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

Pure fringe. See [1] where the university press ad says "Paints a compelling picture of impressive pre-Columbian cultures and Old World civilizations that, contrary to many prevailing notions, were not isolated from one another". Used in several articles. [2] Doug Weller talk 14:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Lol, "The work gives new meaning to the expression tour de force." Indeed. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• So, dear experts, the pertinent question for Wikipedia is: is this book pseudoscience, questionable science, or an alternative theoretical formulation? Should Dr. Jett be summarily removed on sight as a lunatic charlatan, or added (if contextually relevant) as a significant minority view? Books are where scholars enjoy relatively more freedom of synthesis, discussion, and speculation than primary literature might permit. It would sure be convenient if Jett were speaking completely out of his anus, and could summarily be dismissed in all cases (and thus expunged from the hallowed halls of truth known as Wikipedia). But is it possible certain claims could be evaluated on their own merits? Archaeologist Peter Bellwood in reviewing the work states "I have no trouble in believing that many coastal populations in the Old World had the ability to cross wide oceans by at least 5,000 years ago", and finds individual aspects to criticize, yet concludes: "I think the upshot of all of this is that transoceanic "contact" between peoples in different hemispheres occurred along a scale of significance. That it sometimes could have occurred is not in doubt, but was it always relevant from broad perspectives of cultural and biological evolution? Stephen Jett has done a good job, but endless questions remain." ^[1] Anthropologist Terry L. Jones begins his review with "Stephen Jett is one of a handful of dedicated (mostly) geographers who have sought to keep dialogues about prehistoric transoceanic contacts with the Americas within the realm of scholarly discourse for historians, anthropologists, archaeologists, or anyone else who might listen." His review finds aspects to commend and to criticize, and concludes with "Despite such misgivings, I think that the possibility of intercivilizational contacts across the oceans connecting Asia, Malaysia, South America, and/or Mesoamerica continues to be worthy of consideration, and I appreciate Jett’s monumental efforts in trying to keep that possibility alive in the minds of American scholars." ^[2] Geographer Charles F. Gritzner writes: "Jett takes a stand counter to the long-held position that such contacts were improbable, if not impossible. The book, then, is a reconsideration of traditional views", and concludes "Jett has drawn together and convincingly presented and assessed a huge body of evidence that amply supports the case for early transoceanic exchanges." ^[3] A review by Colombian archaeologist Diana Carvajal Contreras notes: For Jett, cultural developments are explained by diffusion. For the vast majority of historians and archaeologists, this explanation for the dissemination of knowledge and technology is viewed with caution in the best of cases and seen with skepticism in the case of inter-oceanic contacts before the Vikings. It is criticized as a vision of being biased by the notion of cultural evolution. ^[4]

Laughing out loud is good and healthy for the body, but closely examining sources and preconceptions is also healthy for the mind. I'm by no means an armchair expert in archaeology or anthropology (pre-Columbian or otherwise), but, just spitballing, I would place this guy as a minority but alternative scientific viewpoint, if one accepts the premise that science consists of more than the simple dichotomy of "majority" (right and good) and "fringe" (wrong and bad). --Animalparty! ( talk) 05:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'd say you're just a bit too high up on that horse for me to hear what you're trying to ask. Feel free to continue resenting the community I suppose. Generalrelative ( talk) 06:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  • @ Animalparty: I find it difficult to take Gritzner seriously. I realise that he grew up at a time when hyperdiffusion was taken much more seriously, but he's praising some fringe people writing in two self-published books. One by John L. Sorenson. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'd say we let the actual experts in that subject decide that question - historians and archaeologists - and completely ignore our own spitballing. The way we always do it. The way the guidelines tell us. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably notable, but most of the text is unsourced. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd be interested in thoughts about this matter at the OR policy talk page. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Working through 2009 promo tags and stumbled on this article. I'm inclined to shorten it significantly but curious opinions on whether the fringeness of his views is being buried in the body and needs to be made more apparent to a reader. Slywriter ( talk) 17:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Service: Charles Faulkner (author) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Some user still believes in the existence of "climate change skeptics". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 22:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Norman Fenton ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Recently came across this tangentially via COVID-related avenues (see Hart Group of which he is a member), and find there's a lot of science stuff in here which is outside my area of interest (Bayesian reasoning) including the bold claim that he is "renowned for his work in software engineering". I note he has also pronounced on climate change (how, I don't know). Do other editors know more and (outside COVID vaccines) is there a fringe aspect here? Alexbrn ( talk) 12:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I went through and trimmed some WP:PEACOCK language. While he does appear to have a significant number of citations in computer science and software engineering (roughly a thousand IEEE citations per year), I feel like "renown" needs a better citation than that. Much of the section seems to need a bit more work to read like it wasn't written as a promo or to pulled from his CV. But he doesn't appear to be a WP:FRINGE computer researcher, more like the common example of being over-certain outside his field of expertise. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I just finished diffusing the biographies in Category:Scientific racism, which constitiuted about 60% of the category, into a new category named Category:Proponents of scientific racism, except for a few articles which lacked context or were otherwise unapplicable. However, I discovered during cleanup that the new category has a large overlap with Category:Race and intelligence controversy: 31 articles are in both categories, and from a cursory glance some of those entries are nondefining for R&I. Any advice on what to do with the biographies in the R&I category? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Section "Green issues" contains several fantastic climate change "explanations" by laymen written as if they were serious scientific ideas. Example: He cited the statements of semi-retired explosives expert Martin Hertzberg that rising CO2 levels are a symptom, not a cause, of global warming, which Hertzberg asserts is the result of natural, predictable changes in the Earth's elliptic orbit.

Yeah, or maybe global warming is caused by hobgoblins rubbing their hands together.

Can't quite think of a way to rewrite this in accordance with WP:FRINGE. Maybe someone has an idea. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That whole section should just be nuked. What isn't WP:SYNTH from primary sources is sourced to blogs and Counterpunch, which should not be used, especially in a BLP. If there's no good secondary sourcing about this, then it isn't WP:DUE. I've removed it, so I guess we'll see how that goes. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I suspected that to be the right solution, and I agree with it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I did some digging and found his obit in The Guardian, which says For example, he shared the scepticism of many conservatives about global warming and climate change. There's also Columbia Journalism Review, which goes more in-depth, and has this nice quip, Neither article, by itself, is groundbreaking in any way. Hansen’s list is generic and Cockburn is wrong. But there is a likeable tension in their collocation that has not existed on news pages in some months. It also provides Rebutting the remainder of Cockburn’s pseudo-scientific argument is unnecessary. Lastly, I found this Reason article which is pretty small, not in-depth, and provides Now comes Cockburn's second column peddling climate change denial. Really, the only thing to work off of is the Columbia Journalism Review piece, which might be enough to say "Cockburn wrote in support of the incorrect and pseudoscientific belief of climate change denialism." That's really not enough for it's own heading, though.

To be honest, that entire article is just filled with SYNTH based on his writings, with little in the way of secondary sources to show that any of it is notable or due. The entire "political views and activities" section could be cut down to a paragraph that says "He was a socialist, Marxist and a contrarian."

At times acerbic, Cockburn could also be gently and humorously ironic, once declaring Gerald Ford America's greatest president for "doing the least damage" and praising the Lewinsky scandal's entertainment value. is sourced to this unreliable source which doesn't mention gentle, humor or irony, or even Gerald Ford. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As indicated by SFR, the entire article is problematic. Tangents, synth, puff, verbosity, you name it. If I have time over the next few days (that's a significant if, unfortunately) I will break out the hatchet and start a-hackin'. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I now suspect the job will require a bulldozer and C-4. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the article Talk page for more comments (not that I'm recommending that rabbit hole), as issues regarding the page seem mostly tangential to fringe topics. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 19:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 § RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 12:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Can (or should) we repeat the claims of reliable sources, which state that there is no evidence for the existence of the Ghost of Kyiv? [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Some additional opinions at Talk:Ghost_of_Kyiv#Reverted_edits would be appreciated. Endwise ( talk) 14:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The whole Recent human evolution article seems like its purpose is to exaggerate recent human evolutionary rates beyond the scholarly consensus. Some things that really stand out on a cursory reading are numerous references to the work of the science journalist Nicholas Wade, the author of the widely criticsed A Troublesome Inheritance which was criticsed by scientists in an open letter for its exaggeration of recent human evolutionary rates, as well as citations of things like this BBC article from 2007, which is based on the claims of anthropologist Henry Harpending, who believed that black people were naturally more aggressive due to their genetics. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, ffs, it cites phys.org too. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, I saw a documentary called X-men, and it seems humans are evolving very quickly. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There is resistance to removing Wade, on the grounds that good science writers write much more clearly than all but a few scientists. See Talk page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a solid reason to choose one citation over another for comprehension, but has limited applicability when it comes to weight and consensus. Clear writing leaves open the potential to get things wrong, which seems to be the typical concern with any science writer (and Wade in particular). Wade's writing might be helpful in explaining details, but any contentious claims should also be able to be cited to a more reliable peer-reviewed source to avoid taking Wade's view as the consensus view. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

An article on Sapiens. [8] Sapiens is part of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research for which we have no article, just a redirect to its founder. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Templar Revelation (2nd nomination) - it may end up being kept, but at the moment it has no inline citations, just a link to this which I'm pretty sure fails RS. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I swear that site ripped off the aesthetic from my website aggregating resources on Hittite history from 1995 or so. Dumuzid ( talk) 18:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It's been kept. It's got a big pov summary with no sources. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

So… complete re-write? Blueboar ( talk) 18:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Rain of animals. Extremely curious how the anti-fringe crowd is going to treat this one. It's one of those things that seems so goofy, implausible, and inconsequential that mainstream academic science doesn't even care. So instead Wikipedia have filled this article with absolute speculation, presumably as a false balance against the presumed message that fish falling from the sky means magic is real and science is a lie. This article is like 1/5th documenting the reports of the phenomenon, and 4/5ths wild speculation. Do we allow the wild speculation only because it's inside a specific point of view? MarshallKe ( talk) 13:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little sad that it doesn't mention the Mad Fishmonger theory. Anyone happen to have a reliable source that describes it? MrOllie ( talk) 13:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The only fishmonger I could find was "Roscoe Chandler". JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

So, having quickly perused the article (and recalling my misspent youth reading "Fortean" type works), I was actually pleasantly surprised at the sourcing (Smithsonian Magazine, National Geographic, BBC, etc.). While I would agree that "wild speculation" is an accurate descriptor, I am not quite sure what you think would be an improvement? That seems to be the state of understanding of the phenomenon. Are you suggesting we edit out the speculation? Or the whole article? Any clarification would be appreciated. Have a nice day. Dumuzid ( talk) 13:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I drew the same conclusion, its seems OK, not brilliant but OK. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, in the absence of a higher confidence explanation, it's pretty reasonable to describe the various theories in proportion to their mainstream acceptance. The latter bit being the trick... On a somewhat unrelated note, I'm a bit surprised nobody has taken up such research to get themselves an Ig Nobel. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I'm making any specific suggestion on what to do with the article, as I actually like the article as it stands. I just see that we are allowing things like "yeah, I think it might be waterspouts, man" into the article just because they happened to get published in Smithsonian. Seems like the takeaway here, at least for me, is that if mainstream academic peer-reviewed work published in a journal isn't available on a topic, we can just use whatever happens to get published in any vaguely scientific secondary source. MarshallKe ( talk) 14:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering, what do we do with abstract cosmological and particle physics questions that are open questions without a lot of consensus or published research? Are these sources just easy collections of those views, rather than the journal papers that back up those views (and editors haven't found them yet)? Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm interested, too, in seeing a list of ideas that science is studying but there is truly no reliable mainstream academic consensus yet, and seeing how Wikipedia has treated these articles. MarshallKe ( talk) 14:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe you, MarshallKe, have the right (if somewhat unsatisfying) answer. Where there are no (at least none found) reliable academic sources, published studies, or the like, then yes, we are forced to rely on more "popular" reliable sources. To me, that's an easy call: better to have a "dumbed-down" description of some abstruse M-theory spinoff than not describe it at all. We all know science is imperfect, always progressing, and always growing. Sometimes we just have to wait for it to get where we would like it to be. As ever, just my opinion, and happy to defer to consensus if it should go some other way. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 14:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Lists of unsolved problems probably has a solid corpus of examples of this. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering, what do we do with abstract cosmological and particle physics questions that are open questions without a lot of consensus or published research? If there's not a lot of published research, then we don't write about it. If there's merely a lack of consensus, we write about the different viewpoints that exist. A debate has to be documented before we can cover it here. If no scientific papers on a question have yet made it through peer review, then it's almost certainly too soon to write about it on Wikipedia. It is very, very rare for a topic to qualify based on pop-science coverage alone, and that is how it should be; very few pop-science publications are remotely reliable enough for our purposes, and we're not here to do the services of a PR department by recycling sensationalistic trash. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Ho, I did not watch that one yet! Thanks for bringing it up.

presumably as a false balance against the presumed message that fish falling from the sky means magic is real and science is a lie That childish "I-cannot-explain-this-and-I-am-so-smart-therefore-nobody-can-explain-this" position is not even mentioned in the article. And "false balance" is about avoiding the addition of stupid ideas to balance out the smart ones, not the other way around. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the "magic" explanation is not anywhere in the article is exactly my point. We've added a bunch of crap to balance out a statement that only exists in our minds, not in the article. And false balance is about adding stuff that isn't mainstream academic scientific consensus, not about adding what Hob Gadling determines is stupid or not. And you have to admit, the waterspout hypothesis is a stupid idea, for multiple reasons. MarshallKe ( talk) 15:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is the waterspout hypothesis 'stupid'? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Two obvious ones: 1) Waterspouts don't pick things up, move them miles, and drop them. They fling. 2) Unless there is such a thing as selective waterspouts that only pick up specific kinds of objects to the exclusion of everything else in a body of water, the waterspout hypothesis would result in a variety of organisms and nonliving objects being moved, which is in the minority of reports. MarshallKe ( talk) 15:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course, keep in mind this is not a forum and we're not here to speculate or do the job of scientists. MarshallKe ( talk) 15:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Waterspouts can and do move things miles. Scientists say so. [10] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I may have been mistaken on #1. MarshallKe ( talk) 15:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that aerodynamic forces are responsible for moving stuff up, it is more or less inevitable that it is going to get sorted to some extent, by terminal velocity. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Where did those selective waterspouts that only pick up specific kinds of objects to the exclusion of everything else come from? Do the reports say that the observers made a complete inventory of everything that fell from the sky in a large area? Both your "obvious ones" are wrong. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the "magic" explanation is not anywhere in the article is exactly my point. It should not be anywhere. That's what WP:FALSEBALANCE is about. Of course, as soon as something is slightly difficult to explain, the web is full of simple people who fail to explain it after trying for a few seconds, then conclude, "it's a miracle! it's aliens! it's psi!" There is nothing noteworthy about that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The article fails to mention Hyman’s Categorical Imperative [11]: before we try to explain something we should be sure that there is indeed something to explain. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

To be 100% fair, Radford there doesn't seem to question the general proposition of animal falls, just the idea of "single species falls." And wow, this is the most I have thought about this topic in several decades. Happy Wednesday, everyone! Dumuzid ( talk) 14:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the variety of contentious topics in the zeitgeist, this one is quite the palate cleanser. Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur MarshallKe ( talk) 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I added basically that to the talk page ages ago, with no replies thus far, that one idea is that this is hundreds of cases of The Ubiquitous Unscrupulous Reporter (TUUR). MarshallKe ( talk) 15:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Gullible people do listen to each other and do propagate false rumours. Reporters do need to fill paper with something exciting. And if there are no details, details are invented. You should read research by Joe Nickell some time, tracing back stories of the unexplained to their origins. Names change over time, details change over time, sometimes the whole character of a tale changes over time. And those who spread fantastic tales of mysterious happenings are the worst at correctly reproducing their sources. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This Smithsonian group, Center for Short-Lived Phenomena, used to report/log these events, but I don't know if there is an on-line copy or if they went into much explanation. StrayBolt ( talk) 16:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Circular and unfruitful discussion about whether someone who spreads propaganda is a propagandist. Let's add a few more people who repeat what has already been said. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem is in describing a person rather than what they are doing. At least that's my editorial bias in these sorts of matters. But if my WP:BOLD Gordion Knot cutting does not have consensus, that's fine too. jps ( talk) 14:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Joe Biden is someone who has told lies, so is he a liar? I say, in general, it's best to use whatever sources say, without applying labels not used in sources. I don't think there would be an issue in this case using "conspiracy theorist", but unless sources are specifically calling them a propagandist, I wouldn't use the label. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't like "conspiracy theorist" all that much either as I get rather fascinated by the difference between those who are documented to invent conspiracy theories (for example, David Icke) and those who take the conspiracy theories and then propagate them (for example, Alex Jones). What makes one a "conspiracy theorist", then, is a hair-splitting argument that really is not edifying. It's more precise and more informative to say what the person is actually doing vis-a-vis conspiracy theories instead of just giving them a title like "conspiracy theorist". jps ( talk) 15:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree there is definitely a difference, but that's why I generally go with what the weight of sources say. It's like the climate skeptic/denier conversation above. They have different meanings to different people, so it's best just to look at the weight of sources, specifically the best quality sources, and see what they say. I also don't like how we tend to shove labels or mentions like that into the first sentence of the lead. Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer and author who is known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories. The huge, enormous, vast weight of sources do not claim he's a conspiracy theorist, or even promotes conspiracy theories. He isn't known for for his vaccine stances or 5G nuttery, he's been known forever. I prefer to have a bit more context when it comes to the negative claims. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Sticking to sources is fine and admirable, of course, but I think generally editorial decisions about word choice come down to other judgement calls. While style guides might help and certainly explain why, for example, certain ways of saying this or that are more common in reliable sources than others, what we're really quibbling here over is wording that is essentially synonymous. The devil is in the details, so I do think arguments for precision are more convincing than pretending that a source that say "He spreads propaganda" is not really saying "He is a propagandist". And anyway, whether we've stuck slavishly to sources or not is an argument I think often is taken too far at this website -- occasionally with the result that prose becomes overly stilted fashion or, worse, plagiarism. jps ( talk) 17:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

We aren't required to stick to the source in all cases for specific terms used to describe someone. For example, if most sources refer to Mr Doe as "that a-hole who spreads misinformation" we can skip the first part while saying he spreads misinformation. If an anti-vaxxer is viewed as not just risking the health of those who follow their preaching but, as was often seen during COVID, risking the health/well being of those who were vaccinated it's understandable many sources may pick language that is specifically meant to appeal to their reader's sense of outrage etc. This is often true when groups sensitive to LGBT issues write about someone who opposes something LBGT related. The person may be labeled as -phobic in general rather than more accurately describing the subject's specific views. From there we have people arguing that Mr Doe needs to be called -phobic in Wiki voice rather than providing the more nuanced version of his position. Yet another reason to generally avoid labels and stick more to descriptions of the underlying issues. Springee ( talk) 02:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The exact same issue with "has spread X propaganda" --> "is a propagandist" and "told X lie" --> "is a liar" exists with "has spread X conspiracy theory" --> "is a conspiracy theorist". I think in this case though, from a quick google search, "conspiracy theorist" is a label that reliable sources do actually use for him. Endwise ( talk) 15:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think Impartial tone applies. When I hear the term propagandist, I think of Joseph Goebbels. So it seems like an attempt to disparage Kennedy by comparing him with the Nazis, which is an all too frequent tactic used to discredit people with whom we disagree, and certainly not something articles should do.

