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

Just a heads up that a "brand new editor" [1] has been actively wikilawyering and edit warring this past week across a range of race-and-intelligence adjacent pages. I don't have time to counter their nonsense on my own, so more eyes on these pages would be helpful. See especially Dysgenics and Spearman's hypothesis. Thanks all, Generalrelative ( talk) 18:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If I were feeling cynical, I'd link to WP:CATW#3. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That isn't a brand new editor, that's a highly experienced editor with a brand-new account. I hesitate to call it sockpuppetry, more likely someone starting a new account after abandoning an old one (or maybe an experienced editor from another wiki coming here). ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical that this could be a valid alt, given how often we see secondary accounts in these areas used for avoiding scrutiny, block evasion and/or creating the illusion of support. Sure this could theoretically be that rare case, but looking at the level of commitment they are willing to throw into their wikilawyering (look at their most recent post on my talk page as just one example), I am dubious. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why, but I get Mikemikev vibes EvergreenFir (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

See also recent activity at Biosocial criminology and the reappearance of Ferahgo the Assassin once again challenging the consensus on race and intelligence at Talk:Heritability of IQ after being pinged by this "new user" elsewhere [2]. I'm not going to have time to engage substantively on all these fronts right now so more eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Bringing like-minded editors into a dispute is generally not constructive. BooleanQuackery ( talk) 04:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I was suspicious when they directly joined in on a content dispute with no prior history on any similar pages in conjunction with them being a new account. See the start of their history editing debt-trap diplomacy, going to talk first and related users in the content dispute, versus prior history. This was a few hours after another user edit warred over the same content on another page and was reported and eventually indeffed. They both used similar language in their edit summaries. I reported the two users as possible sock and master but the CU was Unrelated. Qiushufang ( talk) 05:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort, Qiushufang. I see that this account continues to taunt the community both with their username ("quackery" = WP:DUCK allusion, coupled with perhaps an attempt to poke anti-fringe editors) and now on their talk page. If anyone has insight into whom this might be, feel free to let me know. I'll be happy to do a bit of digging and put together the SPI myself. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It actually just refers to Quackery. BooleanQuackery ( talk) 20:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Far too much of this is self-sourced, apparently by one author who has written 29% of it. [3] And is this sort of comment ok? "For a summary of the manuscript tradition and interpretive scan, see researchgate.net, Barrie Wilson." A similar comment was also added to the unsourced BLP of Barrie Wilson. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This is about [4]. Another editor cites some stories about Barbro Karlén, but none of their sources seems reliable. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This page is about Reincarnation. The section is on children remembering their past lives. The story of Barbro Karlén is one of the major ones along with James Leininger. Barbro is at least a prolific author who recounted her experiences remembering past-life memories of Anne Frank and visiting the Anne Frank House and recognizing it, and I cited her book, along with two websites not affiliated with her. The sources are reliable given what the subject is and I think tgeorgescu is letting the subject of the material misguide them on whether it counts as a reliable source or not. LightProof1995 ( talk) 00:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It's okay to write about people who believe outre things such as Karlén. It is not okay to do so uncritically in WP's voice. Her claims of past memories are on her say-so only and we would only accept sources for such claims that were to independent sources given WP:FRIND. Do you know of any independent, reliable sources (mysteriousuniverse.com does not count). jps ( talk) 23:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that this story is notable enough for inclusion, but it's going to require someone dedicated to go through and really dig into references. For example, it seems that Chapter 11 of Remembering and Imagining the Holocaust: The Chain of Memory by Christopher Bigsby deals substantially with this claim. But I can't be bothered to dig up access to the text. Two texts that I could read on Google scholar I've now added to the article. jps ( talk) 10:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note that this conflict has spilled over to reincarnation where LightProof1995 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is arguing that string theory is evidence for reincarnation and that the studies of Stevenson and his associates are somehow well-regarded beyond the WP:FRINGE treatment we normally give them. jps ( talk) 17:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I wasn't *arguing* string theory is evidence for reincarnation. I only added links to string theory, extra dimensions, etc. at the bottom of the page as "Further Reading." I didn't realize that was problematic until jps pointed out to me WP:PROFRINGE states we can't reference a topic in a page unless there is a source about that topic that also specifically mentions the topic I am trying to reference. LightProof1995 ( talk) 17:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a lil discussion over at the NPOV policy talk page about changing WP:FALSEBALANCE to no longer apply to minority viewpoints. Several editors over there are arguing that the policy falsely equates FRINGE and minority views, and that we shouldn't treat a minority of relevant expert scholars as less valid just for being a numerical minority. [5]

And, furthermore, that If the majority and minority views come from sources of similar stature, even if the minority is due less space, they should be treated as equally valid. [6]

