with these degrees. – Austronesier ( talk) 14:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to add stronger warnings against the use of predatory journals / explanations for why those should not be cited on Wikipedia. Others disagree. Please comment. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Not sure what's going on here [43] but seems to be part of an extensive WP:GEVAL push. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Unusually, the user responsible stopped after the latest revert and started making a few pro-mainstream tweaks to the article, including the summary of the scientific rebuttal. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I knew that was going to happen. Dumuzid ( talk) 01:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have started a discussion over whether whether Wikipedia should describe psychics or mediums as "claimed", "self-purported", etc. Obviously, I do not think Wikipedia should be promoting fringe claims of individuals, but I am concerned that (a) the policy is being applied inconsistently here, and (b) co-ordinated editing, as related to the ongoing arb case, may be influencing decisions here. As this relates to fringe theories, I thought it would be of note to editors here. Thank you. — AFreshStart ( talk) 14:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

New editor plans to add authors supporting him. [44] Doug Weller talk 17:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

If 'new editor' does, we can look into it. I don't think there's much point in starting a new thread at WP:FTN every time a new purveyor of woo turns up on an article talk page. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

As I don't watch my watchlist that much, I thought it might be useful to mention it. If this is a misuse of this board, apologies. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I watchlist this board to keep a tab on nuts involved with Hindu Nationalism etc. and this thread benefited me. TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

So exactly what is the problem with a new editor adding sourced material to an article? BRealAlways ( talk) 23:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is the "supporting him" part. Adding WP:FRINGE sources (every pro-Cremo source is necessarily fringe) may keel the article over and turn it into a wackaloonfest. So, people should take care that does not happen. That is what this noticeboard is for: summoning people who can do that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some additional input at Talk:Brian_Rose_(podcaster)#RfC_on_text_around_conspiracy_theories to get a clearer decision one way or the other. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Can some people here take a look at Bechor Zvi Aminoff, Aminoff Suffering Syndrome and Aminoff Entropy definition of Human Happiness and Suffering. It all seems extremely fringey to me, and probably not notable at all, but I might be missing something so I prefered to ask here instead of tagging for deletion immediately. Apart from the lack of independent references, warning bells included "He was awarded an Honorary Doctor degree of the Yorker International University" ("a for-profit unaccredited institution": "The institution has no professors and, on the basis of life experiences, issues Master's degrees and even PhDs in several fields.") and " awarded a Research Professor Degree from the International Biographical Centre, Cambridge, England." ("Government consumer advocates have described it as a "scam"[3] or as "pretty tacky".", "The International Biographical Centre creates "awards" and offers them widely. In 2004, an award was said to cost the recipient US$495 or £295,") Fram ( talk) 09:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

At a bare minimum, there doesn't need to be 3 separate articles about this.

From a quick check, I can't find anyone other than Aminoff discussing the syndrome, let alone journal reviews - not a good sign for WP:FRINGE. The entropy thing is... bordering on WP:Complete bollocks. It's certainly not notable. I'm not great at checking notability for biographies, but absolutely there's some red flags. You probably already know, but the article is also affected by the notability guideline for academics - although I wouldn't say there's any credible claim of significance against those anyway. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 15:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait a bit to see if someone else here chimes in, and otherwise I'll put the three articles up for deletion, and we'll see what happens. Fram ( talk) 16:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Fram: Aminoff Entropy definition of Human Happiness and Suffering was deleted at the AfD you opened. Nobody else responded to this thread, so you can bring the remaining two articles to AfD as well. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Aminoff Suffering Syndrome" was deleted. I prod'ed the article on Aminoff himself, since the full rigmarole of an AfD seemed overkill for an abandoned page. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