It's a problematic term, since its definition is just writing or speech that promotes a cause. but we wouldn't use it for example to describe the Surgeon-General, who persuades people to lead healthy lifestyles. So it's judgmental.

TFD ( talk) 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• It's okay to describe what people do (spread propaganda) without assigning them a character trait (propagandist). This is especially true WRT pejorative, contentious, or negative terms. Saying "he's an environmental lawyer who promotes a anti-vaccine propaganda" is sufficiently detailed and perfectly correct, without using labels. If you can state the same information without using emotionally charged labels applied to the person (i.e. describing someone who has done something rather than describing someone who is a thing) is almost always better. -- Jayron 32 16:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agree that "he's an environmental lawyer who promotes a anti-vaccine propaganda" sounds good. Will have to keep an eye on the article as the new wording is being contested by many not aware of ongoing chat. Tried to bring attention to the ongoing talk but it was removed stating some sort of consensus during ongoing talk. Moxy- 03:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

See [12] discussing this new book.[ https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-flag-and-the-cross-9780197618684?cc=a2&lang=en& The Flag and the Cross:White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the purpose of posting this here? --Animalparty! ( talk) 17:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to let people know about it. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

When I last checked, last November, he was a pseudoscientist. Now, he turns out to be an "agronomist and biologist", and suddenly [some of Lysenko's work had scientific merit, which was recognized internationally, and some of his contributions in the fields of science, agronomy and biology have been highly praised by a number of world-famous scientists.

Could somebody have a look? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

A user is repeatedly removing the term "fringe" from the ganzfeld experiment. It's obvious that the ganzfeld technique used to test for ESP is fringe science. This is really not controversial. The user is repeatedly adding a citation tag claiming fringe does not appear on the article. The same user [13], [14] has stated that parapsychology is a science and has been in many debates before about their defense of psychic powers. I am not sure why we need a citation tag to claim the ganzfeld experiment is "fringe" but I added a reference for this and was still reverted. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, "fringe" is a bit of a Wikipedian-ism. Sometimes it is used in the literature, but often there are better and more precise ways to describe a situation considering "fringe" can mean such disparate things as "avant-garde" or even "flowery". Since we rely on WP:FRINGE to be an organizing principle, I think we can easily succumb to the misconception that the outside world uses "fringe" in the same way we do, but that is not the case. The Edinburgh Fringe Festival, for example, is hardly WP:FRINGE. :) jps ( talk) 20:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

In this case, we do (and almost certainly should) use the more descriptive term pseudoscience, which is covered by a subset of our FRINGE guideline. Bakkster Man ( talk) 20:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Read the lead:

A ganzfeld experiment (from the German word for “entire field”) is an assessment used by parapsychologists that they contend can test for extrasensory perception (ESP) or telepathy. Consistent, independent replication of ganzfeld experiments has not been achieved, and there is no scientifically validated evidence for the existence of any parapsychological phenomena. Ongoing parapsychology research using ganzfeld experiments has been criticized by independent reviewers as having the hallmarks of pseudoscience."

Since it already says it is AN ASSESSMENT USED BY PARAPSYCHOLOGISTS, the numerous disclaimers and warnings are superfluous. What next? Are we going to write disclaimers for Ghostbusters and the Flintstones that they portray pseudoscience and should not be watched by children under 21?

Fringe in Wikipedia incidentally means has little or no support in mainstream sources. That could include an alternative theory that science may eventually accept.

Incidentally, the lead should explain what the experiment is and why it is notable. We should do that before adding more disclaimers.

TFD ( talk) 16:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

What next? Are we going to write disclaimers for Ghostbusters and the Flintstones that they portray pseudoscience and should not be watched by children under 21?

Wikipedia is headed there. We already now refuse to summarize any information about preliminary research because apparently we think readers are so dumb that we've given up on accurately portraying the information and now straight up just tailor the article to make them think what we think they should think. MarshallKe ( talk) 18:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I hardly think that ganzfeld experiments are "preliminary research". Odd that you would think they were. jps ( talk) 00:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The quoted text reads fine to me; the "disclaimers" summarize the main article below, which is what the introduction is supposed to do. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I think summarizing the experiment itself would be a great idea for the lede, but I note that the article as currently written doesn't do a fantastic job of it either. I've been working on that a bit. One thing I cannot determine is whether it was Charles Honorton who coined the term or whether it was used prior to his promulgation. Also, I believe that the 1980 cult classic Altered States may pay homage to this experiment, but I haven't found many sources to help with that. All this is to say it would be nice if people got out of the peanut gallery and tried to help write the article. If you want. jps ( talk) 00:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I realized on re-reading this that it may sound a bit "snarky". I was actually just trying to invite people to help edit the article. It could use some good editors. jps ( talk) 00:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A friendly reminder (that is actually written in bold red text at the top of the page) that when referring to specific editors you should notify them.

Sadly you have not accurately represented here what happened. I shall leave it up to interested parties to review the edit history and the talk page to see what actually happened should they so desire. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This is the best example I've seen of why we should never use the media as a source for archaeology, particularly sensational claims. The main discussion is at Talk:Mount Ebal‎. See [15] for a discussion of the problems by Christopher Rollston who himself says "that there was some sort of Exodus, and that there was also some sort of entrance into the land of Canaan for at least some of the Proto-Israelites, and that there were at least some battles as part of that" so he can't be accused of being a "Bible denier" as the Creationist who found it (out of context) has accused others of being. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I was just coming here to make sure this had been covered; I should have known Doug would be all over it. I am seeing all sorts of grandiose claims for this thing which should be interesting enough on its own philological grounds. Cheers, all. Dumuzid ( talk) 19:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

See Israel Finkelstein’s FB page. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Page author has started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo of Gaza in what seems to me like an action that goes right up to the line of WP:POINT. jps ( talk) 11:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The AfD process hasn't been properly followed either - there is no entry for the Apollo article in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log. Someone (preferably someone uninvolved) should probably sort that out. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

...as I would not be surprised for some related "King Arthur" content to appear. Either way, worth a perusal. Graves of dozens of kings from the time of King Arthur uncovered in Britain. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 18:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Essentially, this is part two of my submission from December " Belarusians are really Lithuanians?". Cukrakalnis spreads the idea that Poles in Lithuania, are not Poles living in Lithuania, but actually "Slavicized Lithuanians". He bases this statement on the works of the controversial Lithuanian linguist Zigmas Zinkevičius. He was a politically engaged academic and Minister of Education who claimed that Poles in Lithuania are not Poles, but more or less "confused Lithuanians". He also claimed that the Polish language does not exist in Lithuania, and that the language spoken by Poles in Lithuania is a separate language, devoid of grammar and literature, and as such is doomed to extinction. And Poles in Lithuania should return to the bosom of the Lithuanian nation. To which he himself contributed significantly by leading the action of Lithuanianization, being the Minister of Education. I described his character in more detail here: Talk:Poles in Lithuania#(Un)reliability of Zigmas Zinkevičius. His view has deep roots in Lithuanian nationalism. You can read about it in Ethnographic Lithuania.

It is a historical fact that the Polish minority in Lithuania emerged as a result of a long-lasting process of adoption of the Polish language and culture by the inhabitants of Lithuanian territories. Migration from central Poland was of marginal importance. It is also a fact that the process of Polonisation among the lower classes took place mainly in the second half of the 19th century. I described it in the article Polonization, which I am currently working on. But this does not mean that Poles living in Lithuania today are only "Slavicized Lithuanians" or "Polonized Lithuanians". In the last year 183 thousand people marked Polish nationality in the census. And this is how they should be defined. Just because someone's great-great-grandfather or even grandfather spoke Lithuanian as his first language, it does not mean that person is "Slavicized" if he self-identify as simply "Polish". Marcelus ( talk) 20:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This concerns this phrase from Poles in Lithuania: They are either mostly descended from or are themselves Slavicized Lithuanians, ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [a]} and the American political scientist Walter Clemens mentions a Belarusian origin. ^[6] This WP:NPOV phrase is directly supported by numerous sources and also supported by content in the article itself, which was added by Marcelus. Moreover, Marcelus initiated a WP:EDITWAR and continuously removed material that had multiple sources supporting it. Instead of initiating a conversation on the page's talk page, there were about ten major removals by Marcelus. As for me, I kept re-adding the sourced material and also improving other sections of the article.

Bibliography:

• Budreckis, Algirdas (1967). "Etnografinės Lietuvos Rytinės ir Pietinės Sienos". Karys.
• Clemens, Walter C. (1991). Baltic Independence and Russian Empire. 0-312-04806-8: St. Martin's Press. p. 150.{{ cite book}}: CS1 maint: location ( link)
• Šapoka, Adolfas (2013). Raštai (in Lithuanian). Vol. I - Vilniaus Istorija. Vilnius: Edukologija.
• Lipscomb, Glenard P.; Committee for a Free Lithuania (29 May 1958). "Extension of Remarks". Congressional Record. 104 - Appendix.
• Turska, Halina (1930). "Język polski na Wileńsczyzne". Wilno i Ziemia Wilenska (in Polish). Vol. I.
• Zinkevičius, Zigmas (31 January 2014). "Lenkiškai kalbantys lietuviai" [Polish-speaking Lithuanians]. alkas.lt (in Lithuanian).

Cukrakalnis ( talk) 20:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that none of the sources you cited use the term "Slavicized Lithuanians" or "Polonized Lithuanians". Even Zinkevičius talks about "lenkiškai kalbantys lietuviai" - Polish-speaking Lithuanians (in a 2014 article, then by the way he claims that their speech has nothing to do with Polish). Let me repeat, it is true that the Polish minority in Lithuania arose as a result of Polonisation, which took place mainly in the second half of the 19th century (this is what Turska writes about), and not as a result of some great migration of Poles to Lithuania (such theories appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, today no one seriously claims so). This does not change the fact that Poles in Lithuania today are Poles, because Polishness is not a community of blood and soil, but a community of language and culture. Marcelus ( talk) 20:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Marcelus' statement is flat out false - The American political scientist Walter Clemens uses the term "Polonized Lithuanians", as do the other sources (e.g. sulenkėję lietuviai and other similar terms). Marcelus making false statements is clear for all to see. This nomination should be removed, because Marcelus wants to remove content based on sources just because he dislikes what they say. He did not acquaint himself with what they said and instead just wants to remove them. He accused me of Either you don't read Polish or you are deliberately misleading, even if the source in question supported what I said (see the bottom of section Talk:Poles_in_Lithuania#(Un)reliability_of_Zigmas_Zinkevičius, where Marcelus smears the professor Zigmas Zinkevičius for saying what many others, even Poles, have said). Finally, the article's content supports the phrase Marcelus seeks to remove. Marcelus' actions are simply not according to Wiki guidelines. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 21:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to Coleman's book, but all it matters is context. It's one thing to call Lithuanians who adopted the Polish language and culture "Polonized Lithuanian", but the whole other thing is calling that established national minority in Lithuania, which members clearly self-declare as Poles. Can you cite the whole context Coleman is using that term? That's one thing. Other is that you still failed to pinpoint a source that uses the term "Slavicized Lithuanians". Also term Sulenkėję lietuviai, which I believe translates as something like "bent/broken/fallen Lithuanian" is something very different, more like a slur than anything worth using in the encyclopedia. Can you quote the part of Turska's article that supposedly supports what you are saying? Because I read it, and there is no nothing like what you are claiming. Hence my assumption you don't really read well in Polish. Zigmas Zinkevičius is very anti-Polish, his theories are just reflections of his nationalistic views. Of course content of the article doesn't support claim that Polish people in Lithuania are "Slavicized Lithuanians". Marcelus ( talk) 16:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The work of the Lithuanian historian Adolfas Šapoka has the sentences Lithuanian areas in many instances were cut up or bisected by Slavicized "Locals", and appropriated by both the Whiteruthenians and Poles for their propaganda purposes. or Islands of Lithuanians are to be found guite far in the east, and Slavicized islands are encountered west of Vilnius. - pretty much obviously implying the term of Slavicized Lithuanians. The term Sulenkėję lietuviai translates to Polonized Lithuanians and not "bent/broken/fallen". The "translation" you provided comes from Google Translate or etc. and is obviously wrong - it confused lenkti (to bend) and lenkas (a Pole). Sulenkėję has the stem lenk, which is connected to Poland (Lith: Lenkija) and Poles (Lith: lenkai). I guarantee you this as a native speaker of Lithuanian. Moreover, Slavicized includes both Polonized and Byelorussified (both Poles and Byelorussians are Slavs) and both of these terms are used in the 1958 source.

Turska's article writes in the very first page of it: O języku polskim na Wileńszczyźnie pisano dotychczas bardzo mało, nie doczekał się on jeszcze gruntownego, monograficznego opracowania. A szkoda, posiada bowiem swoistą, bardzo charakterystyczną i niezmiernie ciekawą postać, odrębną od postaci innych nowych narzeczy polskich, wyrosłych bądź na gruncie ruskim, bądź też litewskim. Odrębność ta dotyczy nietylko właściwości językowych, ale także historji powstania i rozwoju polszczyzny wileńskiej: jak wiadomo, nie powstała ona ani przez jakąś godną uwagi polską kolonizację, ani drogą stopniowego wypierania języka obcego przez sąsiadujące dialekty polskie, nigdzie bowiem nie łączy się z obszarem czysto polskim, a stanowi wyspę, ze wszystkich stron otoczoną morzem białoruskiem i litewskiem. Od jak dawna wyspa ta istnieje, kiedy, w jakich warunkach i w jaki sposób powstała? Na te pytania można będzie z całą pewnością odpowiedzieć po gruntownem zbadaniu zarówno mowy współczesnej, jak też języka zabytków przeszłości. Dziś można powiedzieć jedno: polszczyzna na Wileńszczyźnie powstała na gruncie obcym w sposób swoisty, niespotykany poza tem, jako wynik działania siły atrakcyjnej kultury polskiej. The conclusion is obvious from this.

Zigmas Zinkevičius is very anti-Polish, his theories are just reflections of his nationalistic views. No, and you have not proven anything of what you are accusing Professor Zigmas Zinkevičius of being. Going out of your way to call them "theories" without proving that they are wrong is intellectually dishonest. He, as a professor, is much more knowledgeable than you about the subject - especially the one where he specializes in.

Of course content of the article doesn't support claim that Polish people in Lithuania are "Slavicized Lithuanians". The phrase in question is They are either mostly descended from or are themselves Slavicized Lithuanians, and the American political scientist Walter Clemens mentions a Belarusian origin. The article clearly supports the claim made in this sentence, and denying that is dishonest. And you are trying to remove this sentence, which is well supported and factually true. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 17:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the meaning of "Sulenkėja lietuviai", Google translate has misled me.