Truly truly fascinating the many angles that this argument often comes from. And the absolute inability to hear/see any negative effects such a change would have. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about this one. I'm not sure that arithmancy needs a separate article to numerology, or whether it should be included in it. Either way though, it needs proper sourcing, and at least something to suggest that it lacks anything in the way of credible evidence regarding its efficacy for 'divination'. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably merge and drop the tables. And are you telling me that themystica.com isn't a reliable source?! ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 19:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arithmancy Sennalen ( talk) 00:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• The Wall Street Journal ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Again, the editorial board did not do what reliable sources say they did. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The only problem I can really see with the lede is that it's a bit sparse compared to the length of the article and could probably be expanded. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this with regards to this edit? [7] —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 01:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It is about attempts to remove parts of the climate change denial part, specifically Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal#Editorial_Board_in_Body. Sorry I was not specific enough. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I hate wading back into that Talk page, but I did anyway, at least this once. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been going on a Nexis binge... There's more on climate denial than there is on pesticides, and more on pesticides than asbestos, but enough I'd say to warrant including them all. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, I think I've burnt myself out on this for a while. But I did notice a few ancillary matters that someone might like to address (see the inline maintenance tags). XOR'easter ( talk) 02:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry for having left you alone on this for a while. There are some unpleasant people there. I don't like to endure them either, and I understand anybody who wants to avoid the page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have a problem with editor Richard Keatinge. Since July 6, I have been trying to tell him that scientific work/edition cannot use unfounded assumptions. For a discussion with him, see Dzierzon vs. ul Prokopowycza on the talk page of the article Johan Dzierzon. Please help. Kind regards, Andrew— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aserafin ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

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

New article about a physics prof/UFO hunter. I took out a couple of obviously unreliable sources, could probably do with some eyes on it. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I just culled some promotional language from the lead that was supported by a google result and a bunch of primary sources. I'm looking through and seeing that the rest of it is not much better, e.g. a paper he wrote on a specific discipline being used to state that his specialty is in that discipline. Happy ( Slap me) 15:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

[8] - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, which has now been added to the article. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

He does have an opinion piece in Newsweek where, among other things, he blames skeptics and the media for lack of UFO research. His ideas are often reported uncritically in tabloid and other media, and so far there's not been any serious response to his claims. I've added some critique from Jason Colavito per WP:PARITY. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You know someone's worth taking seriously when they write an opinion piece in Newsweek... ;) Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems par for the course. Few, if any, reliable, independent secondary sources critically cover Knuth and his fringe beliefs because those beliefs simply aren't taken seriously. Even Sheaffer hasn't, as near as I can tell, written anything about Knuth. Or...maybe Knuth's ideas are taken seriously, but those outlets are being suppressed by the government as part of the cover-up conspiracy? Wait...who is that outside my window? A man in dark glasses hhhhmmmmphhhph. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 19:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

There's some pushback with critique being removed from the article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I note here that the pushback referred to by LuckyLouie is from a SPA. More eyes would be welcome. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 01:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have pared down the article a lot. I think he just passed the line for WP:GNG, but it was a pretty bloated biography. jps ( talk) 11:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRINGEBLP is not an unreasonable application when you consider the guy is featured speaker at events such as Phenomecon: Utah's Paranormal Conference "We Believe". - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Knuth. Please discuss. jps ( talk) 11:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#WP:BLPSPS, WP:FRINGEBLP, and WP:PARITY, another discussion spun off from this that is likely of interest. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is now edit warring at the article and WP:BLUDGEONing of the AfD by two SPAs dedicated to the UAPx organization. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Publishes with Bloomsbury and Routledge, gets reviewed by serious academics, but apart from some support from one scholar (Philippe Wajdenbaum), his theories seem to be universally rejected at this point.

I found no good secondary sourcing on him, so nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Gmirkin. ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 12:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Fascinatingly, his son was active at WP years ago when there was considerable conflict over plasma cosmology. That's unrelated from this matter, however. jps ( talk) 17:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Revival of ye olde dead horse over at Talk:Heritability of IQ, now spilling over to Talk:Intelligence quotient. Generalrelative ( talk) 20:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It started here Sennalen ( talk) 21:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Just because you claim to think something is true does not make it true. It does not protect you. It is not allowed."

WaPo via Twitter: [9].

I like it when WP:PAG shows up in a court of law.

jps ( talk) 17:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Most enjoyable. - Roxy the English speaking dog 21:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Alcoholics Anonymous ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

The Talk page thread "The Irrationality of Alcoholics Anonymous" peaked my interest. I learned that AA's main opponent is a psychoanalyst, Lance Dodes. Huh. Freudies against goddies - who will science support? Since 2020, AA has a Cochrane review agreeing with it...

I guess more science-knowledgeable people could be useful. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I have started a thread in Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories soliciting feedback regarding the use of conspiracy sources. See Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Use of conspiracy sources. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 16:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Could someone with more experience than me please take a look at Draft:Bioenergy economy? Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I read the attempted lead. It is batshit insane. - Roxy the English speaking dog 07:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I've declined it again. The main journal being cited is obviously predatory and unreliable. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 09:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hilma af Klint ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Thread "Tone of the article" on the Talk page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyone interested in working on this BLP of a fringe writer? Doug Weller talk 14:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

A man from Vietnam who claims that he can survive without sleep; see WP:Articles for deletion/Thái Ngọc. Deprodded by a sock in 2010. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