See the latest edit at Talk:Joseph Justus Scaliger#False history creator by User:BRealAlways Three edits at Talk:Anatoly Fomenko by the same editor, and another at Talk:Joseph Justus Scaliger (including for instance "archaeologists already have evidence that some form of advanced technology was used worldwide." and an accusation that archaeologists are covering something up. I'll notify the editor. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the recent history and left them another warning (this time about FOC/ASPERSIONS) but previous ones for using article talk pages as a forum appear to have been ignored so far... — Paleo Neonate – 04:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller: "and an accusation that archaeologists are covering something up." I never said archaeologists were covering anything up. When I said, "..., which begs the question whether archaeologists are covering up something for convenience sake.", that is not an accusation. It is the application of skepticism in view of evidence [ [45]]. Just as a common perception that "the religious" will filter evidence according to their world view, the "anti-religious" may slant evidence in their favor as an antithetical response based on their beliefs. This is the basis of information inclusion and omission. While some of my talk edits may have been inappropriate, how does this vilify those who essentially do the same thing in the opposite direction? User:PaleoNeonate I can understand your concern that things go smoothly here. I had one editor tell me "We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology." I can appreciate that, yet I continue to see clear violations of the "working together" rule. To say this has nothing to do with an ideology is presumptive. If you are to "make an example of some", or even one, I see that as selective when it doesn't apply to all. From what I can see, you're being selective about who you warn of violations. The goal of these actions can be either good faith presuming innocence until proven guilty, or more of an "I'll stand on his toes until he gets sufficiently irritated". Using a position of power (WP admin) to accomplish the task of discouraging others is contemptible, and must be accompanied by a motive. I am sincerely hoping this is not the case, and your edits are honestly intended to promote good will among editors. I will have to say that it doesn't seem to be the case, but I could be wrong. I am fully aware of internet subculture movements. They allow actors to play roles in places they would otherwise not have access to. I would like to continue to contribute to making WP articles better. The tag-team approach I have been seeing doesn't give me much confidence that WP has placed proper controls in appropriate places. Specifically, I am not seeing why it would be necessary for me to feel that I must defend myself in this productive environment. BRealAlways ( talk) 04:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The road to hell is often paved with good intentions. WP:FRINGE is a guideline; if you do not like it, have it changed by a WP:RfC. TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: upgraded to WP:ANI (the theory was upgraded to law). ^[1] — Paleo Neonate – 14:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Complaint on the Talk page: This article presents Steiner's work as wildly accepted and does not ground it in a wider scientific or philosophical contexts where his work has largely been dismissed

I must say that complaint has merit. The Reception section contains nothing about his adherence to - at the time already - obsolete scientific ideas and all the crazy stuff based on his clairvoyance, and the "Judaism" part is a mix of reception of other ideas by him and his ideas by others - including Nazis. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Great catch. Important for us to fix this, given Steiner's ongoing reach in 21st century education. Feoffer ( talk) 05:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Relatedly, just glanced at the opening of Waldorf education, which still reads like a brochure. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Same goes for Biodynamic agriculture (though it does have a 'Reception' section that is critical of the whole thing). I suspect the majority of the articles in the Anthroposophy Category will have similar problems but i have the same depth of understanding of agriculture and education as i do of philosophy so i can't really say with certainty— blindlynx 19:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Anthroposophic medicine seems to be more or less OK, but Anthroposophy suffers from the same problem. BTW, if you write [[Category:Anthroposophy]], this page is added to the category, but [[:Category:Anthroposophy]] links to it. I corrected your link. Maybe you already knew how to do it; I forget it sometimes too. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  thanks! i had no idea. Comparing anthroposophic medicine to the section on it in the Steiner article is a big difference. Would copying the lede into the Steiner article be appropriate?— blindlynx 22:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think copying longer text is not appropriate, though I am not sure about the exact reasons. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Fair, well either way the article needs to be much clearer that the overwhelming majority of his work is fringe. I'll try to up add some stuff in when i get some free time. But any help and guidance would be appreciated— blindlynx 20:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• I just wanted to drop a line here and say this entire thing, this entire family of articles, is heavily heavily patrolled by a small number of Anthroposophy-friendly and especially Waldorf school-friendly editors. I waded into the deep end on this when I first started editing 7 years ago, and got hit with a stick pretty sharply. Some accused me of being a sock puppet, others said I ran anti-waldorf websites, etc. etc. I would tell anyone and everyone, this article and the entire family of articles needs more eyes. It needs more people who are willing to question "in-universe" sources and subtle POV. There's a lot of omission in these, especially about Steiner's views on race, disability, intelligence, vaccines, etc.
  What happens is, in broad strokes, a few skeptical/neutral editors will notice how wildly promotional these articles are, and attempt to fix it. One or two pro-Steiner editors will notice, and push back at every single change. Even if you push through some changes, you will eventually move on and go to other articles and worry about them. Meanwhile, the pro-Steiner editors will slowly work the article back to their POV. It has been like this for years, and I've seen this cycle repeat several times. The issue, above all, is that there is a huge huge dearth of quality sources. And even more than that, Steiner really promoted higher education and formalization of his wack-a-doodle ideas about spiritualism. So the editors who are Pro-Steiner are actually very well-educated and really understand the wikipedia game. They will act extremely formal and polite, while creating POV problems in every article. This is also why few of these pro-Steiner editors have ever been TBAN'd or sanctioned. I would caution everyone to tread carefully, but please involve yourself in these. These articles desperately need neutral editors. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 17:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Already facing a revert of my first edit on Anthroposophy with a strange excuse. I left a message on the article's talk page, — Paleo Neonate – 00:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yup, Martin Heidegger was a mainstream philosopher and far more known and studied than Steiner, but the Heidegger article does not dodge the fact and he was a member of the Nazi Party (to be sure, Steiner wasn't their member), nor that certain philosophers argue that Heidegger's philosophy is bunk. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  It seems like the problem is there is basically no good research into this so the bar for what's a wp:rs is lower than it should be— blindlynx 21:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a ton of good research out there, as an administrator noted long ago, and that's why the vast majority of the citations are to verifiable sources from outside the anthroposophic/Waldorf movement. (The exceptions are exclusively used for facts (numbers of institutions, etc.) that are acceptable under WP:SELFSOURCE.)