Adolf Šapoka died in 1961, so his words clearly cannot apply to the current situation in 2022. His work is obviously very biased, written in the spirit of the understanding of the nation as an "ethnographic-racial" community, characteristic primarily of pre-war Lithuania. On page 215 he writes: "Lastly, the language alone does not determine nationality. It is determined by ways of life, customs, folklore and other elements of national culture, and finally -racial peculiarities". As we can see, the nation is treated here as an objectively existing community of blood, independent of personal self-identification. So for people like him, Lithuanians who have adopted Polish national self-identification, and even their descendants cannot be Poles, they will always be Lithuanians. Because "Lithuanian blood" flows in their veins. This is obviously unacceptable. If someone was Polonised even in 1939, can their children and grandchildren be described as "Slavicised Lithuanians"? Obviously not.

Turska's article, the passage quoted contains nothing controversial for me, I fully agree with it. Let me translate: Very little has been written about the Polish language in the Vilnius region so far and it has not yet received a thorough monographic study. It is a pity, as it has a specific, very characteristic and extremely interesting character, distinct from the characters of other new Polish dialects, developed either on Ruthenian or Lithuanian grounds. This distinctiveness applies not only to its linguistic qualities but also to the history of its origin and development. As we know, it was not created by any noteworthy Polish colonisation or by the gradual suppression of a foreign language by neighbouring Polish dialects, for it is nowhere connected with a purely Polish area, but constitutes an island, surrounded on all sides by the Belarusian and Lithuanian seas. How long has this island existed, when, under what conditions and in what way did it come into being? These questions can certainly be answered after a thorough study of both the contemporary speech and the language of the monuments of the past. Today we can say one thing: the Polish language in the Vilnius region came into being on foreign soil in a peculiar way, unprecedented elsewhere, as a result of the power of the attractive Polish culture. Her conclusion is that the Polish language in Lithuania emerged as a result of the adoption of the Polish language by the local Lithuanian and Belarusian population, which resulted in a dialect different from the one spoken in central Poland. This is absolutely true. Turska in her article distinguishes between the tongue of the intelligentsia and the tongue of uneducated people, which has two varieties: one similar to Lithuanian and the other to Belarusian. This does not confirm Zinkevičius' "theory" that the Polish language in Lithuania is some kind of a completely separate language. And the fact that the Polish language island in Lithuania was created as a result of Polonisation, and not mass colonization, is of course true. Nobody denies that.

Zigmas Zinkevičius was a nationalist politician, and the fact that his "theories" about the Polish language and Poles in Lithuania are simply propaganda is an opinion shared by researchers. And it is, of course, understandable for anyone who has any idea about the subject.

The article concerns the Polish minority in Lithuania, i.e. the group of people who declared self-identification with the Polish national group. Thus, calling them "Slavicized Lithuanians" is false. The results of the Lithuanian census are indisputable. Marcelus ( talk) 20:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Star Jelly (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I already reported this article (just scroll up), but my communication style got me WP:ABF'ed. The article is packed with speculation and WP:NOTDATABASE. MarshallKe ( talk) 18:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be mostly fully cited, and does not really take a credulous stand; it certainly doesn't present the topic like it's actual star jelly or whatever. It is a well documented phenomenon, and the Wikipedia article does distinguish between folklore and other more rigorous explanations. It could, of course, be cleaned up a bit, but so can't every article. -- Jayron 32 16:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed 2600:1011:B135:4BE3:21DE:6485:E887:A6C2 ( talk · contribs) replacing "skeptic" with "denier" in the context of climate change. I'm under the impression that we favor "denier" only when properly referenced. The edit summaries from this ip suggest something different, Replaced deprecated term and brought vocabulary up to date -- Hipal ( talk) 00:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. "Denier" would definitively be the appropriate term (since there's essentially no room for reasonable, rational disagreement, on this). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"Skeptic" is a euphemism and should be avoided. A few years back, the climate change denial article was renamed from the earlier "climate change skepticism and denial" because the skepticism term was recognized as inappropriate since it gives deniers more credit than they deserve. They have nothing, like creationists.

The usual way we put it is "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change", which avoids the euphemism as well as the possibly unsourced word "denial". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This is literal hate speech, please strike it Unblockabl ( talk) 07:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Another thing: Reliable journalistic sources essentially stopped using the "skeptic" moniker at about the same time. It can only be found in sources older than that, or in denialist sources. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I see plenty of recent sources using "climate skeptic" [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21], although it's certainly fallen in use compared to denier. I think there's probably a place for the skeptic label versus the denier label, and we should follow sources. There seems to be, in the short amount of source surveying I've done, a difference between denier, someone who doesn't think humans are having an effect on the climate or thinks the climate isn't really changing, and a skeptic, someone who accepts our effect on the climate, but isn't certain of the scale and overall outcome.

Basically, though, we shouldn't be using a label that sources aren't using, and we should be using the label that the weight of high quality sources use. For the most part this will end up being denier. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "stopped" was an exaggeration. Still, the sources that still use it tend to specialize less in science than in "markets", engineering and stuff like that.

a skeptic, someone who accepts our effect on the climate, but isn't certain of the scale and overall outcome I never heard that definition before. Are there sources for it? The definition in our own climate change denial article would call that denial too. It's #4 in Michael E. Mann's "stages of denial".

If we use "skeptic" because all the sources are from the time when the journalists were still on the false-balance trip, we are using an anachronistic euphemism. I'd say we should avoid both. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll add that while the Scientific American source uses 'skeptic' in the (likely editor written) headline, the text of the article by the author does not mince words, referring to his views (and those who promote him) as "denial" four times. The kicker: He evidently doesn't need to win a debate, he just needs to make it seem like there is one. I agree with the interpretation that 'skeptic', particularly as the primary description, is an anachronistic euphemism here. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not exactly an uncommon distinction to make, and I've seen it made many time. Here's a few examples.

[22] While these scientists do not necessarily doubt all aspects of climate science, issues of reliability of methodology and validity of conclusions in some areas remain, for them, alive. Whether they are correct or not (and many have been responded to in the literature), they are at least working within the broad norms of academia. We might call these people “climate sceptics”.

[23] The use of the terms skeptic, denier, or contrarian is necessarily subject-, issue-, context-, and intervention-dependent. Blanket labeling of heterogeneous views under one of these headings has been shown to do little to further considerations of climate science and policy

[24] “I draw a distinction between sceptics and deniers. The sceptics are people I respect – they have raised legitimate issues and, from my experience, are open minded. The deniers are people who start with a conclusion and only pay attention to the data that support it. I do think that our results could change the minds of some sceptics about the reality of global warming.”

[25] Hence, I have some sympathy for people who make the "Denier-Skeptic" distinction. (I'll group "climate agnostics" with the Skeptics for this discussion.) They deserve a chance to show they are motivated more by curiosity than partisan fever. Among those who convincingly fit into the Climate Skeptic category, I include several engineers, fellow science fiction authors and the famed physicist Freeman Dyson. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the difference? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The difference (to me, at least) is that "skeptic" suggests a reasonable, evidence-based position, whereas "denier" does not. Your idiolect may vary. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 13:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

( edit conflict)I was curious and found these source at least discussing the differences as seen by the authors [26] [27] [28]. All basically see this as a sliding scale and none see the terms as absolutely interchangeable. The AP has a style guide entry on the subject as well. [29] It generally says don't use either term. Don't use skeptic as, traditionally, skepticism followed by investigation is a core part of science. Thus "skeptic" is a good description for someone who is scientifically investigating and challenging current climate science views. Conversely, the AP sees "denier" as often a pejorative term. For these reasons the AP suggests "climate change doubter" or "someone who rejects mainstream science". Note that LABEL may apply to "denier" if it is seen as a pejorative term. Springee ( talk) 13:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I think an obvious MOS approach is to describe ideas and arguments rather than people. Thus "So-and-so has expressed support for the climate change denial argument thus-and-such." Rather than "So-and-so is a climate change denier." jps ( talk) 14:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Then we go with what RS say they are. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Descriptions are both far more informative and far less denigrating than labels. Per Hob Gadling's advice and AP's style guide linked by Springee, I think the best way to phrase that is So-and-so rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. (Maybe for some people, that can be downgraded to doubts the scientific consensus on climate change.) "Climate change denier" can also often be misleading, as some people don't deny the existence of climate change but claim it is natural rather than anthropogenic, but both claims would fall cleanly under "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change". BTW I don't think there's a MOS:LABEL issue with the term "climate change denier" though as I don't think "denier" is value-laden.

For numerous reasons listed above I also don't think it's appropriate to ever use the phrase "climate change skeptic" or "climate change skepticism" in Wikipedia's own voice, i.e. the term should appear in quotes or be attributed wherever used. Skepticism is a normal part of science, so a reasonable and skeptical scientist may well say that for instance "nobody knows whether clouds speed up or slow climate change as they are too hard to model" or the even more skeptical "nobody knows the effect releasing aerosols into the atmosphere has on climate change as aerosals act as condensation nuclei for clouds which we do not understand". Such scientists are skeptics about our current understanding of climate change, and are well within normal scientific debate, but those who deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change are anything but. Endwise ( talk) 05:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The articles in question:

• Lucia Liljegren (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Rather stubby, contains almost nothing but the bones of an article, a bit of backslapping by someone who thinks like her, and a tidbit about fencing stolen e-mails. Should probably be deleted.
• Heartland Institute (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Clearly a denialist organization. No BLP problem here.
• Sherwood B. Idso (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Notorious part of the denial industry. See [30].

And of course, there is that lengthy Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#RfC:_MOS:LABEL discussion going on which is relevant here. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucia Liljegren. jps ( talk) 14:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agree that skeptic should not be used in this context. It's often a misleading term or a euphemism for climate denial. Often, these labels can be avoided altogether, per Endwise. Femke ( talk) 16:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we be using Ivan Van Sertima and the poet Diawara as sources here? Doug Weller talk 19:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

What's your particular issue with Van Sertima? His interpretations seem valid and sourced, and that section has good counterpoints. AtFirstLight ( talk) 19:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Van Sertima is known, apparently, for spreading such stuff as "his Olmec alternative origin speculations", which has been dismissed as Afrocentric pseudoarchaeology[2] and pseudohistory to the effect of "robbing native American cultures". Or, in other words, his works are entirely unreliable for Wikipedia, which is a WP:MAINSTREAM work. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A quick check on Google Scholar shows the mainstream academic community are engaging with his work, albeit in a negative way, so it would surely be irresponsible and in violation of WP:NPOV not to mention him.. AtFirstLight ( talk) 20:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If they are engaging with this work in a negative way, then WP:NPOV tells us that is how we should be describing it as well. The current article falls a fair bit short of those requirements in that aspect... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the Interpretations section could use a little balance, however removing Van Sertima and Diawara (who the BBC describe as 'Africa's greatest explorer') as citations seems a little extreme. AtFirstLight ( talk) 20:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, "greatest explorer" seems to refer to Abubakari II, which makes some sense. Mr. Diawara gets only one hit on Google Scholar--"Revitalizing cultivation and strengthening the seed systems of fonio and Bambara groundnut in Mali through a community biodiversity management approach." He might be a reliable source for this sort of thing, but I am not yet convinced. His book, "The Saga of Abubakari II," seems to have only really gathered attention in pseudohistory circles, but again, it's entirely possible I am missing things. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 21:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Right you are @ Dumuzid, my mistake! AtFirstLight ( talk) 21:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using them to describe their own claims if those descriptions are not also available in other sources (as if the theory is viewed negatively, then, it is likely the descriptions are not particularly accurate and should not be included separately from criticism - which would then be sourced to other places than the original disputed papers). As to Diawara, even if he were the one being referred to as a great explorer, that would not make him a great scholar. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It might be that per WP:FRINGE, They Came before Columbus should be the topic of the article. Need to look at the references more carefully, and some only see a google snippet view. fiveby( zero) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how you can not cite Van Sertima here, and i was wrong to suggest he might be the topic of the article. There are some very scathing reviews of his work, but all the criticism i see is direct at any conclusions he makes concerning the Americas. Authors that admit the possibility of a voyage and give some credence based on description of the Canary Current all cite Van Sertima. I don't see any discussion before They Came before Columbus. Cite to give credit and name him in the content, but factual assertions should come from Gomez and Thornton. Don't see any reason to use Diawara or the BBC article. fiveby( zero) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Fereydoon Batmanghelidj seems untouched by the latest anti-fringe editing style. Note the separate criticism section, and the non-disparaging lede. MarshallKe ( talk) 17:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

We're all volunteers here, and open, clear communication helps us collaborate effectively. Have you said what you actually want to say, and if not, is this the best place to say it? Firefangledfeathers ( talk | contribs) 17:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The article obviously needs work. This is where you post "fringe" articles that need work. I am literally just doing that. MarshallKe ( talk) 18:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you clarified. I had interpreted your comment as sarcastic criticism of this noticeboard and the people who address issues brought up here. I'm taking a look at the article now. Firefangledfeathers ( talk | contribs) 18:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is about a "doctor" who thinks water cures all disease and his lede is practically promotional. Maybe actually look at the article before assuming I'm up to no good? MarshallKe ( talk) 18:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on history, the assumption was appropriate. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

the latest anti-fringe editing style? That's a pretty good indicator that you're only here to soapbox. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The article obviously needs work. Can you clarify what work you think it "obviously" needs? jps ( talk) 12:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm just going to edit it myself. I'm not going to spoon-feed editors who should already know what is wrong with the article at a glance. MarshallKe ( talk) 17:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with this article is that it doesn't redirect from "Dr. Batman". Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 18:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Please be aware that this:

UFOs left 'radiation burns' and 'unaccounted for pregnancies,' new Pentagon report claims

exists, and govern yourselves accordingly. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 19:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

What is this about? MaitreyaVaruna ( talk) 20:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a general warning that this sort of dodgy document appeared on what is generally a fairly reliable website. It might be of interest to those who frequent this noticeboard. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 20:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The poor kid, waiting for their deadbeat alien dad to return. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 21:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There was a documentary I saw about that. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I liked that movie. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The Livescience article attributes all this stuff as “according to The Sun”... - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, as I said, "dodgy." A bit disappointed Livescience seems to have just transcribed all of this. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 14:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This is about [31] because an IP stated

Please, document for me, that Ehrman is a part of the mainstream of biblical scholarship, that his theories are the most subscribed to. And also, document for me that James White is Ehrmans "nemesis" and that he is a biblical scholar. You must also document that there is no large minority that disagree, because large minorites are not a "fringe".

Before you can document your opinions, this article should have a neutral point of view.

tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a WP:NOTHERE case, I would argue. Best to take 77.18.59.49 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) to WP:ANI, in my opinion. jps ( talk) 17:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@ ජපස: I would avoid WP:ANI, unless strictly necessary. I was told to use WP:DRN rather than WP:ANI. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

For cases of NOTHERE, ANI is the proper venue. If it were blatantly obvious, then it would be AIV, and if it wasn't so obvious, then letting them dig their own hole before reporting would be more appropriate. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say that the IP has a point. It's hugely WP:UNDUE to spend all of the lead on saying that of course nobody takes any of this seriously and nothing at all on the actual subject. And we rely far too much on Ehrman as an authority on the state of the field. Mangoe ( talk) 22:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Mangoe: I found this at Google Books: Harrell, Charles R. (2011). “This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology. Greg Kofford Books. p. 153. Retrieved 2022-04-07. Harrell is probably not a mainstream Bible scholar, but he makes the problem acutely clear. But the point of not being a mainstream Bible scholar is moot, as he does not speak of his own views. I will come back with other sources. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't spend all of the lead on saying that of course nobody takes any of this seriously and nothing at all on the actual subject in Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's weird to me that you think that's what is happening here. jps ( talk) 00:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

And a majority of scholars claim ( WP:RS/AC): Rydelnik, Michael (2010). The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?. New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology Series. B&H Publishing Group. p. 22, 26. ISBN  978-1-4336-7297-2. Retrieved 2022-04-08. non-critical scholars by their prooftexting actually discredit the claims of Jesus in the eyes of literary and historical critics [...] Old Testament scholarship is now divided: The majority takes a more historical approach to the Old Testament, resulting in a minimalist view of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. This also passes the criterion of embarrassment: Rydelnik teaches at Moody Bible Institute, wherein "Bible is our middle name". tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to admit that the criterion of embarrassment is itself pretty embarrassing. By such logic, every person who claims to have been anally probed by aliens is likely telling the truth. jps ( talk) 00:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup, but we aren't Bible scholars, what do we know? Rydelnik also stated "[...] much of contemporary critical scholarship on messianism, which argues that the messianic idea did not develop until the intertestamental period [...]".

The argument is like this: a liar wants to be believed. So a liar tells lies which are believable. He/she does not tell unbelievable lies. So, being unbelievable is a token it is not a lie.

This can be rephrased: a liar does not tell lies which go against their vested interests.