See [10]. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there an issue on Wikipedia? Sennalen ( talk) 16:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a problem with my posting this? It seems pretty relevant to UFO Report (U.S. Intelligence), maybe other articles. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Linking a page is a good start. You should understand the FRINGE noticeboard doesn't do mind reading 😄 Sennalen ( talk) 18:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure Doug understands how to use a noticeboard. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems clear enough to me, the linked page is a fringe skeptic who for some reason is used on a number of wikipedia pages. The linked article is batshit crazy analysis which puts such a heavy spin on the legislation thats its unrecognizable, clearly not a source we should be using. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 22:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back -- Do not go on a source removal rampage like that again or I will ask for a topic ban for disruptive editing. You have not made your case at all that Colavito is unreliable, and that you think the linked article is "batshit crazy" is prima facie evidence in my book that you probably should not be touching WP:FRINGE articles here at all. Consider yourself warned. jps ( talk) 23:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Its a fringe blog, of course I can remove it. You really think the linked blog post is a reliable source? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Jason Colavito is an expert skeptical debunker. In every case where you removed it, his blog was being used in appropriate regards to WP:PARITY. I have no idea why you think that's a problem, but it was settled a long time ago that when sourcing for WP:FRINGE ideas that do not have a lot of coverage in more traditional publications, the way to handle such things as debunking and identifying WP:MAINSTREAM approaches is to use reliable experts in the subject. Colavito is certainly an expert in these sorts of matters. I have no idea why you decided he was fringe. I see no indication of that. jps ( talk) 23:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to have the academic qualifications to be a subject matter expert, he appears to be a pop-science personality who appears on television programs and publishes popular press books not journal articles. You also didn't answer the question: is the linked blog post a reliable source? Could I use to to refer to living people as "pro-UFO loons"? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@ Sennalen you're replying to a thread from one of the most well-read and well-versed admins in this area. Do you not look at others user profiles before accusing them of not knowing what they're doing? If not, it would be a good idea to do so. If so, I have no idea why you would say it this way. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 12:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I never accused Doug of anything, but do you think this thread is producing the results he was hoping for? Even if Jimbo or the ghost of Carl Sagan himself dropped by the noticeboard, it would be more productive for him to explain what the problem is and what page its on. Sennalen ( talk) 14:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Jason Colavito is not an expert. His highest academic qualfication is a BA in anthropology and journalism, and AFAIK has not authored any academic papers. His type of journalism is invaluable, because it explains information in words that ordinary people understand. SPS says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Even if he were an expert, there is an issue of the weight of any opinion published on a person's website. TFD ( talk) 01:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Subject matter experts in Ancient Aliens can absolutely be those with BAs in anthropology. Odd that you think that's not the case. jps ( talk) 01:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

jps, I get into the same argument who think that Joe Rogan is an expert on coronavirus. If you don't know the difference between an expert and a journalist, I can't persuade you. You should read about the Dunning–Kruger effect. People who have little understanding of a subject don't appreciate its complexity. Incidentally, UFOs today are not ancient aliens. TFD ( talk) 03:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can judge based on a degree whether a source has "little understanding of a subject". Normally, we would look to external citations to determine that this is the case, not whether or not someone has a graduate degree. In fact, the level of education of a source is not something I see referenced in our WP:PAGs. It seems pretty straightforward to me to distinguish between an expert who has been lauded by other experts for their analyses (Colavito) and a charlatan who is subject to scathing critique from experts (Rogan). Dunning-Kruger effect, to be clear is about a person's own evaluation of their abilities -- not the evaluation of others. Also, belief in the ETH is strongly correlated with acceptance of the premises of Ancient Aliens. Colavito actually shows this quite well in a number of places. jps ( talk) 11:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that experts do not require degrees, although usually they have PhDs and academic posts. They do have to have written about the topic in expert publications, such as academic journals. You set the bar so low that any journalist becomes an expert, hence most opinion pieces in news media would be reliable sources, because they are mostly written by journalists. In fact anyone who writes an opinion piece is a journalist by definition. But RS says that opinion pieces are "rarely reliable." TFD ( talk) 17:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

A journalist can be an expert in some scenarios. Expert is not limited to PhDs and scientists. I just don't know that this particular case the expertise has been established. Andre 🚐 17:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I am curious, can you name anyone that has a better established expertise on Ancient Aliens and the related pseudoscience that comes out of that maelstrom than Jason Colavito? It'd be nice to know what qualifies for you as an expert in these matters if not Colavito. 20:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "Ancient Aliens" is a field. "Ancient Aliens" is a category of fringe mythologies and beliefs. I think the purpose of the exception for expert debunkers is scientists debunking pseudoscience. Like if someone claimed a bunch of crazy stuff about hydroxychlorquine, then someone who is an expert in medical pharmacology could debunk that with their blog. I don't think it's fair game to say Colavito's blog flies because he has studied a lot of other Ancient Alien cranks. The "real field" I guess would be if someone was an expert on classical Akkadian Sumerian mythology debunking the work by Zecharia Sitchin or someone like that. Andre 🚐 20:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Completely unsatisfying answer given the technical challenge of writing an article based on sources. Unless you can point to a source that actually exists which does what you say can be done, I think you're just making things up out of what you hope should exist rather than what really does exist. I helped draft WP:PARITY precisely because the people who are studying the real things like "classical Akkadian Sumerian mythology", as a rule, completely ignore these pop claims. There are two alternatives. One, we completely kick out Zecharia Sitchin from WP (not gonna happen) or, two, we accept the fact that the people who are debunking him are not going to be academic classicists. They don't have to be. Sitchin wasn't one either. jps ( talk) 12:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