Interesting that the recent storm of criticism of the article's text is itself not citing verifiable sources. Clean Copy ^talk 01:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There is little research into this pseudoscience because it is nonsense, the article should not read like his views are a legitimate alternative to actual science. From WP:PARITY Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects— blindlynx 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I have retracted the claim that Steiner wasn't a Nazi. WP:RS therefore: Taverne, Dick (2006). The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism. OUP Oxford. p. 28. ISBN  978-0-19-157861-8. Retrieved 3 February 2022. Rudolf Steiner joined the Nazi party in its early days tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• I mostly stick to agriculture science topics, but I'll admit I never went directly to Steiner's page before. There is so much fringe stuff in organic subjects that the behavior |Shibbolethink mentioned doesn't surprise me, but I didn't realize there was that much of a walled garden going on. Usually editors like that tend to bleed into anti-GMO topics, so it looks like this went under the radar.

As a reminder the GMO discretionary sanctions would apply to these subjects, namely the agricultural chemicals part of it. The commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed part was meant to cover things like pesticides, organic, etc. where a lot of pseudoscience comes up. More at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions. Plus, there's always the straight up pseudoscience DS too. KoA ( talk) 22:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

Please see [46] and [47].

Clean Copy and 23mason have already been warned of discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and alternative medicine. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The citation was to a book page, the text of which directly contradicted the claim. Did the editor even read the citation he linked to? And one revert doth not an edit war make. Clean Copy ^talk 01:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppenheimer, Todd (2007). The Flickering Mind: Saving Education from the False Promise of Technology. Random House Publishing Group. p. 384. ISBN  978-0-307-43221-6. Retrieved 31 January 2022. In Dugan's view, Steiner's theories are simply "cult pseudoscience". tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you really write the words "peddler of rank pseudoscience" in an article? I shouldn't have to explain why that's a violation of WP:EPSTYLE. The words "peddler" and "rank" should never appear in an encyclopedia article unless it's part of a quote. Mlb96 ( talk) 09:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Mlb96: I am open to negotiating the wording. I am more concerned about the difference between "described as pseudoscientific" and "are pseudoscientific". According to WP:PSCI and WP:YESPOV I had the idea that it should be stated in the voice of Wikipedia that he was a pseudoscientist. I mean from Martin Gardner and Anthony Storr to contemporary debunkers, there is no doubt about it: he really was a pseudoscientist.

Anyway, that's not the edit warring I had reported, I had reported the wholesale deletion of the claim that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist. Since that's against the website policy WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but you repeatedly reverted any attempts to moderate the language. Clean Copy ^talk 12:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I use very clear language, sometimes exceedingly so. I have argued politely against changing it to "described as", but I did not revert it. tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies; I do see that the text "His ideas have been described as pseudoscientific" still stands; you indeed did not revert. Clean Copy ^talk 11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relatedly

Just came across:

• List of works on Waldorf education ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Including a link to Amazon "reviews". Yikes. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That is a straightforward list of works that was originally on the Waldorf education page and was way too long for that article. I moved it to its own article to lift the weight off the main article and have had little to do with it since. Is this list itself in any way problematic?