That Jesus has fulfilled "They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments." is probably made up. But the fact he was crucified probably not. Probably—as usually that's most scholars can say about Ancient history, since real, direct evidence is so scarce. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I really don't understand why people think that liars will not tell lies which go against their vested interests. jps ( talk) 01:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup, torture or insanity could be reasons to lie against one's own interests.

And this is an even better quote: "Michael Rydelnik's Messianic Hope is a well-crafted and timely refutation of the growing minimization of direct messianic prediction in evangelical scholarship. Using a cogent development of innerbiblical, canonical, and New Testament evidence, this study adduces text-critical evidence for reading the Hebrew Bible as messianic. Rydelnik persuasively argues that the centrality of the Messiah in the apologetic method of Jesus and the apostles is consistent with a canonical reading of the Hebrew Bible." So, it's not only minority view among critical scholars, but seems likely that it is a minority view among evangelical scholars.

And "In a thoughtful essay, Gordon McConville has articulated the issue at hand. According to McConville, “Modern Old Testament scholarship has been largely informed by the belief that traditional Christian messianic interpretations of Old Testament passages have been exegetically indefensible.”"

And "It would be supremely regrettable for evangelicals to abandon messianic prediction for the sake of respectability in the academy or acceptance among critical scholars. Of course, we want to interpret the Bible correctly, but it is not necessary to adopt the naturalistic presuppositions to which critical scholarship subscribes. The Bible is inspired, and the authors of the Scriptures could indeed write a supernatural prophetic message that pointed to a Messiah who would come many hundreds of years later. Abandoning this conviction will bring the loss of one of the most potent arrows in our apologetic quiver."

Morals: mainstream Bible scholars do not buy into messianic prophecies about Jesus, and even evangelical scholars are running away from such concept. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep, as soon as a criterion for determining the honesty of people becomes even slightly popular, liars will change their stories to fulfil the criterion. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Big Pharma conspiracy theory (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It seems that skeptical sources are not good enough because they "do not publish their funding". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Could they be funded by ... Big Pharma? Alexbrn ( talk) 17:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, it has to be true, or they wouldn't be trying to cover up the pizza diet for heart disease treatment. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This article and the saturated fat article seem to get targeted every-year by infrequent editors or throwaway accounts pushing a cholesterol denalist or saturated fat POV. A user is repeatedly adding material which is not reliable, see the talk-page. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is what the talk-page looked like last night [32]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Lipid hypothesis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Hipal ( talk) 17:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Until COVID, diet articles were pretty much the craziest. Perhaps normal service is being resumed? Alexbrn ( talk) 19:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Robert W. Malone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The New York Times profiled this individual today who has been the subject of past FTN threads. May be a good source for current wording or expansion of the article. [33]

jps ( talk) 16:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• And now an interesting development, if true. [34] Alexbrn ( talk) 19:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking through the page Criticism of modern Paganism and I see that multiple references are made to known Russian state-sponsored fake news website Ukraina.ru in the section on Slavic neo-pagan violence. I've removed some sections solely sourced to known fake news websites, but I am not exactly familiar with the subject matter so my ability to do so is somewhat limited. Additional eyes on the page to preen out statements sourced solely to dubious sourcing from somebody with familiarity in the topic area would be helpful in improving the article. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 15:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I am the person who added them and I support this. That section is translated from Russian Wikipedia. Can you check this source too? https://www.ng.ru/ng_religii/2015-04-01/4_donbass.html it looks legitimate to me, but also came from an author who wrote for Ukraina.ru MaitreyaVaruna ( talk) 20:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This artile is an absolutely mess. A look at its sourcing, including the use of self-published sources, tells me that it needs to be scraped and rewritten from scratch. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this even a legitimate subject anyway? 'Modern Paganism' is an umbrella term covering a multitude of diverse belief systems, in all sorts of cultural contexts - it isn't a single system at all, and accordingly any general 'criticism' beyond 'we don't like it because they don't follow our religion' is likely to be based on facile generalisations. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There's also the general POV risk that happens with a criticism article. Any genuine criticism would ideally be present in the article on the relevant modern pagan belief, rather than it all being shunted into a poorly scoped (as Andy explained) sub-article. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 05:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• John Campbell (YouTuber) ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Youtuber John Campbell has mentioned his Wikipedia article to his ~2 million subscribers and the result is predictable. The fuss is entirely around fringe pandemic topics (ivermectin, vaccine safety, death counts, etc.). Eyes from fringe-savyy editors may help. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I first thought there had been an accident in the soup factory... -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I was getting ready to add Great Molasses Flood to the see also section. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 09:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Exploding whale would be another candidate for that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

How about the London Beer Flood? Brunton ( talk) 13:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I think List of edible disasters is just begging to be a blue link. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

a redirect to Wetherspoons maybe? Alexbrn ( talk) 13:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

And here I was hoping for a sequel to the Kentucky meat shower--not exactly a disaster, but it certainly sounded on point. Cheers, all. Dumuzid ( talk) 13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

SFR, please don't eat the exploded whale. Firefangledfeathers ( talk | contribs) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Get on my level. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have AFD'd it as they do have kind of a valid point about how its pretty negative, problem is is that this is why he is kind of notable. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If there's going to be an article about John Campbell, it's going to be pretty negative because that's the locus of his fame in RS. (I actually think Wikipedia's notability guidelines need to be revised to that we only carry bios of living people who have had a book/journal article written about, or who have repeatedly appeared in headline news in major news sources. Yes, that would mean deleting a lot of Wikipedia. It would be great.) Alexbrn ( talk) 13:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, notability and fame should not be synonymous, but that is how society works. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

First we'd have to have a functional list of major news sources for every country and region, because otherwise the systematic bias will get worse. People would, without realising the issue, assume only the news sources with "nice" websites can possibly be major and reliable, and that would rule out a lot of legitimate reporting in less affluent/internet-y regions. That already happens, but it would be far worse because it would be an explicit requirement. But. That being said. If we had such a list, and the criteria had some wiggle room for unconventional sources (because again, systemic bias issues), then oh I'd love to have less Wikipedia. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 05:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

AfD seems like a jump. There's some cleanup to be done, but no indication that the article is beyond fixing. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

What's going to happen, most probably, is that Campbell will keep producing increasingly fringey videos and so fact-checkers etc. will keep issuing corrections. So the article will get "worse" as this accumulates. I live in hope a source will emerge with an overview of his Youtube career, which would allow us to wrap everything up into a more compact form. The closest so far is this, but trying to use it will probably provoke even more disquiet because it's not ideal. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I think one of the missing elements of the article is that transition, from praise in 2020 for factual science communication, to censure over specific items of misinformation later. Another example of the reason not to apply labels, or perhaps more specifically here to make such references to misinformation very specific. It seems closer to something like Nobel disease, where it's a few instances of fringe ideas overshadow a body of otherwise good work. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you're spot on. "Audience capture" it's sometimes called. We really need a source to chart this. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobel disease assumes a certain brilliance to the individual in the first place, (think Montagnier or Josephson), and then a fall from still great heights into oddthink. This isn't that. this guy was never up there in the first place, gets a doctrate, starts pronouncing on things way way outside his area of expertise, and gets caught out. That's his notability in a nutshell. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't mean in the sense of Nobel-levels of brilliance to start. But there's multiple sources on the article early in the pandemic by major publications calling him a 'sensation' or having 'gone viral' with his COVID explanations, and UNICEF giving him as an example of "real experts" who should be amplified. He wasn't perceived as a crackpot then, it's that later fall (whether audience capture or something else) that led to the misinformation allegations. Which, I'll add, is why I don't think he's a WP:BLP1E, having had mainstream coverage prior to the misinformation events. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I kind of like the test case deletion discussion. Wikipedia seems to have an over-coverage of biographies of YouTube stars. Most of the content that is worthy of inclusion here could be contained in other articles, in my opinion. jps ( talk) 11:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this changes my mind. The two most notable issues seem to be about Ivermectin (got a whole article about that), and the death count stuff which was only notable because David Davis (British politician) cited it to Parliament (but not present on that article). Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking for a review of the material I just merged in to Rice water from Rice Water for Health & Beauty. Basically everything from the end of the first paragraph is new material. May be fringe. Looks more palatable than hot dog water. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeesh! I just tore that sucker down to the ground. The material you added was violative of everything from the Manual of Style to WP:NOT#HOWTO. If there is material from the other version worth salvaging, I would suggest introducing it slowly, with proper sourcing and language that does not seem to come from a New Age health and beauty blog. -- Orange Mike | Talk 08:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Not me. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Travis Walton UFO incident § Polygraph. Sundayclose ( talk) 01:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. As with many of these UFO incidents, I am not sure whether it even deserves its own article. jps ( talk) 12:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Spirit (animating force) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What to do about the name of this article? The problem is, of course, that what is described is manifestly not a force in the way "force" is normally described. The article was renamed from simply spirit over concerns that it was describing something that is more narrowly defined than all the different things that "spirit" refers. This is perhaps a bit more problematic than energy (esotericism), but perhaps that is a solution here? I just think that keeping it at "animating force" is not a good idea. jps ( talk) 11:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What to do about it? Nothing at all, in my opinion. Instead credit readers with the ability to actually read the article, and figure out for themselves that it isn't describing something you'd learn about in a physics lecture. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Spirit (vitalism)? I note that force is used in the colloquial sense of 'power', not in its scientific sense. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Vitalism, I think, is best left as a historical side project from the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Although some believers in spirits are self-described vitalists, many (perhaps even the majority) are not. Also, while I have heard it said that the colloquial sense of 'power', 'energy', and 'force' are not being used in the scientific sense, when you talk to actual believers in these subjects they will often contend that these things have measurable consequences. It isn't as easy as saying, "Oh, they're not talking about the measurable aspects of power, energy, and force." because, in many cases, they are making claims that such things really are occurring measurably. jps ( talk) 11:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess I have less faith in potential readers than you do, Andy. Every semester, I have students that ask me if gods or spirits are just a kind of force in my classes because of this kind of misnomer. They literally mean a force that has physical influence. In any case, I think precision is important and here we lack it. jps ( talk) 11:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Just redirect it to Soul. The article discusses the root words of spirit and soul being different, but does not elaborate on any functional difference in usage, and then goes on to provide a bunch of examples of it being used interchangeably with soul, or examples unrelated to the scope of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a possible plan to me, but it is not clear to me that the concept of soul captures absolutely everything that believers in "spirits" think exists. Many believers in souls argue fervently over whether animals have them, for example. Some of those believers who deny animals have souls also argue that those animals have spirits (pneuma). I don't pretend to understand the logic behind such nitpicking, but I know it happens. jps ( talk) 11:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

How about something squirrelly like Spirit (animating concept)? Assuming of course that 'concept' is sufficiently neutral. Thinking about the do-animals-have-souls complication reminded me that "animal spirit(s)" can also refer to an economics concept, so we have that, too. And here I was thinking that Spirit (animating force) referred to the finer single malts. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of "(animating essence)" along the same lines, but they all feel kludgy to me. Also putting in a good word for the less fine single malts. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 17:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

So the problem is that "force" is used in its common English sense, and not its strictly defined physics sense?

If so, it's not an isolated problem. We might speak of the "forces of nature", the "Force of a man's character", the "Forces of civilization", etc.

It seems that it's outside of Wikipedia's remit to encourage the English-speaking word to standardize language to match physics jargon. ApLundell ( talk) 17:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, there are plenty of other ways the word "force" is used. I find that "animating force" is hard to identify among the various definitions. Yes, we all know what it means. But it carries with it a mechanical misnomer that I find myself working against in many situations. And as a (parenthetical), I think that precision is ultimately best. Do we even need this parenthetical? After all, we don't exactly describe "animating force" in the article (for good reason). jps ( talk) 18:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's actually that first definition. " 1a(1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power" The examples given are "the forces of nature, the motivating force in her life "

A spirit, in this sense, is the active power that animates living things. It is the active power that is the cause of a living thing's motion and vitality. ApLundell ( talk) 18:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I guess we're now onto Aristotleian causes now. Factually, spirit is not a material cause of living things' motion and vitality. It might be an efficient cause or a formal cause. The confusion lies, of course, in that many believers in spirit argue that it is a material cause. jps ( talk) 18:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the idea is true. I am talking about how the idea is commonly described, which is what dictates naming if I understand the guidelines.

ApLundell ( talk) 21:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean by "precision", however. The fact that this spirit is not a material cause or a physical force per se is hardly a matter for discussion in the article. But since there are those (many, in fact), admittedly non-experts, who argue that it is a material cause or physical force mean that the parenthetical is automatically argumentative and adopting a particular perspective that is "believer based" at best and entirely misleading at worst. My concern is not that people as sophisticated as you or I will be misled. My concern is that people who are just starting to investigate such ideas and are presented with the parenthetical will take the label at face value. I know that there are people who will read "spirit (animating force)" and think, "Oh! A spirit is the the force that animates things!" This is, however, not strictly true! It is only a poor approximation of the meaning this label is going for. jps ( talk) 19:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I overlooked the obvious solution? What about spirit (folk belief) since that is the identified category to which the concept belongs according to the first three words of the article? jps ( talk) 18:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking spirit (folk lore). Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Historically it wasn't just a 'folk' concept though. As the article notes, William Harvey and René Descartes both considered it something physical, something that science (as it was emerging) could comment on. 18:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely! Of course, they had no formal definition of "force" yet, but it is possible if they did they may have tried to apply it to such. jps ( talk) 18:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

But "spirit (folklore)" could also refer to things like the White Lady or Nearly Headless Nick. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to Find a better source for Descartes’s and Harvey’s view? The source used is well over a century old, and more importantly is somewhat ambiguous about Descartes. Although it says he believed in a “vital force which animated the whole bodily frame”, the previous paragraph says that he held the “soul” to be responsible only for consciousness, but “all other vital phenomena were due to properties of the material of which the body is composed”. Brunton ( talk) 08:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is a general interest summary of Descartes on this matter: [35]. jps ( talk) 15:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the reader would be better served by an expanding and improving the Spirit, Breath of life, and Life force disambiguation pages rather than trying to find a correct name for the mishmash of concepts in the content? Based on the title I would expect to see pneuma and Galen from Vitalism#Ancient_times, spiraculum vitae along with et spiritus Dei from pneumatology, Energy (esotericism), etc. but without the ghosts, fairies and other spiritual beings from the redirect. Wouldn't improved disambiguation be better than confusing article content? fiveby( zero) 17:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this might be a great way forward. jps ( talk) 11:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This solutions seems to be the most reader-oriented / informative approach on the table so far. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

We should also clarify that Spirit gum is not in fact made from ghosts, so that dumb people are not mistaken. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

"The school spirit is a ghost, who will kill me if I don't obey. Ghosts are scary, guy!" -Cal Evans, Undergrads Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Similar issues with Gum Arabic. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It's already a huge disambig page, and y'all are just making it bigger with your spirit gums and school spirits. Looking at the titles with direct links to Spirit (animating force) i imagine many can be replaced with a more specific target, or cleaned up by altering the text or just removing the link. Guessing what's left over would be mostly artifacts of the recent move and others: immaterial beings that aren't properly ghosts. Probably wanted one of redirects: spiritual being or spiritual entity or some such. Will reduce the link count and then maybe it will be clearer what to do with Spirit (animating force) content, name and history. fiveby( zero) 15:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I like Supernatural#Spirit as the eventual target here rather than Non-physical entity#Spirits. fiveby( zero) 15:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@ ජපස: do you have an objection to a link like this: [36], based on best left as a historical side project from the eighteenth and nineteenth century? fiveby( zero) 14:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know! Certainly vitalism *is* an example, but I don't know if this is the best pipe or not. jps ( talk) 19:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Spirit (animating force) --> Spirit (vital principle). fiveby( zero) 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

More comments on the proposed move would be appreciated. jps ( talk) 12:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Of the 74 sources, at least 21 are Fomenko himself. There are a few without any author name some of which might also be by him. There are 8 citation needed tags. The sections on specific claims and on his methods are particularly concerning. But IMHO it's a daunting job trying to fix it. Doug Weller talk 07:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Service: New chronology (Fomenko) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Also: Talk:Anatoly_Fomenko#Proposed_merge_of_New_chronology_(Fomenko)_into_Anatoly_Fomenko. – Austronesier ( talk) 18:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An extremely long (5,000 words) summation of the 1948 racist book lacks almost any analysis by RS. (It was described in the Los Angeles Review of Books as "America's Mein Kampf".) Llll5032 ( talk) 11:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I am compelled by my conscience to bring up here three unreliable and biased sources that should be permanently barred from being used as references in any way on Wikipedia -- John Ivan Prcela (who became a centenarian last month, apparently, which means nothing but does confirm my atheism) & Ina Vukić -- the former due to unhinged and paranoid revisionism and political rehabilitation of war criminals, and the latter as his catspaw. Prcela has authored at least one reference link which was shoe-horned into the Bleiburg repatriations article, but there may be others. (There was never a Croatian Holocaust (unless the national reference is to impute the origin of the genocide, not the victim(s)) but someone may use this drivel to create such an article. I wouldn't be surprised.)