But looking at the article, there are ancient history scholars debunking Sitchin. "biblical scholar Michael S. Heiser states he has found many inaccuracies in Sitchin's translations", among several others listed in that section. There are at least several other historian types with articles that are quoted criticizing Sitchin: Peter James, William Irwin Thompson, and Ronald H. Fritze. They may not be Akkadian/Sumerian experts but they are all multiple-published PhD with an expertise in ancient history and tenured positions. Now, I'm not saying Colavito shouldn't be used at all, but I do think there can be reliable sources, and I don't think he's automatically an expert on every pseudohistorical or pseudoscientific topic if that isn't his field. Andre 🚐 16:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The point is that the people you name in that article wrote one-off pieces. Colavito is much more prolific on these subjects. When you are dealing with certain fringe concepts, the depth to which the debunking happens is dependent on the inclination of the person who is doing the debunking. Colavito has the motivation and the time to deal with nuts and bolts. The scholars you are mentioning take a bird's-eye view and provide some nice context for the larger question, but when it comes to yesterday's big splash about aliens founding the lost city of Atlantis in my basement, guess who it is who is likely to be providing forthright analysis first? And guess who is likely to be bang-on in their criticism? jps ( talk) 19:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

But you just stated that serious classical scholars complete ignore the fringe claims, now you are moving the goalpost and saying Colavito's debunking will be better or arrive sooner. Doesn't what I just post refute your earlier statement that classical scholars, "as a rule, completely ignore these pop claims"? Andre 🚐 19:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Colavito is only a source in the Sitchin article, you will note, in that he has a book published about the situation. Try an article where his blog is a source and find me a classicist who has likewise commented. I'll wait. jps ( talk) 21:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think a lot of the issues we have with misinformation are because media are attributing expertise to people who are not experts, extending authority to levels of education and experience that are not merited. E.g. news articles calling Ocean Ramsey a "marine biologist" when she only has a bachelor's, has never done research let alone published an article, and her "work" has been called out as actively harmful by actual marine biologists. If you look at the talk history of COVID-origin-adjacent articles like Wuhan Institute of Virology you'll see pages of editors trying to introduce those BioEssays articles due to "genome engineering experts" who in reality are utterly unqualified lab leak proponents. And in the very article in question here (Jess Phoenix), there are references quoting her opinion as a "volcanologist", even though she only has a master's, AFAICT has no papers, and hasn't even been involved in research in a decade.

If we want to combat propagation of FRINGE junk we need to have a high standard for what we consider "expert", and this must be consistent across all SPS-exempted publications. Whether Colavito or anyone else who isn't a clear-cut case (e.g. research professor in relevant field) is an "expert" should therefore be determined by consensus. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree broadly. Jess Phoenix is an entertainment personality. Her scientific credibility is on the order of a Bill Nye. She's not entirely a kook, but she also isn't authoritative, she's primarily an entertainer presenting unscientific stuff like the Atlantis documentary. To the extent that we have someone saying she's unscientific, that should be included in her article to counter any whiff of FRINGE. That doesn't mean though that Colavito is an expert debunker whose self-published blog can be used. The article already cited real scientists in reliable pubs doubting her and her "research." Andre 🚐 21:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to go on a tangent, but surely Bill Nye has a far higher credibility than someone who is not entirely a kook. This is the danger of only looking at formal criteria instead of actual competence of the sources. To judge the competence (within a certain area of knowledge) of a source beyond formal criteria, of course, one has to be competent enough in that area of knowledge oneself. We actually have a page for that: WP:CIR. Colavito is one of those who seem to get the short end when the judgement is based only on formalities and CIR is ignored. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I just meant that Bill Nye and Jess Phoenix are both entertainers who have the equivalent of a master's degree and work experience in scientific fields. They are not scientific experts. Bill Nye is credible, but not as a scientist, just a "science guy.' Jess Phoenix isn't really an expert volcanologist, but neither is she an absolute amateur. She's a science, or pseudoscientific, entertainer. I agree that Bill Nye is generally pro-rationalism and not a pseudoscience pusher, and I love the guy of course, but he couldn't really go out and publish scientific work in his field of study. Andre 🚐 20:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Joe Rogan is recognized as being immersed in coronavirus misinformation and "coronavirus" is not a fringe topic (and there is an abundance of sourcing) so the comparison seems odd. Space aliens (ancient or not) and UFOs are however fringe central so WP:PARITY could be useful. This Calvito guy seems to have been reputably published and cited by other reputable sources, without any countervailing doubts in RS. I'm not getting what the big issue is? Alexbrn ( talk) 03:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

So you are saying that if a journalist is reliable, their personal websites are reliable sources, but if they are unreliable, they are not. That begs the question of how you know that they are reliable in the first place. Do you just assume they are reliable until they attract so much attention that rs call them out? Why do you think someone with a BA in journalism and anthropology with no academic papers has the competence to evaluate research by physics professors? TFD ( talk) 18:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that experts do not require degrees, although usually they have PhDs and academic posts. They do have to have written about the topic in expert publications, such as academic journals. You set the bar so low that any journalist becomes an expert, hence most opinion pieces in news media would be reliable sources, because they are mostly written by journalists. In fact anyone who writes an opinion piece is a journalist by definition. But RS says that opinion pieces are "rarely reliable."

Several years ago, news media reported that CERN had discovered particles travelling faster than the speed of light. This was obviously false, but science journalists had reported it so editors said it should be taken seriously.