That review of a work by Gilbert Childs (BTW: no relation to me) obviously doesn't belong there. It was added here (diff). It should be removed. Clean Copy ^talk 20:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. Maybe just core policy like WP:NOT. A list of obscure/fringe books without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit is not what the Project wants. Looks like some self-citation going on too. Nice. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Drbogdan is reverting my attempts to clean up the lead of the Abiogenesis article by removing the paragraph on Panspermia, which inappropriately presents it as a mainstream scholarly view rather than the fringe theory it actually is. It's also not actually relevant as panspermia does not deal with the creation of life to begin with. As noted at Talk:Abiogenesis#Article's_length,_style,_and_complexity Abiogenesis is the #1345 longest article on Wikipedia and is a total incoherent dumpster fire. It needs to be nuked from orbit and rewritten from scratch. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Anomalocaris, Apokryltaros, Boghog, Chiswick Chap, Habil zare, Headbomb, Hemiauchenia, Jonesey95, McSly, Sunrise, Tgeorgescu, and Viriditas: - Please understand that I have no problem whatsoever improving the " Abiogenesis" article - including trimming the length - but perhaps the better way of improving the article may be by appropriate agreements with other editors rather than otherwise - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 04:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Abiogenesis. Briefly, the Abiogenesis article feels rather long and messy but it has a lot to cover; we'd love to rewrite it but it'd be a major project. Its main text is about 50k (12k words), the rest being over 300 lengthy multi-author citations. On Panspermia, the historical part about Darwin and so on is not in doubt; the modern part is attested by dozens of peer-reviewed papers, so however uncomfortable the root idea, it can't be called fringe. On Panspermia's place in Abiogenesis, of course it just pushes back the origin of life to some earlier time and place, but in terms of life on Earth, it does represent an "origin", however unlikely. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether Panspermia is mainstream or fringes depends on what specific aspect of it that is being talked about. There are aspects, e.g. life originated Mars and was transported to Earth by impact ejecta, of Panspermia that are respectable, scholarly views. On the other hand there also aspects, e.g. plagues and Covid-19 came from comets, of Panspermia that are definitely fringe material. Paul H. ( talk)

I'd like to point out that dozens of peer-reviewed papers doesn't prevent a theory from being considered WP:FRINGE/ALT. At which point They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. If it's a non-mainstream view, we should describe it as such. Having strong peer-reviewed sources helps define that it's good science, just not as widely accepted an explanation as others. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Some day panspermia will be properly demarcated between the outre, wacky, but vaguely plausible (life came from mars on meteorites) and the outright crankish (the ISM is freeze-dried bacteria). I am something of the opinion that it deserves mention in the context of astrobiology rather than abiogenesis. As far as I know, there are no serious biologists working on panspermia in the context of abiogenesis and therefore is improperly WP:WEIGHTed for inclusion there at all. On the other hand, there are a number of textbooks on astrobiology which make the briefest of mentions of panspermia, so I suppose we can follow their lead. jps ( talk) 21:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this interpretation is leaning in the right direction. Panspermia in general is neither considered fringe nor pseudoscience by those in astrobiology. However, NASA is careful to describe it as an alternate theory of the origin of life. The real reason we have editors on Wikipedia here and elsewhere categorizing panspermia as pseudoscience has more to do with guilt by association because of proponents like Wickramasinghe and Hoyle. It’s important to note that a hypothesis, theory, or claim, can still be taken seriously even if its claimants make the idea look absurd due to a preponderance of other bad claims. Viriditas ( talk) 23:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

My issue here is not that it is being included at all. It maybe deserves a sentence or two in the body, but I am not seeing how it justifies a substantial mention in the lead, which makes it out to be a serious alternative hypothesis, when in most scholarly sources it is only briefly mentioned, if at all. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Here’s a copy of the disputed text:

The alternative panspermia hypothesis speculates that microscopic life arose outside Earth by unknown mechanisms, and spread to the early Earth on space dust and meteoroids. It is known that complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.