• Prcela, John Ivan; Živić, Dražen (2001). Hrvatski holokaust [Croatian Holocaust] (in Croatian). Zagreb: Hrvatsko društvo političkih zatvorenika. ISBN 9789539776020.

I like chips in brown gravy. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

More of a malt vinegar guy, myself. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggest you try vinegar decanted from a jar of pickled onions for that. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Naw, Barbecue flavor is the clear victor, here. And yes, I'm American, but I knew what you meant. I don't care. If they're not crunchy, they're not chips. Besides, fries in BBQ sauce is awesome. Happy ( Slap me) 21:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My wife preserves pickled onions and sweet peppers in balsamic and apple cider vinegar, that brine is pretty top notch with chips, or as a sandwich dressing. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggest she uses the same brine for pickled eggs, they taste fantastic as you would expect, and look like thousand year old eggs. (Sorry to any tone policers lurking) - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

She's actually pickling several dozen quail eggs today. I think she's using an apple cider vinegar brine though. She normally does a few batches of quail eggs throughout the year, since we get a lot between starting the incubation of replacement chicks and slaughtering the existing ones and putting the chicks out in the hutch. Last year she did siracha eggs, pepper sauce eggs, balsamic eggs and some soy eggs. The balsamic were definitely the best. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It's described as non-fiction which is a joke. It's a typical History Channel show, anything but history - vampires, Bigfoot, etc. I'm not sure what to do about this though without more sources. I did find "Controversial UAB professor gets in a Twitter spat with William Shatner" and this. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I did get a laugh from this (a blog), in which I learned that Shatner is "that actor from the Star Wars TV show back in the 60s." But does a minor report about a minor twitter spat in a minor publication convey notability upon this nothing-burger of a show? If that's it for reliable sources - and all I could find in my admittedly brief search was a clutch of re-hashed, promotional press releases - an AfD is likely in order. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. That needs to be fixed. although if you aren't an SF fan I can understand the confusion. Anyway, I'm on it. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@ JoJo Anthrax: looks like we've both been caught out not reading the whole page. "There is so much fascinating history behind the discovery and investigation of the Challenger Deep that it could easily have been the topic of the entire show. And, it would have demonstrated William Shatner to genuinely care about exploration in the way his Star Trek persona once did.

Yes, I was pulling the reader’s leg and making a bit of fun with the “Star Wars actor” description at first paragraphs above. Those that comment to point out my “error” will also reveal they didn’t read to the end." Doug Weller talk 15:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Shatner spent less than 5 of its 40 or so minutes of content on it [the legitimate Challenger Deep material]! pretty much tells us everything we need to know about "The Obi Wan Kirk Show," doesn't it? I'm on-again-off-again for most of the next few days, but I'll try to search for more RS that cover(ed) this show. Regarding the necessity of reading material to its conclusion, I am reminded of a scientific paper from way back in my relative youth. It was a long, technical slog the final sentence of which was something along the lines of "And you never know when a paper will suddenly end." JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia describing the show's topics as "subjects that have mystified mankind for centuries" is a bit rich. Needs some WP:INDY and WP:FRINDY sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Or at least put quotes around the phrase straight from the show's official description. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I tried, I really did. But with respect to independent reliable sources reporting on, or commenting about, this show, there is pretty much nothing available. Although I did get a chuckle from a blog site (The Cinemaholic) that described the show as an "educational series," I confess that the longer I searched for a valid review/analysis/anything the more I felt my mind dissolving in a sea of boring blogs and product promotion. I did edit the article a bit, and added a section for a less-than-satisfying review of the show, but I'm done. Perhaps one of you will have better luck, although "luck" might be wishful thinking for such a task. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Regarding COVID-19, he was consistently wrong, starting with his prophecies of harmlessness in 2020 till now. Red herrings, grasping at straws with his Kardashian paper, generally destroying his reputation. He is one of the heroes of the covidiots. But the lede feels more and more whitewashed. Maybe it's just me. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

In the lede probably all it's missing is an indication that he was, in fact, incorrect with those two predictions. The COVID section might be worth trimming to only the most notable items (first and third paragraphs, IMO), to keep it from being a WP:COATRACK. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I think mentioning the result of those predictions as it stands today would be too much information for the lead: there has been around 980K deaths in the US as of April 2022, and the pandemic has lasted for many years and the development of COVID-19 vaccines was incredibly speedy compared to other vaccines, so vaccines have had the opportunity to significantly reduce mortality. That information should probably go in the COVID-19 section, but anything more than saying for example in the early days inaccurately estimating... would be too much for the lead. I'm not sure if it's necessary to point out but it seems reasonable. Endwise ( talk) 14:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, and added that wording for the avoidance of doubt. Definitely agree, the detailed section can contain the what and wherefores of that prediction. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

. I think most readers will understand those predictions were wrong, but it does I think make sense to say it explicitly in an encyclopedia. Endwise ( talk) 15:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

There were a lot of predictions thrown out in the early days of the pandemic. I don't think making a prediction that turns out later to be wrong makes you a crazy conspiracy theorist whose reputation we must ensure we tarnish on Wikipedia for all to see; a lot of reasonable people said a lot of things about the pandemic that turned out to be wrong. Endwise ( talk) 14:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Endwise. Being wrong is not the same as adhering/promoting a conspiracy theory. Bonewah ( talk) 14:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the important question is primarily around what they predict, why they predict it, how notable their predictions were for public health, and how they respond if/when they're wrong. Marty Makary is an example where an inaccurate prediction in a widely read op-ed in WaPo wasn't by itself a problem, it was basing the prediction on weak data (and overstating its confidence to a broad audience), and a dogged refusal to admit to being wrong (in the case of Makary, while simultaneously criticizing politicians for not doing the same). In Ioannidis' case, being the co-author of the seriously flawed Santa Clara seroprevalence study (which didn't account for the false-positive rate of the tests used), and spreading the idea that Some financial incentives may promote coding for COVID-19 (an idea picked up and run with by others), there's a reasonable argument that these are notable topics beyond simple scientific process and 20/20 hindsight. If there are sources suggesting Ioannidis is being unfairly criticized and has indeed been amenable about his past inaccuracies, they should be included. But from the current sources, it seems he has indeed engaged in weak science, rather than people playing 'gotcha' over otherwise good science being later refuted. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

When a prediction is wrong by several orders of magnitude, and the same person consistently downplays the dangers for several years without ever acknowledging that they are on the wrong path, then yes, it is relevant for the lede. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

God bless you, Hob. --Animalparty! ( talk) 16:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, scientists don't make "predictions". That's for soothsayers. They might give risk assessments or balances of probability or likely ranges of things. The trouble in this case is that what should have been a skeptical assessment calcified into a belief, and then the woo-woo echo chamber did its work to amplify the harms to all. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It was also a case of the guy campaigning against weak underpowered studies, rushing out his own weak underpowered study, seemingly to try and prove his a priori assumptions. It's not that his good science turned out to be wrong in retrospect, it's that his bad science was so bad it became notable in the public discourse. Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The description is "Did you know that when scientists go on TV as talking head experts, they are sometimes deceptively edited to make it sound like they're saying the opposite of what they actually said? It really happens, and Science Friction tells many such stories." As it's new there aren't enough sources for an article so far as I can see, but hopefully there will be. [38] Doug Weller talk 08:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Rubikon (website) and other unreliable sources are saying that he is dead. That may well be true, but we should still not use truther sites and articles written by truthers, right? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I was looking at the obit written by an unreliable author in apolut and it seems like they're just letting him write the obit, rather than giving him a platform for opinion. I don't know if apolut is reliable, but if it is, I would accept it despite the author of the obit, since I would assume they would make sure the subject is actually dead before publishing an obit. Since apolut looks like an independent media outlet, who knows, though. I'd rather wait to see if any other sourcing comes up. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Apolut has cranky links on its site, for example to Die Basis. I'd say let's call it reliable when we have evidence for that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that Markus Fiedler was a regular columnist there too. Hopefully some real sources pop up soon. I don't really doubt that he passed, but I'd much rather have an RS than use poor quality sources. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

A reliable source has been found. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on JP Sears, a YouTuber, comedian, and, as the New York Times recently put it, "conservative conspiracy theorist". Sears has become a regular in anti-vaxx circles, which has become pretty widely reported in the media. It appears to have become his bread and butter: Pretty much all coverage he receives from media sources now comes from his attendance at vaccine conspiracy events. However, we see repeated attempts at scrubbing this page, and the talk page appears to be pretty stacked with Sears-aligned editors. I've recently added a bunch of new sources to the article's talk page and the New York Times description to the lead. The article needs a lot more attention. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears only the NYT source actually calls him a conspiracy theorist. The other two sources don't use that label. It would probably be better to have an explanation in the lead, rather than using the label. Similar to my view above in the discussion on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Beyond the recent New York Times source, the McGill source refers to him as "pushing COVID-19 conspiracy theories" and the Rolling Stone article, which is called "‘I’m a Full Anti-Vaxxer Now’: How the Conspiracists Are Winning Over Fresh Converts", refers to him as "a comedian known for spreading conspiracy theories through sarcastic comedy". It would seem to me by far the easiest way to put this information is conspiracy theorist. What do you suggest? :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 at WP:RSP, so that should be removed anyway. I would first look at a broad selection of recent sources to make sure it's due for the lead. Then I would select a group of them and summarize, likely with something like "He has spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19." That's an example, as I haven't done any of that leg work, and I'm not familiar with yet another YouTuber. The whole lead should be expanded, then there's space for a sentence or two about COVID-19 or whatever, with context. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 01:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the noticed about that RfC, I was not aware of that. I've collected a bunch of recent coverage about the subject at Talk:JP_Sears. They add up to say pretty much the same thing: A few years ago, Sears pivoted from standup and YouTube to being an active and visible anti-vaxx influencer. :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't doubt that. I just think it reads better, and the reader is better served, when we explain what someone has done, rather than just applying a label. "Sears is a YouTuber and comedian that uses satirical humor. They initially rose to notability in whatever year with their gluten intolerance video. During the COVID-19 pandemic he used his platform to spread conspiracy theories about the disease and the United States government's response to it." I think something like that better communicates who they are, why they're notable, and explains the COVID stuff with some context. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sears is clearly not known as a conservative conspiracy theorist, that is absurd. Sears has had an article here for a long time and mostly is known as a satirist on a number of subjects, yoga, etc. Maybe NYT doesnt like him ridiculing them and wants to cancel. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The wording now, During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Sears shifted his focus to conservative politics and to promoting of conspiracy theories through anti-vaccine activism seems okay -- there is a big section on his article about that -- but there definitely should be more attention paid to his work as a satirist in the lead, as that is still most of the article and primarily why he is notable. Endwise ( talk) 07:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the idea is that he became famous as a satirist but after fame happened it became increasingly clear that his beliefs were not WP:MAINSTREAM and that has become the sort of sensational story ever since. It's not like independent sources are being produced today that don't address that fact any longer. I've seen this sort of thing before. Dr. Oz, for example, comes to mind. He was initially famous for just being a TV doctor and only later did his weird predilections for alternative medicine and (lately) conservative politics come to the fore. jps ( talk) 11:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

As is typical each time this kind of question comes up, best course of action is to describe specific issues he's advocating for, rather than blanket labels. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Per Bakkster Man, describe his actions, don't assign labels. Say "He has promoted conspiracy theories" not "he is a conspiracy theorist". -- Jayron 32 16:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

+1. Say it loud. Say it clear. Maybe even make a supplement to WP:LABEL so that it is easier for people to refer to in the future. Wikipedia:Describe actions instead of ascribing labels. jps ( talk) 18:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPSTYLE in the Tone section does cover this: Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. Perhaps either a shortcut link for WP:BLPTONE or including this specific idea among the WP:LABEL section. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I actually think the idea of avoiding "contentious labels" is overplayed in that and in WP:LABEL as well. The reason labels are bad is not on the occasion that they are contentious. They are bad because they often don't provide enough context. jps ( talk) 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you implying that contentious labels often provide enough context, or just that the reason they are bad is because of context and the not the contentiousness? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The latter not the former. jps ( talk) 09:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

At least BLP mentions 'terms that lack precision', which a non-contentious label often is. Similar with WP:LABEL, referring to 'value-laden'. Not all labels fit those criteria, though. Credentials often come with labels and titles, and most professions have a descriptive title. Focus on contentiousness, imprecise, and value judgments seems key. Bakkster Man ( talk) 21:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Contentiousness is itself a value judgement. Focusing on whether the label makes a value-judgement (any value judgement) or is imprecise seems a much better editorial approach as to what to consider when avoiding labels. jps ( talk) 09:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

On my reading of WP:LABEL, that does seem to be what it suggests: avoid value-based labels, but only if there's potential contention. Pseudoscience assigns value, but if universally rejected by mainstream science is an acceptable label. Cult is similarly recommended against unless widely used, which is why Heaven's Gate (religious group) doesn't use it in the title, but does in the lede. I don't agree that literally any value judgment is inappropriate, just with applying additional scrutiny to ensure it's an accurate label. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It really is the only if there's potential contention clause that I object to. Value-based labels should be eschewed regardless of the potential for contention because they are value-based. Sometimes this is not possible. But where it is, it should be encouraged. jps ( talk) 03:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer a better source than the New York Times, especially for the lead. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

"He has promoted conspiracy theories" is the same thing as "he is a conspiracy theorist". Conspiracy theory runs the gamut from 'Covid deaths are under/over counted' to 'Covid is totally made' up to 'I dont like what this person says, even if true'. Looking at the body of the article, the only thing I see that could remotely count as a conspiracy theory is the belief that Vitamin D protects against the disease. If thats really all hes done in this regard we should just say that. 'describe specific issues he's advocating for, rather than blanket labels.' Yes, exactly. Bonewah ( talk) 13:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "promoted conspiracy theories" is equivalent to "is a conspiracy theorist". The latter implies it's what the person is best known for, and/or a particular step of the pipeline (creating new conspiracy theories, not just repeating them). For Sears, it's as much about the boundary between conspiracy and misinformation. What do we label anti-vaxx ideas? That COVID restrictions are "a pretext to limit human freedom"? The Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election? I'd consider those topics all closer on that continuum to conspiracy than Vitamin D, with it and PCR test claims more standard misinformation. But yes, describe those specific items, as the article does. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"What do we label anti-vaxx ideas"? Don't label them at all. Describe them. Against all vaccines? Just Covid ones? MRNA vaccines? Vaccine mandates? Vaccines for children? There are some many things people are lumping together as 'anti-vaxx' that the label has almost no descriptive purpose. Bonewah ( talk) 14:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I really don't believe they're the same thing, otherwise we'd be labeling John Kerry a conspiracy theorist. [39]

John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is an American politician and diplomat and conspiracy theorist who is currently the first United States special presidential envoy for climate. Although that would be "true" if that's all it took to earn the label, it's really not true. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is an American politician and diplomat and promoter of conspiracy theories who is currently the first United States special presidential envoy for climate.. Really that different? Bonewah ( talk) 14:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, my concern here is not so much the differences between "has promoted conspiracy theories" vs. "is a conspiracy theorist", its using the the words conspiracy theory(ist) when we should simply be saying 'believes X'. Bonewah ( talk) 14:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

And I don't think there's a right answer really, since it comes down to personal readings. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, because that's what he does, it's his mode and modus, his main kick. Personally, I see a difference between that and someone who just talks about conspiracies or believes some wacky things. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I dont really know anything about Alex Jones, but if conspiracy theory is what he does, and reliable sources commonly describe him that way, then WP:BLPSTYLE Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. would be satisfied. I dont think that is the case with JP Sears, at least, based on a quick reading of things. Bonewah ( talk) 15:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. To put them both in the same boat is pretty absurd, although both seem to sell supplements ;-) Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 11:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

S. Joshua Swamidass (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note that his book from two years ago: The Geneological Adam and Eve seems to be somewhat kid-glovedly handled including a blogpost review that probably should be removed.

jps ( talk) 17:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ugh! Based on a quick read: The review in USA Today seemingly makes the book noteworthy (but it shouldn't be given top-billing among his research). That said, this reviewer basically dismisses its scientific value, except to the degree that it might sway hard-core evangelicals from thinking evolution and the rest of science is inherently antithetical to their beliefs. We don't really convey this ambivalent review with the cherry-picked quote in the article, that only complements it on being 'bold'. Agricolae ( talk) 18:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I tagged the article for violations of WP:PEACOCK and WP:NOTCV and was reverted: [40]. This may be a bit more work to handle. jps ( talk) 15:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Aseem Malhotra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_63#Assem_Malhotra_/_Big_Sugar_/_Pioppi_Diet - Dec 2018
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Aseem_Malhotra - May 2021
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Saturated_fat - July 2021
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_81#Lipid_hypothesis - July 2021

Since Aug 2021 the article has been rewritten to the point it looks far too much like a puff piece.