TFD ( talk) 18:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source it is. You cannot use it to refer to living people as "pro-UFO loons" except as in-text attribution just as I might attribute to you the opinion that the article is "batshit crazy analysis" as evidence of a certain lack of competence. He has the qualifications that anyone might have in WP:FRINGE areas. After all, he is critiquing people who similarly lack credentials owing, mostly, to the fact that it's nearly impossible to get credentials in WP:FRINGE areas because they are fringe. That is what parity is all about. jps ( talk) 23:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Being a skeptic doesn't make someone an expert and it doesn't make them any more reliable. We don't have lower standards in the fringe space, we have higher ones. Also I was wrong, most of his books aren't published in the popular press... They're self published. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

most of his books. Are you sure about that? jps ( talk) 23:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If you include the ones he's the editor or translator of yeah, clearly. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I was counting the ones where he is listed as an author. jps ( talk) 23:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Then its just a lot of them not most, not sure if you're familiar but Lulu.com and CreateSpace are both self-publishing services. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you're familiar with University of Oklahoma Press and Prometheus Books besides. jps ( talk) 23:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Not familiar with Prometheus Books, its a minor publisher so not sure why I would be (although reviewing their publishing list I have read one of their books). I see only one book published by the University of Oklahoma Press and I'm not seeing *any* contributions to academic journals. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

There are no academic journals dedicated to debunking WP:FRINGE claims that Colavito dismantles. That's rather the point of WP:PARITY. jps ( talk) 23:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see where in WP:PARITY it says you can have a lower standard for sources if they're debunking claims, we clearly are still bound by WP:RS even if we don't need to use academic sources, see "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed... Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 00:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As I have said a few times, if you have reason to suspect Colavito is in someway unreliable for describing the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of these topics which he is debunking, go right ahead and make the case. I think he has established a name for himself as an expert skeptic and debunker as identified by other experts in the field. You can look through all the criticism of his work and you will find essentially praise from the mainstream and criticism from the WP:FRINGE which is exactly the standard by which we might identify who is able to do effective criticism of the fringe. That you quote the guideline that basically argues that work like this should be used at Wikipedia and then argue that it actually excludes such work is pretty remarkable to me. jps ( talk) 00:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

He's a self-published non-expert, you must agree thats highly compelling or you wouldn't have nuked the bib on his page immediately after I pointed that out [11] Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I nuked the bibliography because I think bibliographies are insipid and, y'know, WP:RESUME. But if you think it is worth including, you can put it back. jps ( talk) 01:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Your nuke left untouched unsourced contentious information on a BLP, was that accidental or by design? You've repeatedly cited WP:CRYBLP but there actually are BLP issues here and WP:CRYCRYBLP doesn't change that. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to change the subject, I guess we can have this conversation. What do you find so contentious in Colavito's article? You seemed to be upset that we cite an opinion piece in the Washington Post to show that he was cited in the Washington Post. Do you really think that is contentious? jps ( talk) 01:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple entirely unsourced sentences... Its a WP:BLP. Whats hard to understand here? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you really so pedantic as to think that every sentence needs a citation at the end? It's not good style to repeat footnotes over and over again. You can find the citations for all the points in the article after the points are made. That there is a period put down does not mean the sentence is "unsourced". jps ( talk) 01:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The BLPvio looks like it was the Jess Phoenix article. [12] Andre 🚐 01:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Opinion pieces wherever they are published are not reliable sources unless written by experts. I disagree with you incidentally that anyone with a BA is an expert. TFD ( talk) 03:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I never said "anyone with a BA is an expert". This is such a misreading of my position, it almost seems like a willful misunderstanding. jps ( talk) 12:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You can't use a blog, even one by a recognized expert, to cite information about living people. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I reverted the re-addition of the reference to Jess Phoenix (and removed another blog while I was at it). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Meh. There is an active discussion about the tension between WP:BLPSPS and WP:COAT at WP:BLPN. That said, the situation is pretty fine right now at Jess Phoenix. jps ( talk) 23:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical of accepting anyone as an expert in "debunking" across all fields. Besides, I'm sure there are many actual experts in aerospace engineering and air situational awareness. Sennalen ( talk) 23:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, who said "across all fields"? jps ( talk) 00:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You did, you said "Jason Colavito is an expert skeptical debunker." without qualification. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 00:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I stand by that considering that I haven't seen him debunk something that wasn't in his expertise. He sticks to the fields he knows. jps ( talk) 00:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of how great he is, you understand he's not an outlet, he's just a guy with a website. Andre 🚐 00:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia isn't an RS, but it looks like he knows anthropology, and that's where his expertise lies. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, if we gave his article any of this weather eye we're giving others, we'd remove huge parts of it because there's no secondary sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried, was reverted by jps/ජපස [13] with the WILD edit summary "Rv. This user has some weird sort of vendetta. This is essentially WP:DE" Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 00:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Is that what you were trying to do? Because it looks like you removed some secondary sources to me. jps ( talk) 01:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Dude... It was mostly unsourced and the sources that were there were being used for SYNTH... For example "His work has been cited in The Washington Post" sourced to the WaPo opinion piece which cited it. Thats both misleading and undue. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you now saying that being cited in an opinion piece in the Washington Post doesn't count as being cited in the Washington Post? jps ( talk) 01:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not a secondary source, so there's no weight and it's not noteworthy. That's generally my understanding anyway. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 01:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no particular reason to include every single time someone is mentioned everywhere in their article. I don't see this as a WP:NPOV issue at all, so WP:UNDUE WEIGHT seems a bit of a stretch here. But I have no particular objection to making an article succinct and focused rather than sprawling and WP:RESUME-like. jps ( talk) 02:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@ Jps: Being cited in a piece of journalism means that the journalist/s and their organization are putting some level of trust in the source. Being cited in an opinion piece means absolutely nothing. Are you just completely going to ignore the unsourced claims? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What unsourced claims? Also, I'm fascinated by your attempts to read into the plain text of the article. I guess by implication, you think that an opinion piece is less than straight journalism. Fair. But an argument that Colavito was a source for a straight journalism piece is not even close to what is actually written in the text. jps ( talk) 01:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