My quibble would be with "by unknown mechanisms", as that seems to open the door to the wackiness, as jps alludes to above. Simply leaving it as "arose outside Earth" keeps it realistic, IMO. Viriditas ( talk) 00:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems undue for the lede, frankly. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with including panspermia in abiogenesis is that panspermia says nothing about abiogenesis. Even if panspermia is correct, life has to arise somewhere. Abiogenesis does not have to argue that this place is Earth. So it does not belong in that article. jps ( talk) 12:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes - agree - "life has to arise somewhere" - as noted in the related current discussion at " Talk:Abiogenesis#Panspermia in the lead" => "seems there was no " life" in the " very early universe" - and then there was life - on " planet Earth" at least - life may (or may not) have begun uniquely on Earth (" Terrestrial abiogenesis") - or elsewhere (" Extraterrestrial abiogenesis") and related to " Panspermia" - the notion of panspermia has been discussed numerous times in the archives of [the] " Abiogenesis" article" - also - seems the Britannica presents "panspermia" in the "abiogenesis" article as follows: "In addition, some scientists contend that abiogenesis was unnecessary, suggesting instead that life was introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled organisms; the hypothetical migration of life to Earth is known as panspermia." - seems " Panspermia" has a place in the " Abiogenesis" article - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't have to take our lead from Britannica, of course. I don't think there is a serious argument for why panspermia needs special identification in abiogenesis since it really has nothing to do with the subject even as you or Britannica are presenting it. jps ( talk) 13:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Drbogdan is on target, and if you’re a close reader of the current article on abiogenesis, you’ll find that panspermia is tightly woven and embedded into our coverage of the subject. For example, in the "Darwin’s little pond" section, we find that this hypothesis requires "interplanetary dust particles and meteorites [to have] transported organic molecules like nucleotides to these ponds". Our article on panspermia refers to this as pseudo, soft, or molecular panspermia, but it is seriously treated and discussed in any current exploration of the subject. For this (and many other reasons), it should be mentioned in the lead. The idea that panspermia is "fringe" is highly erroneous, and comes from an older era (pre-1990s) when even concepts like anthropogenic climate change were treated with disdain by non-climatologists. Viriditas ( talk) 22:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise, but I don't think I've seen "organic molecules from space" being referred to as "panspermia". The usages of "panspermia" I know of always refer to life forms, not to chemicals. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That’s the difference between hard and soft panspermia. While it is certainly a niche discipline, it’s frequently discussed by experts in their respective fields. Matthieu R. Lalanne (chemistry postdoc at OUI) describes the concept in his dissertation: With the evidence of the presence of organic molecules in space, soft panspermia theories emerged, which argued that pre-biotic molecules originate from space. These theories upheld that the extraterrestrial pre-biotic molecules were distributed on earth when life began (abiogenesis). Recent studies investigated the isotopic ratio of chlorine in oceanic dorsal in order to find evidence of the formation of the ocean. It was concluded that most of the water on Earth has an extraterrestrial origin. Pre-biotic molecules such as amino acids may have arrived on earth within this water. Viriditas ( talk) 22:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"Soft" panspermia isn't really panspermia at all. The idea that amino acids exist in carbonaceous chondrite asteroids is not a groundbreaking concept. This is a bit tangential, but the scientific consensus is that Earth's water derives from the initial planetary accretion, rather than being delivered later by comets. The current consensus is that Earth acquired most its water by accretion of carbonaceous chondrite material, particularly CI-like chondrites, from beyond the snow line in the solar nebula. [48], no idea if that any bearing on "soft" panspermia. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s not groundbreaking. Panspermia dates back more than 2000 years to Anaxagoras. As for cometary panspermia, that hasn’t been a thing for decades. Soft panspermia is defined by Darling as the idea that organic chemicals formed in interstellar space, became incorporated into the cloud of gas and dust from which the Sun formed and thereby seeded the Earth and other planets with the raw materials from which life could originate. Viriditas ( talk) 23:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Cosmic ancestry

The related Cosmic ancestry article has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic ancestry. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Climate change driving evolution so fast that animals are changing in weeks.The book discussed is by Thor Hanson (biologist). Doug Weller talk 14:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

VERY interesting, Doug. Thanks for sharing. Atsme 💬 📧 01:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)