@ Rathfelder:, you've worked on this article fairly heavily. Have you been reviewing the recent changes? It fell off my radar in May, so I'm rather surprised. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Carb woo gone COVID woo. [41] Needs some NPOV applied. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I've missed this. I'm away this week but if necessary I can have a go next week. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Viv Hamilton wrote nearly all of the article, this user is a very good editor but unfortunately the lead is over the top and needs cutting down. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 20:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the lede is a mess, and I'm seeing NOT content such as such as Aseem_Malhotra#Interests -- Hipal ( talk) 17:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Four years ago, a WP:SPA who has not been active before or since made these five consecutive diff edits, presented as one in that diff. I plead guilty to not seeing them until now, does anybody care to have a look, or lend me a chainsaw? Am I being harsh? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Also meant to note that this paper, an opinion piece from the "Archives of Iranian Medicine", is summarised in the lead of the article as "... there is also a pseudoscientific stream in the modern academia." - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Not the clearest summary, but accurate. There are active academics especially in Iran actively promoting certain pseudoscientific notions. jps ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The horror... Chainsaw is the right toolm here. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gettr § Whitewashing by Copernicus43728. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Now at Talk:Gettr#April 2022 changes. -- mfb ( talk) 07:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Recent stubbornness by SPA. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Made a second request for semi-protection, if it gets done we can clean up. -- mfb ( talk) 07:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are blocked, article has semi-protection (for 3 years!), an admin reverted to a stable version. -- mfb ( talk) 08:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Seems rather credulous and fringy, with lots of fantastic claims sourced to a book by somebody named W. Alexander Wheeler. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Horrible. Are there any good sources on this fellow? Because the current list is atrocious. jps ( talk) 11:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that this is likely a classic case of WP:PROFRINGE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Solomon. jps ( talk) 11:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A promotional article on technology which seems to be controversial, if not outright techno-woo. As has been noted on the talk page, there are multiple credible secondary sources questioning the validity of this 'detector', but instead we present readers with unverified claims, citing 'sources' which long pre-date the 'detector', and thus cannot possibly be discussing it. As is also noted on the talk page, the article seems to have been created by someone with a clear CoI.

I suspect that given the (negative) secondary coverage, the 'detector' may meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, ruling out deletion. It probably needs someone with a bit of knowledge of the broader subject to rewrite it from scratch. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg and 1566 celestial phenomenon over Basel. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A statement in the former article about a ufology perspective was removed as undue and improperly cited. The latter is poorly sourced and gives no modern perspective on the topic. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 13:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Keezhadi#Carbon Nanomaterials in Keeladi Pottery looks like a fringe scientific claim. The bit about the Keezhadi site at Chronology of Tamil history#Pre-Sangam period is similarly problematic. These claims rely on the media and the state archaeological department, and sadly both in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu and at the Republic level history and archaeology are driven by politics. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually found in four different Wikipedia articles: [42]. jps ( talk) 13:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this report, while obscure, is possibly on the up-and-up. The claim is not that the ancient craftspeople had access to the nanotechnology that produces such nanotubes today. The claim is instead that certain processes were employed in making a persistent glaze that formed nanotubes without the producers knowing that is what they were doing (obviously). The paper cites the extremely well-cited and well-attested to instance of discovering nanoparticles in Damascus steel as a motivating explanation. I note that this review uncritically cites the claim as well: "At the same time, the Christian crusade warriors could probably not conceive that the superior properties of the Moorish Damascus steel were due to embedded carbon nanotubes,[58,59] although this type of nanotechnology was already known and used almost a millennium earlier in India.[60]" [43] While this work is only cited seven times in the literature, it does not look like it has been siloed like other dubious claims from Scientific Reports. This is, however, well outside of my field of expertise, so we should find some who are more familiar with material science and archaeology to contextualize the impact of this claim. YMMV. jps ( talk) 13:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what jps wrote. I can't speak to this particular source, but Damascus steel is another article that documents carbon nanotubes in very old artifacts. It doesn't take modern technology to make them, just to recognize them. Happy ( Slap me) 14:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unsure which is why I asked. But is "They observed the inner diameter of the single walled nanotubes is very close to the theoretically possible lowest diameter." useful? It may be true but it looks as though it's making a point. I'm guessing the editor thought these were deliberately created, but that's just a guess. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how necessary it is for the article, but if it's supported by the source, that's a very interesting fact. Seems like a detail that would be more appropriate to mention in Carbon nanotubes than in this particular article, though. Happy ( Slap me) 14:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point about mentioning it in the nanotubes article. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@ HappyMcSlappy and ජපස: History of nanotechnology says "The earliest evidence of nanotechnology and its application is traced back to 600 BC at Keeladi, India." Which I guess reflects the source which says "Synthesis and usage of nanomaterials are not the outcome of modern development in science and technology. There are reports documented the usage of nanomaterials in the ancient arts and tools indicating that ancient days humans were aware of the uniqueness of these materials and the methods of synthesizing it. But they might not know the scientific principles at the nano scale and its unusual properties." It concludes that "The finding of these two carbon forms in the Keeladi coating raises the following questions. (i) Ancient Keeladi settlement know the importance of these properties and adapted it intentionally? (ii) Given the black coating is observed in the inner portion of the shard, if these potteries were used for edible preparation or preservation then ancient civilization might be aware of the cytotoxic nature of CNT and Graphene/graphene oxide sheets! In spite of other unanswered questions, it is interesting to observe the strong footprints of 1D and 2D carbon-based nanomaterials used about 600 BC ago with diameter closer to theoretical limit and retained its stability for around 2600 years." Stating that they actually created the nanotubes seems an extreme claim. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The paper is not well written, that is for sure. Still, I think the charitable interpretation is that authors are arguing that the producers of the material may have had awareness of the unique properties of it -- some of which are now attributed to nanotubes -- while not "know[ing] the scientific principles at the nano scale". It's similar to a situation where ancient craftspeople were using magnets without knowing how they worked. jps ( talk) 15:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@ ජපස: but Synthesis of carbon nanotubes? They do explain it: " So the more scientific possibility would be the plant-based material should have been carbonized, forming different carbon allotropes at high temperature achieved during the firing process of pottery. The presence of iron in the plant source and also the soil might have catalysed the carbon to form SWCNT and MWCNT". Doug Weller talk 16:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but, again, this is something that an ancient potter could have stumbled upon without knowing that it was nanotubes. jps ( talk) 16:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Producing ice is now "manipulating water at the molecular level"? Burning wood is "using quantum chemistry"? The pottery might have had CNTs, but that's not "using nanotechnology". It's not even clear if the CNTs have an actual function, or of they were just a side-product of the production process. The (technically correct) statement that a specific group had no concept of CNTs suggests the (incorrect) implication that others would have known about them. -- mfb ( talk) 17:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. On the other hand, the paper is poorly written, so it's hard to know how much of the absurd implications are there because of the authorial intent and how much of it is because of the perennial problem at Scientific Reports of a lack of editorial oversight. With two or three tweaks of the sentences they would become more grammatically mainstream as well as without the eye-rolling implications. Does this invalidate the empirical results of the paper? Are carbon nanotubes really not part of this glaze? Or, are carbon nanotubes perhaps more ubiquitous in materials than generally appreciated? (I'm reminded of the strong evidence for interstellar buckyballs which are produced entirely naturally.) The correct level of discourse, I think, is to point out when such things are discovered and, more importantly, verified. It would be nice, for example, if other groups could verify this rather strong claim which, I am willing to bet, was initially rejected from publication in the flagship journal (unlike the similar Damascus steel claim), and was referred to this accept-all-comers junk pile. WP:WEIGHT and WP:TOOSOON may very well be decent principles to apply in this case. jps ( talk) 18:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I did a quick rewrite of a paragraph in History of nanotechnology, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that the more recent claim could be omitted on WP:UNDUE/ WP:TOOSOON grounds. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• This isn't my forte and I'm too lazy to dig up references at the moment, so I'm reluctant to make specific claims about the materials involved or their processes. If there are some doubts about the source, which seems to be the case, then I'd exclude mention under the principle of it being too soon and those questions raised about the source per jps and the quotes provided by Doug, and then wait to see if this is confirmed by other scientists. I mean, the article isn't really harmed by this not being included, but if it is included and it's false, the sheer number of outlets that cite WP (with or without credit) means we'd end up in a weird cite-osis situation: where the only real evidence is one shoddy paper, but there's tons of pop-science sources out there pointing to WP or just claiming (based on what the author read on WP) that it's true. Happy ( Slap me) 22:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think that, aside from the reliability of the source, any writing in Wikipedia even remotely implying that pre-20th-century societies "used nanotechnology" is a major WP:SYNTH at best, and a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation at worst. I know a little about the chemistry involved here; carbon nanotubes are part of a class of carbon allotropes that include fullerenes, and these molecules are readily detected in nature; indeed they exist in ordinary flame soot. If you burn a candle, there's likely a detectable amount of complex carbon molecules in the soot that could be classified as "nanotubes", and yet I'm not using nanotechnology when I burn a candle. That carbon nanotubes have been discovered in ancient artifacts doesn't mean that the people who created the artifacts used nanotechnology; it means they heated up carbon. You know, like when you burn coal, or make steel, or any number of other very old technologies. -- Jayron 32 16:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Huge article about a fringe theory. Ran into it through this [44]. I don't really expect anyone to have the stomach for it (and you might lose yours if you look at the Tucker Carlson video linked in Jason Colavito's article), but good luck to anyone who does. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you want done. It's clearly marked as fringe in the opening paragraphs. Being correct is not a pre-requisite for a Wikipedia articles. Bullshit can still be notable bullshit. -- Jayron 32 16:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Just thought it needs trimming really. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Dispute about [45]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear - the debate is not about this edit - which I did not make and agree overstates the source material. The debate is about the source itself.

Talk:Shroud_of_Turin#Wide_Angle_X-Ray_Scattering

Here is what I wrote over on the RS noticeboard:

The "Perennial Sources" page lists "no consensus" for MDPI. Past discussions seem to have been resolved with the observation that each journal in MDPI ought to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Here is a link to the article:

https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47

The lead author of this particular study is a member of Italy's National Research Council and has been publishing in physics for decades. It doesn't appear the technique in question - Wide Angle X-Ray Scattering - is an especially controversial one, and the study itself doesn't do more than question the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating of the shroud and calls for further research.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Liberato-De-Caro

I'll add that the Norwegian Scientific Index CRIStin - which does list some MDPI journals as predatory - gives "Heritage" a rating of "1" indicating a "standard rating for publication channels that meet basic academic quality criteria."

https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalTidsskriftInfo.action?id=494753 173.79.55.180 ( talk) 23:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I did not know a discussion already began at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: MDPI/Heritage. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to keep my discussion on that board, since I don't think there's anything "fringe" about using a peer-reviewed scientific journal as a source. 173.79.55.180 ( talk) 00:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The journal is WP:REDFLAGGED, its the subject matter itself that is fringe. In fact, it has fringes all the way round it. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 00:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I claim no expertise in this field, but I do notice that our article Wide-angle X-ray scattering makes no claims at all that this technique can be used for reliable dating of ancient objects. If it is reliable for such purposes, shouldn't we have well referenced content in that article to that effect? Cullen328 ( talk) 06:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Right. "X-Ray Dating" isn't a thing. The method was first published by the same authors in the same dubious journal in 2019 and as far as I can tell nobody has paid any attention to it. –  Joe ( talk) 07:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Should I give up speed dating too? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Just have X-Ray Spex in your pocket, and your dating results will be fine. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Global warming conspiracy theorist Christopher Booker claimed that Thatcher, who took action against climate change when in office, became "the fist climate change sceptic" when retired. There is no other source for the claim. Now the article says she "became sceptical about her policy, rejecting "climate alarmism"". Attempts at attributing the fringe vocabulary, ore removing it, or the whole quote, have been reverted. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is the background to Booker's claim [46]. I would have thought that the article could quote directly from Thatcher's own words rather than having them second hand, but her denunciation of lefty climate science in retirement would have to be balanced with her acceptance of the science when she was in office. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, well, well, I heard another conspiracy theory: that Mrs. Thatcher funded the whole climate change science when she was in office, in order to close down the mines.

I.e. if you wanted to study squirrels, you would have had to call your research The nut-hoarding habits of squirrels in respect to global warming in order to get the grant. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

See Jayabaya and Satrio Piningit. Terrible sourcing. This suggests the "prophecies" may be 18th century but with no evidence. One prophecy is "When carriages drive without horses, ships fly through the sky, and a necklace of iron surrounds the island of Java. When women wear men's clothing, and children neglect their aging parents, know that the time of madness has begun." Doug Weller talk 11:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds very much the same as Mühlhiasl's prophecies. Vaticinium ex eventu is quite monotonous. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that a spurious quatrain said to predict the September 11th attacks--and ascribed to Nostradamus--was in fact a satire composed in 1997 is one of the things that convinces me the programmers of our simulation have a sense of humor. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 13:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Difficult to source, but important for Indonesian National Awakening, Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies, Darul Islam (Indonesia), etc. ...in popular circulation from at least the early nineteenth century. Florida, Nancy K. (1995). Writing the past, inscribing the future. pp. 273–5. Will try to add some references on the talk page later. fiveby( zero) 14:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

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

This article is already tagged as WP:FRINGE. Is "social selection" notable enough to have its own standalone article? Thegamboler ( talk) 04:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Robert Lustig‎ is a low-carb diet advocate who has written books criticizing sugar consumption and promoting a high-fat diet. If you check out his books the only people that positively review them are fad-dieters from the low-carb camp, i.e. Mark Hyman, Gary Taubes [47]. I think pretty much everyone knows eating too much processed sugar is bad but this guy is a fanatic (apparently eating a donut is worse than smoking cigarettes!). Some false balance has been added to the "reception" section. See talk page discussion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Psychologist Guy: I don't think he is low-carb. He is mostly anti-fructose. He says fructose has 8 of the 12 poisonous effects of alcohol. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

He is low-carb fundamentalist. He has spoken at many low-carb events such as the 2018 Low-Carb USA conference in San Francisco [48], 2020 Low-Carb Denver conference [49] (he has spoken there more than once) and is on several popular low-carb high-fat podcasts including the dietdoctor website [50], and writes low-carb cook-books. Here he is on the Low-Carb Down Under podcast [51]. Here he is promoting a keto diet [52] on Dave Asprey's podcast. I could go on. I have spent 10 years looking at all these people. Dave Asprey, Mark Hyman, Gary Taubes, Nina Teicholz, Tim Noakes, Aseem Malhotra, William Davis, David Perlmutter, Ronald Krauss etc. They are all in the same camp. Basically they think carbs (especially processed carbs) are evil and responsible for practically every disease. These views are extreme and not backed by evidence-based medicine. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This looks like an argument within the academy, not a question of pseudoscience. Even if you think Lustig's arguments are weak, they were published in journals. Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Edward Dutton (author) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Purveyor of all sorts of FRINGE, but mostly known for race-and-intelligence garbage (he was at one point editor-in-chief of Mankind Quarterly). Has not held any academic position for some time, and never above the level of adjunct, so definitely fails WP:PROF. Has popped up in news coverage of varying quality from time to time, e.g. [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58], but I'm not sure how much this amounts to coverage of him. The only article I could find specifically about him is this one from the University of Aberdeen's student newspaper: [59]. As with other WP:FRINGEBLPs, the struggle with the current article is in threading the needle between BLP violation and using Wikipedia as a platform for the promotion of nonsense –– and as with previous marginal cases (like this and this) the simplest solution to the problem appears to be deletion. But since there are a number of sources which at least mention Dutton's work and/or hijinks, I thought I'd solicit feedback here before bringing this to AfD. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't being EiC of Mankind Quarterly pass NPROF 8? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Only if you consider Mankind Quarterly to be a major, well-established academic journal. I don't believe that many here would describe it that way. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It's majorly infamous :) But in all seriousness it's a weird situation with this journal and probably not one the guideline writers foresaw - the journal is well-known, but for being really bad rather than being highly reputable in its field as would typically be the case for well-known journals. But I do think going forward with a full examination at AfD and letting that decide could be good. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually if you scroll down to the "Specific criteria notes" it's evident that the guideline writers did in fact foresee this: Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 8. But in any case I appreciate your suggestion and will likely move forward with the AfD unless someone has a persuasive reason why Dutton might satisfy WP:GNG (or some other notability criterion). Generalrelative ( talk) 06:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. Its subject area is ostensibly 'Anthropology', and it is near the bottom of the rankings in that subject. MrOllie ( talk) 00:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

We had the same problem with the Woodley article, it looks well sourced but when you actually click on most of sources they do not mention Dutton, they mention him only in outline or they are self-published. I am not convinced Dutton has enough reliable sources either. I would definitely vote delete. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 10:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

See afd [60] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 14:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, you beat me to it! Generalrelative ( talk) 15:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Pap-Ion Magnetic Inductor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Something for medical users. Invented by physicist "Prof. DDr.". As of today, cures stuff according to journals I don't know. Yesterday it did not, but that was "outdated". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I did a blanket revert, as the edit seemed to be entirely medical claims without WP:MEDRS sources or direct from the manufacturer. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I also placed a COI notice on the user's talk page. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

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

It seems she won a few things, which proves the power of positive thinking and makes her a "parapsychologist". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think she probably wrote enough books and such to maybe make that an applicable category. It's certainly not the wackiest category I've seen. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned it here not because of the category - that was just the reason why I was aware of the article. The whole article is new and can probably use a few watchers. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

As I hope the article conveys, she won a lot of things because she became a skilled contestor, using the same kinds of skills that other contestors of the day used (such as creativity and perseverance and knowledge of how contests are run). Then she became a student/advocate/lecturer/author for all kinds of parapsychological beliefs, including that it was actually the power of positive thinking that led to her contest wins. I thought that the second set of activities made her prominent enough to be included in Category:Parapsychologists. But I'm not familiar with the category, so if it's too much of a stretch, feel free to take it out. Wasted Time R ( talk) 16:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:CATV: It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Some reliable source needs to call her a parapsychologist.