These unsourced claims [14]. Of course an opinion piece is less than straight journalism. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Those claims aren't "unsourced". They contain the sources in the sentences themselves. And you missed my point about what you are reading into with respect to the article text. jps ( talk) 01:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's pretty absurd to claim that a program that someone appeared on is a material that is "likely to be challenged". It's only "likely to be challenged" because of your wikidragoning. Go ahead and ask around if anyone thinks that material is particularly "challenging". ::eyeroll:: jps ( talk) 01:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't even say what season or episode this occurred in, how does one satisfy WP:V? Wikidragoning ( WP:NPA) or not it *was* challenged therefore it needs an inline citation. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 02:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that the reference isn't up to your exacting standards. If you think WP:Wikidragon is a personal attack, I don't know what to say here. WP:SOFIXIT? jps ( talk) 02:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't call someone who doesn't self identify as a Wikidragon a Wikidragon or accuse them of wikidragoning, there was nothing humorous about the way you used it. Its not my standard its policy, if you have an issue with WP:BLP this is not the venue. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 02:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry your feelings were hurt. I think this noticeboard is a perfectly fine venue for discussion of the issue I outlined. jps ( talk) 02:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

A "guy with a website" is more-or-less the equivalent to the nonsensical baloney he is taking down with his website. That's the entire point. jps ( talk) 00:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending fringe sources, but this guy seems to have made a cottage industry about being a fringe-debunker which doesn't inherently make him reliable. He might (barely?) be notable but that is a different question. Andre 🚐 00:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is judged by his demonstrated expertise and the plaudits he has received from other mainstream sources for using that expertise in service of debunking. The debunking is just what we report in Wikipedia. That's all. jps ( talk) 00:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Inasmuch as he's had bylines in New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc., we could report it, but it wouldn't be a reliable source to use his personal website. Andre 🚐 01:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes it would. We are talking about a published expert in various subjects which he is commenting on from his website. That's exactly what WP:PARITY is for. jps ( talk) 01:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Self published BA in anthropology. That's hardly a self published expert. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 01:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if, for the sake of argument, he is a self-published expert, that PARITY policy says: material from reliable websites ... that are not peer reviewed ...for any viewpoint..., only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory. Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics... the lack of peer-reviewed criticism... should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science... Sorry to quote extensive text, but it seems not to quite be so extensive as to allow personal blog posts? Andre 🚐 01:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course it allows personal blog posts. The entire point of this is that if in Wikipedia there are certain WP:FRINGE claims whose provenance is the equivalent of some proponent shooting their mouth off, there is no problem with quoting someone who explains what might be wrong with that argument. To boot, the uses of Colavito in these contexts was in a WP:ITA fashion. So we're essentially saying, as Wikipedia, that here is a response from a source. It's a response that the source said, but, per WP:PARITY, this is basically in response to an argument that was argued in a similar venue. jps ( talk) 01:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this really the policy? Shouldn't it be that the sources still have to be reliable, they just don't need to be peer-reviewed to a scientific standard? I don't see anywhere it says personal blog posts should be used, whether fringe, or debunking-fringe. Andre 🚐 01:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Parity means you look at the venue and compare the sources for the fringe theory to those that are independent of it and commenting upon it. We wouldn't normally accept a personal blog post to explain WP:MAINSTREAM ideas because they are published in mainstream outlets. In the case of fringe theories, they are typically unpublished say-so or published in unreliable outlets. To the extent that we use such sources to explain fringe theories we use a parity of sources for critique as well. The alternative is to remove the idea completely. That's a valid approach as well. But as long as you admit self-attested quotes and arguments to explain a fringe theory, WP:PARITY says the commentary by an expert in an interview, blog, or shouted at a conference is basically the equivalent sourcing standard. jps ( talk) 01:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't allow you to do this BLP vio edit: [15] Andre 🚐 01:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it does. Otherwise you would end up with WP:COATracks. See the discussion referenced above. In any case, I'm fine with the current version of that article. Are you? jps ( talk) 01:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources." When a policy (WP:BLP) conflicts with an essay (WP:COAT) there isn't really a question of which wins out (just to be clear I don't actually think theres a contradiction IRL). Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS is in tension with WP:COAT. There is a whole discussion about it at WP:BLPN. I'm find with taking out all WP:FRIND-noncompliant sources which would solve the problem. But I don't know that we have consensus on that. Also, I am appalled that you think it is okay for a BLP to act as a WP:COATrack just so that we don't include a self-published source in it. That's a pretty shitty editorial philosophy, if you ask me. jps ( talk) 01:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There's no tension. BLPSPS takes precedence in this situation and probably all situations. COAT is about thinly sourced articles that are just jumping-off points to other stuff. Jess Phoenix is notable. Andre 🚐 01:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Jess Phoenix's fringe beliefs about Atlantis are WP:FRINGE. But, again, I am happy with the current state of the article. Are you? jps ( talk) 01:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying her beliefs are good or bad, she's a living person so you need to abide by BLPSPS. The article at present I guess is fine. But you must take care to follow BLP, you don't get to put anything on a BLP just because they might have fringe beliefs. Andre 🚐 01:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)]

I disagree categorically in the context of WP:FRINGE. I have seen to many BLPs be used as coatracks for fringe theories. Either these ideas are properly contextualized or they are removed outright. They don't get to sit in a BLP as though they have never been challenged just because we don't like the way a third-party has challenged them. As I see it, there are two editorially responsible alternatives. Either the fringe material is excised for being unnoticed or it is contextualized. That we might arrive at situations where this is impossible is rather the point that BLP is not the sacred cow of all things WP. jps ( talk) 01:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

But in this case it wasn't a fringe theory, it was critical statements attacking the person's credibility and sourced to a personal blog. Andre 🚐 01:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It was in reference to Atlantis fringe theories, absolutely. jps ( talk) 02:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Jess Phoenix is a notable entertainment personality and amateur political candidate. There are already statements in the article from her critics and critical of her. The statement was removed correctly due to being sourced to a personal blog per BLPSPS. Being a reference to fringe theories doesn't make it OK. Andre 🚐 02:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a position I cannot get behind. If someone is criticised for a fringe position, we can't just excise it and let their fringe position be promoted on WP. jps ( talk) 02:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You can include it if the source is reliable. There should be plenty of reliable sources criticizing her and her show that are not from self-published blogs. The PARITY doesn't apply anyhow - parity implies a binary, and the "fringe source" you are claiming parity to, is not another self-publish blog or equivalent, even if that were ever allowed (I don't think it is). PARITY speaks about allowing less scientific, not peer reviewed, or some self-published books, to counter others of that same ilk. None applies in this case. The article is not a COATRACK. It's a legit article, not a thinly sourced jumping-off point for fringe views about Atlantis. Andre 🚐 02:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The article by virtue of its subject matter has the potential to be a thinly sourced jumping-off point for fringe views about Atlantis if it started quoting her. It doesn't right now. But if it did, that's where WP:PARITY would normally kick in and where WP:BLPSPS would prevent it from doing so. All this is hypothetical, in any case, because, as I've emphasized before, I'm fine with the current state of the article. jps ( talk) 02:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if her claims were from unreliable self-published blogs, they should be removed from the article. Andre 🚐 02:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As I think I've been saying, the problem is that there are people who will argue that WP:BLPSPS makes an exception when the blogs are written by the subject of the article and everyone agrees that she has the opinions that are being sourced to it. jps ( talk) 12:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

COAT is a WP:ESSAY, BLPSPS is WP:POLICY. Again, there is no tension but if there was BLPSPS would either have to prevail or be modified. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm arguing that there is a tension and, yes, BLPSPS might need to be modified. I've made the point pretty clearly over at WP:BLPN. jps ( talk) 01:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus at WP:BLPN appears to be a rejection of your point. What am I missing? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. I rather like the last comment by Zaereth. I also think that more than a few people agreed that I had a point. jps ( talk) 01:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out you don't get a blank check to use self-published blogs to attack people just because they've been associated with fringe theories. You could use that PARITY exception to attack a specific fringe theory that was itself published in a less scientific source. It doesn't mean you can just use a blog on someone's biographical article to say their theories were bad, and it definitely isn't parity that Jess Phoenix's material in some cases was actually published in mainstream sources. It wouldn't be usable to cite scientific claims, but how is it parity to say the Discovery or Science TV channel has parity to a self-published blog? Andre 🚐 01:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure. And I'm pointing out that you don't get a blank check to promote fringe theories just because the article is a WP:BLP. If a fringe theory proponent is shown as a talking head on the Discovery Channel, we could absolutely use the blog of some expert who criticized that segment as a WP:PARITY source. jps ( talk) 01:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't even edit the article let alone promote a fringe theory Andre 🚐 01:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I never said you did. I'm just pointing out that some of your positions could easily have that outcome and have been used by others hoping to effect such an outcome. jps ( talk) 01:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Especially Hypothetically, if her claims were from unreliable self-published blogs, they should be removed from the article, which implies that when someone spreads FRINGE propaganda in a reliable source, we can help spreading that fringe propaganda without contextualizing it.

We had this discussion several times recently, with the result that climate change deniers and creationists do not get to spout off nonsense in their Wikipedia articles uncontextualized (regardless of the reliability of the source that reported the nonsense), which would violate WP:FRINGE, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. See for example Talk:Benny Peiser. Of course, this also applies to Atlantis proponents. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