But of course, that rule is commonly neglected. In practice, categorization follows users' taste. For example, we have lots of articles in the categories "Critics of..." Judaism, Islam, Christianity, atheism, whatever, without any hints in the articles, sourced or not, that the person really "criticized" that worldview. Some user reads some vile attack on Jews written by a person and adds that person to Category:Critics of Judaism. Adolf Hitler needs to be removed regularly from that category. Maybe all "critics of" cats should be deleted. Also, there are local consensuses leading to sentences in the category pages starting with "this category is not to be used for...". It's Wild West out there, and I have given up on that part of Wikipedia. But I digress. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

An editor complained on BLP/N about Jah Prayzah#Personal life. I feel it's fine since subject's statement about circumcision seems supported by the available evidence as mentioned in our Circumcision and HIV (which I added a wikilink to) as there's no suggestion it provides great protection nor commentary on what circumstances (e.g. MSM) besides HIV and other STIs (I think the evidence for other STIs is not as strong as HIV although our article does mention it). But this is probably a better place to deal with something like this than BLPN. I've never seen this exact problem before, but I'm sure we have had to deal with stuff related to vaccines and treatments, especially junk treatments like ivermectin before. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, the complaint was here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jah Prayzah. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Nil Einne: I've replied on the BLP/N entry with my thoughts. I find the complaint/notice completely unfounded as there's clear medical source consensus to keep the listing as it is. I've guided the other user to his next steps if they wish to continue pursuing the denial of the medical claims.

Also: You haven't added {{subst:ftn-notice}} or otherwise notified the other editor of your post here, which is specified above to be required/customary. I will place the notice myself for now to save you the hassle but please do it in the future. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 02:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean the sentence If you mention specific editors, please notify them which does not apply here since Nil did not mention specific editors? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah I suppose, I thought it would still be courteous since he did mention an editor which... He's the subject of this notice. Or well, at least part of it. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 16:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• That circumcision has some protective effects against HIV transmission is established medical knowledge, and not fringe. What is fringe is the denial of this by the constant parade of anti-circumcision campaigners we see on Wikipedia. All the circumcision articles are a depressing time sink because of this, and the disruption is reflected in the articles' worsening quality. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• List of paranormal magazines (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can everybody add their favorite gullible website, even those who cannot be bothered to learn the plural of "phenomenon", or are there any criteria for addition? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I generally remove anything from a list that does not have an article, or some sourcing strong enough to show it meets WP:GNG. Otherwise list articles would just be spam lists of everyone's podcast or newsletter. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Some of the listed mags are defunct. Should they be retained? JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the list of skeptical magazines has that same criteria. The majority of them have no article and likely do not meet GNG. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 16:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That's the criteria I use for all lists I look at. I'd apply the same to the skeptical magazine list.

I'd also leave the defunct entries on the list, since they're still notable. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I cleaned up the list of skeptical podcasts, list of skeptical magazines, list of skeptical organizations and list of skeptical conventions. I only removed entries that had no bluelinks, so a convention run by a notable organization stayed on the list, or a podcast by a notable skeptic stayed on the list. I didn't do List of books about skepticism because I don't think I have the time right now to clear out everything that doesn't have a bluelinked author or book title. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It's haircut day at Lists. Books are interesting because unlike a magazine, a book is published once (for all intents and purposes), and may not be notable enough on their own, but perhaps as part of list when the author is notable. But I guess it always depends. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 17:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

On lists like that, I leave it if the author is a bluelink. I did the same for the others I trimmed. If Jane G. Notable was the host of Unnotable Skeptic Chat I left the entry, same if "ObscureSkeptiCon" was held by Highly regarded skeptical posse. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't "magazine" have a real definition?

A blog is not a magazine. ApLundell ( talk) 16:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon#RfC on category inclusion/exclusion Doug Weller talk 09:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This RfC on Larry_Sanger's criticism of Wikipedia may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a fringe theory I'm missing here? Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 15:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There were arguments presented in the discussions that led to this RFC as to whether including Sanger's opinion would violate WP:FRINGE. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 18:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue is more that Sanger has become a pusher of fringe ideas and conspiracy theories and that context should need inclusion if his views are mentioned. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I struggled to find any evidence of that. He made one odd tweet about vaccines. He thinks the pseudoscience label on certain articles is not NPOV (that's borderline), but I can't find any conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, I understand the points made here. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 19:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean, he bought into QAnon, thought the Jan 6 riot might have been a false flag operation, and seems to think that covid and global warming are manufactured crises. MrOllie ( talk) 19:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh.... I see. Thanks. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 19:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The article on Accurin was recently expanded and it appears to be promoting Accurin by using non-peer reviewed studies.

Some cleanup or justifiable expansion is welcome. Aman Kumar Goel ^{( Talk)} 21:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Aman.kumar.goel AfD-ed. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• The Enemy of Europe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This new article puffs up a neo-Nazi book from 1953 that was not published widely and is mostly a summary of the author's previous book. It whitewashes the book and its author, includes a long and cherrypicked summary of the book, and has some unverified claims. The book up until now was not summarized at its author's Wikipedia page except as a link. I don't know if the article should be deleted/redirected or only much shorter and neutral. Llll5032 ( talk) 14:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

We are now discussing redirecting to the author's page. If anyone would like to weigh in, see this and this. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

[61]]

"A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court to direct the Respondent the Ministry of Ayush and the Ministry of IT and Electronics to take necessary steps that compel Wikimedia Foundation to remove references from the articles regarding Ayurveda published on its website." "The petition said that the matter of concern for the petitioner is that the second line of the article published on Wikipedia, which is hosted by the Respondent Wikimedia Foundation, terms Ayurveda as a pseudoscientific, and needlessly at the start of the article cites the statement of Indian Medial Association that describes Ayurvedic practitioners as Quacks. " Doug Weller talk 14:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• And?… how is the WMF responding? Blueboar ( talk) 15:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am no expert in the Indian legal system, but I don't believe any response is required at this time. The Indian government is the party sought to be compelled. If that is successful, then we might end up in a place where the WMF has to respond. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  It’s just for information. It may not get anywhere, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Bunch of quacks ineptly trying their hand at lawfare. Correct response is to fart in their general direction. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Been eating curry, Alex? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Probably elderberries, his hampster smells of them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Tbh, we have a poor lead. I will try redrafting it, if I get some time. It is indeed quackery but that need to be cited to scholars, not IMA. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Never wrong to use even better sources. Thanks. Blueboar ( talk) 19:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you're aware, but there was a very long and contentious RfC on summarising the IMA's position Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 20#RfC: What is the Indian Medical Association's position on Ayurveda?. While this RfC didn't discuss other aspects of the lead, nor even where we should summarise the IMA's position, I'd suggest trying to significantly reword or remove the part on the IMA's position would likely be a mistake. There was also another long and contentious RfC which came to the conclusion it should be called pseudoscience in the lead paragraph but not the lead sentence Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 16#RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence. Again doesn't directly affect any other aspect of any attempts at rewording, however it would need to be considered. And these RfCs might also be informative of the work it may take to get any major change. Nil Einne ( talk) 22:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

They have a COI and are exhibiting ownership behavior, so we do not give in. We continue to follow our PAG. This will trigger a strong Streisand effect. They push and we push back harder in all forms of press and media. Screw them. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This discussion at WP:AN is likely to be of interest to the readers of this board. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 02:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I came here through a number of subsequent advice to write. At first, I wrote a draft on Tissue therapy (which may be considered a fringe theory), then the draft was declined, and I was advised to write at Teahouse, and finally I'm here (from there) writing, being absolutely ignorant what may be done further.
Tissue therapy is an invention by Vladimir Filatov, who suggested that tissues, placed in unfavorable conditions, produce so called biogenic stimulators, which can be extracted and used as a medicine.
Warning: Russian languege may be needed. Tosha Langue ( talk) 03:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem isn't that it's fringe. We have a lot of articles about fringe subjects. The problem is noability, and that isn't clear from the sources provided. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 03:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right, @ Anachronist! Probably, a good idea would be giving this to the Russian Wikipedia... Tosha Langue ( talk) 03:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

In the article Milk kinship there is a maintainence template from 2016 about undue emphasis to fringe theories. I want to establish what level this is legitimate. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 00:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing I can see looks like an obvious 'fringe theory'. The article could probably do with more input from someone familiar with the topic area, as is true for much such anthropological content on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The editor who added the template did leave a note on the talk page explaining it: This article only mentions the Islamic aspect and fails to mention the Jewish aspect. Not really a fringe thing, just a statement that our coverage of the topic is too narrow. 2001:48F8:4002:684:9CD5:A12F:5EA5:7CE0 ( talk) 23:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_review_Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Pursuant to that, the discussion at Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal#Should_editorial_opinions_be_posted_in_the_lede_summary. has been reopened. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Read about him today in a news article; he was a Russian KGB leader who also engaged in a lot of paranormal/occult activity, such as claiming to read Madeleine Albright’s mind and raising the souls of the dead. Apparently his “discovery” about Albright has been parroted as fact by Vladimir Putin and various members of his government. But Rogozin’s Wikipedia article also presents all of those claims as fact, without offering any hint of a critical or skeptical perspective. This seems like it needs attention, especially given its relevance to the current geopolitical situation. I wonder if the article was directly translated from Russian, which might explain how slanted it is. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2EB0 ( talk) 17:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks IP--I just wanted to foot-stomp this one for emphasis. Real life has me pretty well wrapped up these days, but I went to have a look. The article needs a drastic re-write. Every time I tried to pick a small section or two, I ended up balking because it really demands something larger. Might find some time to try this weekend, but in the meantime, I would encourage one and all to peruse. Dumuzid ( talk) 18:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

There have been a few edits to the article in the past two weeks, but the improvement has been very slight and a _lot_ more work is still needed. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2EB0 ( talk) 01:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Devra Davis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Devra Davis is an independent researcher best known for promoting the fringe theory that 5G, Wifi and other sources of non-ionizing radiation are a cause of cancer, a claim disputed by almost every mainstream cancer research organization. I've noticed that the tone of the article now seems to bury her controversial claims, and position her as a mainstream researcher, which she certainly isn't! -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I may be responsible for some of that. I did a deep literature dive on the subject in August/September 2021, cognizant of recentism, and began a large expansion, trying to cover all prominent aspects of her career (books, research, background etc.) in approximate proportion to their prominence in secondary sources, and in a roughly chronologic order. The article had previously been affected by numerous rounds of puffery, promo, WP:SYNTH, and/or misuse of low-quality sources, but also what I saw as over-emphasis on recent 5G-related controversy and downplaying of other biographic info. Going back to at least 1990 she has been widely and deeply covered in secondary sources such as Science and the New York Times. I added reception of her books and expanded the section on wireless radiation activism, noting prominent controversies such as her Catalyst appearance. Her views have been widely covered, and I think the current version appropriately summarizes her claims (fringe though they may be) without promoting them. Some sources and authors are very critical of her (for instance Simon Chapman, and Robert L. Park who calls her a "[ fear monger"), while mainstream publications tend to present her or her views without comment or qualifying remarks, e.g. simply "president of the nonprofit Environmental Health Trust" [62] or "Environmental health experts like Dr. Devra Davis, a Wyoming epidemiologist and toxicologist, have argued for years that there needs to be more public awareness about the potential dangers of cell phone radiation." [63] Criticism should be present—and it is—but I don't think the loudest critics should necessarily determine the tone and structure of the entire article. However I think there is still plenty of room for improvement in this article. Taking a broad, holistic view, what elements do you think need expanding? Which if any require less emphasis? This discussion ideally should take place on the article's talk page. --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Mainstream publications get this game wrong so much. The problem with the claims is that they are promoted by people who have a severe lack of understanding about the differences and types of electromagnetic radiation. Their arguments strain credulity because the people making them (including Davis) have almost no understanding of the mechanics of electromagnetism. That's an important sense to convey: it's not that these people are "alarmist" (though they are), it's that their claims rest on an argument that at its most basic strains credulity. jps ( talk) 11:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This probably plays into the WP:FRINGE definition in the threshold between pseudoscience and an alternate theory lacking data. Specifically: Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Particularly regarding concerns around 5G specifically, is there a viable mechanism by which 5G would cause health issues that 4G didn't? Or really all wireless communications, as Wireless device radiation and health addresses (it's total power causing heating that's dangerous, not low power communications)? Those seem like the two topics to tackle easily using the latter article as an example: there's no evidence of health risks beyond total power level, and wireless communications power level thresholds are set 50x lower than produce observable health effects. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Ian Brown is seeing COVID-19 conspiracy theory promotion from IPs. TPF 1951 ( talk) 19:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

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

His stupid Kardashian paper is neither allowed to be criticized nor deleted. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned this in article talk, but it's an interesting corner case. It's peer reviewed in BMJ Open (a quicker-turn, lower impact spinoff), but most of the controversy comes from claims Ioannidis either makes (or muses could be made, he's 'just asking questions') in the Discussion section of the piece rather than the actual Results. Are his claims in the Discussion considered peer-reviewed and requiring similarly reviewed sources for WP:PARITY, or is the Results section the only one that we consider to be reliable science that requires peer review to provide PARITY of critique? Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to add this to the talk page of the BLP, but: it looks so desperate when you're blowing up content in a BLP by citing a brand new primary publication, NB not in an article about the topic of the publication, but in the article about the author. – Austronesier ( talk) 22:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Poor article about a fringe historian (not cuckoo fringe, just not mainstream). Doug Weller talk 09:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Ashkali and Balkan Egyptians

This article about Albanian-speaking ethnic minorities in the Balkans, who from what I gather appear to be Albanised Roma people who have created new ethnic identities to distance themselves from the Roma. The article presents as fact a pseudohistorical account of the origin of Balkan "Egyptians", claiming that they descend from Egyptians sent to the Balkans by Ramesses II. This is apparently based on a document of the Council of Europe entitled History of the Balkan Egyptians by Rubin Zemon, a scholar based in Bulgaria. It doesn't appear to have been peer reviewed from what I can tell. this article from 2016 by Klípa Ondřej identifies Zemon as a Balkan Egyptian activist, [who] strive[s] to find real historical ties and ethnic origin of the group in Egypt. While sourcing abouts these groups is pretty scant, all other accounts from what I can tell consider them to be relatives of the Roma people. Help cleaning up the article would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I found and incorporated one source, and toned down the absolute reliance on the POV author, but it could still use more support for the non-fringe view. This is a classic problem, a highly-active fringe author giving a detailed (if weak) argument that is easy to find and cite, and is hard to balance by the occasional passing mention by unbiased scholars. Agricolae ( talk) 20:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Was Stevenson a well-regarded scientific authority on the study of reincarnation? Could there even be a "scientific authority" on this topic? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The medical and psych journals appear to believe so, as did the major medical school that opened up an entire department for his research, as did the major newspapers who published obituaries. I'm curious, have you ever read anything by or about Rhine or Pratt? Not, like, "Ghostbusters" but the actual science. I honestly consider the psychedelic research revolting but apparently it's been catching on for people with PTSD. To *me* it's far more fringe than the research of *if* something like reincarnation is possible through psych and medical studies; after all, all science needs to be proven. Most psychological theories have far less proof. Edited to add: See https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/patterns-reincarnation-cases for a list of peer-reviewed journal publications. It doesn't really belong in the article, but it's probably an easier read. Also see: Scientific American article: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/ian-stevensone28099s-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/ . I'm disturbed by the notion that people will believe there are "expert", say, video game players, but won't acknowledge a body of knowledge (regardless of whether you, I, or anybody else agrees with it) obtained through rigorous studies and interviews is better than, say, reading an article by some dude living in someone's basement who believes in bigfoot and thinks he saw the virgin mary appear on his piece of toast. Just saying. 40.133.234.46 ( talk) 15:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

His work has apparently gained no mainstream traction. It's WP:FRINGE: per the NYT obituary "Spurned by most academic scientists, Dr. Stevenson was to his supporters a misunderstood genius, bravely pushing the boundaries of science. To his detractors, he was earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition." Wikipedia will of course take the side of "most academic scientists". Alexbrn ( talk) 16:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Please don't confuse psychedelic research with parapsychology. It is true that there are some people who overlap, but the current interest of certain medical professionals (perhaps most famously the group at Johns Hopkins) looking at psychedelic drugs as treatments has basically nothing to do with any of the claims of parapsychology not the least of which are incredulous accounts of reincarnation. jps ( talk) 17:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

all science needs to be proven No. Please see (for starters) Scientific method. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

He was definitely the high-water mark for parapsychology, which is probably saying a lot and not very much at the same time. Carl Sagan referenced his work in somewhat favorable terms in Demon-Haunted World, which I think may be indicative of a certain framework Sagan seemed to be partial to vis-a-vis intelligence and consciousness. More to the point, his work has been the subject of several pretty damning rejoinders that Stevenson himself acknowledged made his claims a bit problematic. Couple that with his obvious motivated reasoning and the lack of any meaningful follow-up or mechanistic claims and we end up with a life's work that is receding into the dustbin as most life's works are wont to do. Was he "well-regarded"? Comparatively, sure. Was he a "scientific authority"? Arguably no. jps ( talk) 17:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Folks here may be interested in the current move request discussion at Talk:Great Replacement#Requested move 16 May 2022. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Scott Jensen (Minnesota politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new editor has been editing the article to water down some of the source material re: anti-vaccine movement and subject's dalliance with it. Needs more eyeballs, methinks. Neutrality ^talk 02:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

White-washing should be avoided, but also so should shit-piling. I think it's fair to ask how much verifiable COVID/anti-vax/failed-fact-check content will be relevant in 5 or 10 years. Unfortunately, the consensus seems to be that Wikipedia absolutely must name and shame and describe in great detail every misdeed or tweet or statement flagged as false or misleading, "for the greater good", without due consideration of WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:PROPORTION, WP:RECENTISM, etc. When a relatively minor politician gets a bit of drama for things outside his political career, and that gets a word-count almost equal to his career, something's off. If that's somehow required by Wikipedia policy, then it's a fundamental flaw of Wikipedia. --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Which specific claim(s) in the section § COVID-19 response should I remove first, as undue? Are there any statements that still appear to be whitewashed? The user accused of pro-fringe editing, TuckerAnders ( talk · contribs), was just notified of this discussion. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to identify all biases of omission, under, or overemphasis, but to start, a good faith unbiased effort to find high-quality biographical sources such as magazine profiles and newspaper articles especially about Jensen's career (versus myopic "today in the news Jensen was mentioned" articles) can help establish a historic view and determine the due weight to grant various aspects of his biography (this is admittedly often tougher than simply Googling). Regarding COVID, lengthy direct quotes should not be given if they are absent in other sections. And the article fails to clearly convey that it was apparently statements on The Ingraham Angle that got Jensen mentioned in PolitiFact's "Lie of the year" article: as written it appears at least two separate instances, thus artificially inflating his notoriety. If the subsequent complaints were based on the same statements (or similar ones), it should be made clear. Rather than treat each news article as a distinct "event" to be expounded upon with its own paragraph, a good biography might summarize issues into thematic paragraphs (e.g. "has made a number of disputed/false comments such as X, Y, and Z: he was reprimanded and said X"). Comparatively major controversies can be elaborated upon, as long as they do not grow to become disproportionate or attack articles: omit finer details until the article as a whole expands to the point where the finer details are warranted. --Animalparty! ( talk) 06:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a solid summary of what our goal should be, and how to identify the long-term notable critiques from the 24 hour news cycle blips. I'll take a stab at the Ingraham Angle bit, as it appears he's cited as the originator of the "COVID Medicare payments mean death counts are inflated" disinformation. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I made a first pass update. Thoughts on the two sentences about dismissed complaints? That the complaints being dismissed seems to suggest they're non-notable, and the inclusion might be WP:UNDUE prejudice. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Given the current situation in the Republican Party, maybe we should make a sort of general guideline for Republican politicians. Essentially, they are the bricks an echo chamber is made of. They passively reflect the same bullshit again and again, climate change is a hoax, COVID is exaggerated, and so on, with few exceptions. For climate change denial, we have the formula "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change". There is no need to give details because it's always some combination of a small set of ignorant misconceptions. With COVID, it's the same, but more complex since the situation is different depending on location and time.

This guy, however, seems to not just reflect misinformation but emit his own brand, so it's different. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

To this point, Jensen is a gubernatorial candidate this year who has made his views on COVID-19 and vaccines a major part of his campaign. So much so that local media even identifies him by his COVID stances ( 1 2). I agree we shouldn't give any one issue undue weight. But it's Jensen who has made COVID a big part of his identity, not Wikipedia editors. -- Woko Sapien ( talk) 13:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The parts about complaints about him to the medical board that were dismissed seems irrelevant. Likewise his apparently brief membership in World Doctor's alliance. Just at a first glance anyway. Bonewah ( talk) 13:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll defer to the wisdom of the consensus. But I'd be remiss if I didn't voice my sincere concern that this article could easily fall victim to a false balance by trying to neutralize his history of unorthodox medical views with the veneer of a candidate running for office.-- Woko Sapien ( talk) 14:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed the WDA bit because I couldn't tell if he were still a member or not, there was no source other than the WDA's own website where he's still listed. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems as if WDA sentence has been added back in and a new section about speaking in a anti-vax propaganda film is a new addition. Unsure if these are undue… I know Bakkster Man did not see notability in the WDA. Jensen seems to have been involved in many anti-vax events, both large and small. Want other’s perspective on which ones fit the notability argument. — MNBug ( talk) 17:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, my concern wasn't that WDA wasn't notable. It was that the content wasn't well sourced. The new source appears better, referring to Dr. Jensen by name. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Intelligence in Nature. “ Narby claims that "When shamans enter into trance and communicate in their minds with the plant and animal world, they are said to speak the language of the birds. Historians of religion have documented this phenomenon around the world." He then suggests that scientists and shamans should collaborate to "understand the minds of birds and other animals." He also claims that shamans communicate with some entity to negotiate the exploitation of natural resources and that the entity protects plants and animals from reckless and greedy humans.” Doug Weller talk 18:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If Wyatt Tyrone Smith adds equally detailed summaries of the remaining 10 chapters of that book, that will be a really long article. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 18:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, do they all have to eat dragon meat or something? Dumuzid ( talk) 18:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

To some extent, a religious or mythical belief like that is beyond Wikipedia's remit to debunk, except he's making it a scientific hypothesis explicitly. More relevantly, there's like, one three-page review in a highly specialised journal. ( [64] ) and I think our article already goes into way more detail than could feasibly exis in that review, while leaving out context that an anthropological journal's review of it might give (has anyone seen that first source? Because I have an idea that if the review was positive, it would be quoted a lot more) Does this even make WP:GNG? Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 18:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak bird, but I understand a lot of it. There's a whole lot of "lets fertilize eggs," "I want to eat," and "stay away from me and my babies!!" All in all, they're not very interesting conversationalists. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe it was the birds that started QAnon!. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think so, because they're not even real. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Convenient, neither is Q! PRAXIDICAE💕 19:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Is The Cosmic Serpent any better? Only independent source is a one to two page comment in a book entitled "Discarded Science", about terrible scientific theories that seemed like good ideas at the time. Maybe there's more to be found, but given the main source is, um..., Intelligence in Nature...

Also, I like the synth of mentioning a criticism of the book, and then outright claiming a documentary dealt with the criticism. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 20:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems to suffer the same issues, if not worse without an WP:INDEPENDENT source (and no apparent desire to add one since 2010). Bakkster Man ( talk) 20:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cosmic Serpent
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligence in Nature

jps ( talk) 20:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, there seems to be a lot of confusion as to whether and how certain sources can be used for notability. There happens to be a critical review of The Cosmic Serpent published in a compendium but available only in French. Aside from that, I am having a hard time finding anyone who paid attention to these claims in a way that would allow us to provide proper context. Even now in one of the AfDs we have editors arguing that they have no opinion as to the silliness or, let's be honest about what is really at stake here: WP:FRINGE nature of these claims. Better source would be nice to have! jps ( talk) 10:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a lack of WP:AGF in critique of my editing above, and would encourage reflection on that.

Despite the aspersions being cast here, I would like to draw attention to the critical review mentioned on the talk page, which is I think what you seek:

Das, Pranab (January 31, 1999). "Take Anthropologist's Conclusions With Grain of Salt". Winston-Salem Journal. p. 18 – via NewsBank.

I cannot access it, but for those of you seeking a critical review, here is what you are looking for. CT55555 ( talk) 15:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Only one comment above was made after your first edit in the article, and it does not seem to be referring to either your edits on the article or AfD, let alone in an uncivil way. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's what I said: " I have no opinions on the validity or silliness of the contents."

Here's what the comment above says: "Even now in one of the AfDs we have editors arguing that they have no opinion as to the silliness or, let's be honest..."

I don't think it's a big leap that I've made. CT55555 ( talk) 17:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it fair to ask whether you think ancient knowledge of DNA geometry is gettable through right-directed hallucinations? Or are you judiciously neutral on the subject? jps ( talk) 15:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is fair to try and make this conversation about me, or my beliefs. So far you've suggested I've breached a number of guidelines or policy and while I'm not intimidated by this, I can see that such actions could be jarring for others and I think you should calm it down a bit.

In an attempt to de-escalate, I'll hopefully reassure you by saying that I consider the idea of getting knowledge though directed hallucinations sounds like nonsense to me. But I'm not here to push that point of view, I'm really just editing an article about a book in the normal way, without favour or disfavour for the subject of the book. CT55555 ( talk) 16:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to understand that it is extremely difficult for us to overcome Poe's Law when it comes to online interactions about fringe theories. It really does help for you to reassure the audience that you aren't on a WP:PROFRINGE campaign, even if such remarks feel performative and vaguely like groupthink or even, *gasp*, WP:POVPUSH in the WP:YWAB direction. The problem, as I see it, is that there is a contingent of editors who believe that fairness is important enough that WP:GEVAL can be ignored. That's what I'm worried about. But let's retire to discussions in other venues to see if that can't be sussed out. jps ( talk) 21:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I am pro-science, anti-conspiracy theory. As that related to the book(s) I think there is nuance, the idea that mold can find the optimal way through a maze is well documented outside this book. Wikipedia guidance will tell you to assume good faith. I think most of us naturally are skeptical, so I'll say no more about that here. I think the clues you should be looking for in your pro-science efforts are less about what claims I make to be pro-science (anyone can say that) and instead look the edits themselves. Take a look at the articles I'm editing ( Intelligence in Nature, The Cosmic Serpent, understand the difference between accurate edits based on sources and point of view pushing. I don't think we've ever got past the fundamental start of our apparent disagreement which is the difference between writing an article on Narby's hypotheses (which are mostly highly unlikely; but which are not the subject of the article) and an article about a book (which exists, is very real; and is the subject of the article).

I suspect that you and I have the same point of view on the contents of the book.

What we do very much agree on is the need to retire this conversation. We're not on different sides of a battle here. Peace. CT55555 ( talk) 21:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Changes this month suggest a vast improvement of the evidence situation. Is that justified? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kambo cleanse#Review of holistic delivery/presentation of article, and some specific points regarding the 'evidence' a thread by User:Ablations who made many of those changes may be of relevance. Nil Einne ( talk) 07:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks @ Hob Gadling and also @ Nil Einne for mentioning that talk section - yes that thread is very relevant, and was made a while back with no progress. So some of those suggestions were implemented in a minor and careful fashion with notes left on the edits pointing out some of the fixes (such as media articles being used as sources), however - I believe there could potentially be an issue with the way some references were cited (the <ref> tags were used, and I noticed this made them appear a little differently to how the rest appear). Hope this all makes sense.

UPDATE: I just had another look and it appears another editor has fixed these up!! Bless him. 
Ablations (
talk) 07:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Another one that may be of interest: Talk:Reverse sexism#Requested move 17 May 2022. OP's rationale cites Volumetric scientific works. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Over at anti-vaxxer/MAGA/conspirituality comedian JP Sears's Wikipedia entry, I'm seeing yet another flare up of scrubbing activity, particularly among embedded users hoping to censor anything deemed 'critical' of the subject, WP:RS be damned. In fact, the talk page there nowadays has about two to three users who appear to be there solely to remove anything 'critical' or 'political' about the article's subject (they haven't done a single thing else). See Talk:JP_Sears#Wikipedia_is_not_Censored:_Yet_More_Attempts_at_Removing_WP:RS_from_the_Article. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Interested editors may want to participate in an RfC on the matter: Talk:JP_Sears#RfC. Endwise ( talk) 05:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I found a very fringey looking advertisement on a local (physical) bulletin board, took it home, and looked up some of the research it mentioned. It led me to this page. MarshallKe ( talk) 21:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@ MarshallKe: What's the fringe part? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The advertisement I found was about selling patches that reflect your natural infrared light, "elevates" this copper peptide, and makes you young again by activating and creating new stem cells. While this is not in the article, the MEDRS-violating claims in the article support the claims of the advertisement. MarshallKe ( talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems like a common component in anti-aging skincare (google "copper peptide anti-aging skincare"); the article says Several controlled facial studies confirmed anti-aging, firming and anti-wrinkle activity of copper peptide GHK-Cu but does not cite any sources. The source issues are worrying, but I know nothing about the subject matter, so despite being improperly sourced the article could all be completely fine and correct for all I know. Maybe people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine will have a better clue. Endwise ( talk) 10:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks more of a WP:MEDRS issue to me. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I also noticed that there is some significant overlap in the authorship of the studies; in particular, 5 consecutive references have F. X. Maquart as an author. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It can't really be a MEDRS problem unless you think that "looking your natural age" is a disease. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Pretty strong disagreement from me, MEDRS applies to more than just diseases. Even restricting to being used for wrinkle removal, that seems to fit our definition of WP:BMI; specifically as a treatment for a condition, and whether/how it works. Even if reasonable minds can differ, I think that fits the relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health criteria (emphasis added).

In addition to the anti-aging claims, there's clear BMI/MEDRS content that needs a closer look: In humans, GHK-Cu is proposed to promote wound healing, attraction of immune cells, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects, stimulation of collagen and glycosaminoglycan synthesis in skin fibroblasts and promotion of blood vessels growth. Recent studies revealed its ability to modulate expression of a large number of human genes, generally reversing gene expression to a healthier state. No inline citations here, and the sentence before includes a dead link that appears to be a WP:PRIMARY promotional site. So yeah, not good. Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you really believe that wrinkles are a medical condition? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's reasonably perceived as such when discussing a treatment, yes. To back that up:

Talk with a doctor specially trained in skin problems, called a dermatologist, or your regular doctor if you are worried about wrinkles. National Institutes of Health

So, if a product is intended, for example, to remove wrinkles or increase the skin’s production of collagen, it’s a drug or a medical device. US Food and Drug Administration

So yes, the article's claim that Facial cream containing GHK-Cu and melatonin increased collagen in photoaged skin of 20 female volunteers, performing better than vitamin C and retinoic acid fits our definition of Biomedical Information which requires MEDRS sourcing, in addition to literally fitting the FDA's example definition of a drug. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends on the claim. I do not agree that GHK-Cu cream applied twice daily improved aged skin appearance is biomedical information. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

We're not talking about improved aged skin appearance, we're talking about an explicitly medical claim: that topical application of a chemical changing body chemistry in a quantified way. The primary study claim of "increased collagen" is unambiguously BMI, and a specified dosage of a synthetic substance for that purpose is regulated by the FDA as a drug. I struggle to see how that doesn't far exceed the criteria in BMI. Bakkster Man ( talk) 02:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I copied that line straight out of the article. If we are talking here about the current contents of the article, then we should be talking about non-drug cosmetic claims in the article (in addition to the drug-based claims, some of which are cited to the same source as the cosmetic claim I quoted). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, it looks like most, if not all, of this can be cited to:

• Khalid, Fakra; Gorouhi, Farzam; Maibach, Howard I. (2016). "Anti-Aging Topical Peptides and Proteins". In Howard I. Maibach, Jared R. Jagdeo, Peter Elsner, Raja Sivamani (ed.). Cosmeceuticals and Active Cosmetics (Third ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press. ISBN  978-1-4822-1417-8. OCLC  919719500.{{ cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list ( link)

Start on page 144 under the heading "Topical Signal Oliopeptides".

For wound healing and a little history, you might like to supplement it with this book. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a valid point here that it should be controversial whether or not skin appearance is biomedical information. Another example: sports bras' effect on breast motion biomedical information? MarshallKe ( talk) 16:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I see the issue now, the article contains both definite BMI (ie. increases collagen) and potentially non-BMI (ie. skin appearance) claims. Perhaps clearer distinction between the two is the solution. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Also, I'd suggest replacing as many papers with recent(ish) books as possible, and attenuating any claims that aren't clearly supported by those books. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The information in question has been removed per WP:MEDRS until such time somebody can find or get access to a valid source for it. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@ RandomCanadian: I just removed even more primary sources, plus an obviously non-MEDRS reference about an home acne treatment using GHK-Cu. A medical source ( [65]) failed verification regarding an acne-related claim, but can be used elsewhere as a secondary source regarding cosmetic applications. Are there any unacceptable sources remaining? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

More eyes needed on socionics, where IPs are objecting to its description as pseudoscientific. Article has historically had issues with socking and was semiprotected until recently. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This way madness lies;) - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)