But that's not what's going on. We're talking about a self-published blog saying that the documentary is bad and poorly produced, in no way is it rebutting a claim, nor are any claims made. Andre 🚐 06:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That is one of the themes of this thread. Another theme is what to do if there is no such blog or if the blog is not to be used. In such cases, the fringe material has to be deleted. Hypothetically, if her claims were from unreliable self-published blogs, they should be removed from the article seems to say it should only be deleted in some cases. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If fringe material can't be sensibly contextualized it's omitted per NPOV/GEVAL. There's no "except in biographies" exemption - in fact NPOV is explicitly non-negotiable (uniquely among our policies). Alexbrn ( talk) 07:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The blogs, and the fringe material, should both be deleted. However just writing that someone produced a documentary on a topic isn't giving credence to fringe material if it's cited to a reliable source. Andre 🚐 07:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It depends on how that's done. Even calling something a documentary when it is a film that seeks to propagandize a fringe claim ( What the Bleep Do We Know comes to mind) can lend credence to an idea. jps ( talk) 12:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that a BA in anthropology is a start, but it's not sufficient on its own. The WP:SPS requirements are a lot more stringent than people realize. He needs to be an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications - bolded like that in the policy itself. Unless I'm misunderstanding something he fails the bolded part; he may have a degree in anthropology, but he has no RS publications that can reasonably be called relevant to the subject at hand. And even beyond that he obviously can't be used for statements about living third parties, which WP:SPS strictly bans under all circumstances. I don't think WP:PARITY can overcome this - if you're worried that removing him may leave fringe statements unopposed, I would just remove those fringe statements, since if he's the only person who has commented on them it's unlikely they're notable or due anyway. We're not required to include every time some kook is interviewed on the Discovery Channel. -- Aquillion ( talk) 13:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

He does not fail the bolded part. He has published well-regarded books from reputable publishing houses about the topics in question. jps ( talk) 13:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Where and which? I'm going by what you have presented in defense of using him as a source, above, which is just that he has a BA in anthropology. That alone is obviously insufficient. -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You didn't do your due diligence. I pointed out which publishing houses he has published with in this very discussion. WP:RTA, please. jps ( talk) 17:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Here you go, Aquillion: Colavito has written books published by McFarland, Prometheus Books, and the University of Oklahoma Press; he has written articles published by The New Republic, Salon, and Slate. That is much more than "just [having] a BA in anthropology," and IMO establishes him as an established subject-matter expert who has written material published by reliable, independent publications. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Note that [16] removed material sources to The New Republic's "Soapbox" section. The design company Pentagram says "As part of the redesign, TNR launched four new editorial verticals that each feature a specialized focus and in-depth reporting: The Soapbox, on politics; Apocalypse Soon, on climate change; Sold Short, on inequality; and Critical Mass, on culture." [17] TNR calls it their "politics vertical". [18] There's no indication that's an opinion sections although Horse Eye's Back continues to claim it's opinion or editorial. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"TNR launched four new editorial verticals" Thats not an indication, its a source (which you provided and stand by) stating in black and white that its editorial. Now an indication would be for instance that its named Soapbox. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That’s original research and only your opinion. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You provided the source and pulled the quote, not me. If theres any OR here you've also done it (to be clear, there isn't). Thats not my opinion its Pentagram's which is primary but should be accurate in context. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

So, the New Republic piece should be usable as an WP:RSOPINION attributed, it is not the same as a self-published personal blog post. Andre 🚐 17:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The second half doesn't work for WP:RSOPINION, "He joined up with Puthoff and Team Space Ghost at their new entertainment company" is a statement of fact about a living person not an opinion I agree that the editorial can be used with attribution, just not in the way it was. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

TNR is reliable enough that that should be usable IMHO. Andre 🚐 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's obviously an opinion editorial, but I would consider it to have WP:PARITY enough to still cite it for the opinion that was removed from Luis Elizondo. Sennalen ( talk) 17:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree with this. Andre 🚐 17:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Not an oped. [19] They also have "Apocalypse Soon, our vertical dedicated to climate change, science, and the environment." See this on "Sold Short" [20] which clearly says "Anything you don’t want? Anything best described as an op-ed." Doug Weller talk 19:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Either way, I agree the New Republic piece should be used, so disagree with Horse Eye on diff 41. Andre 🚐 19:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that the quote by Colavito significantly improves the article: it has the appearance of being tacked on merely to amplify Colavito and throw in digs at Eliozndo. Who are Puthoff and "Team Space Ghost" (an apparently dismissive epithet that appears nowhere but Colavito's writing)? Neither Puthoff nor ghosts are mentioned anywhere else in Elizondo's Wiki article, so it's confusing. And giving Colavito top billing for the criticism section seems unwarranted (and let's be clear, it is a opinionated article with loaded language, despite what TNR submission guidelines state: does anyone honestly think phrases like "fading rock star Tom Delonge" or "she gushed over them" or "Puthoff obsessed over" are objective assertions of fact?) The article might have use in other UFO related articles, or might be presented differently in Elizondo's. WP:NPOV doesn't mean that every reliable source must get included, just that significant views are presented in proportion to their prominence. Will Colavito's "wondering why" be relevant a year from now, or 10? The mere fact that Colavito writes on a topic, or that Wikipedians like his point of view, does not mean he must br cited or name-dropped in every topic he writes about. --Animalparty! ( talk) 01:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Generally concur with this Andre 🚐 02:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

He's definitely an expert in how to not write an about page if you want to look credible: Colavito gives exceptional podcast interviews. His blog has had 100,000 monthly readers and his social media posts regularly reach 10,000-30,000 impressions. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 20:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Joe Rogan's podcasts have had 2 billion views. TFD ( talk) 03:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This seems like two wrongs make a right. There should not be an article about the subject because he is not notable. Because he is not notable, rs don't exist to write a balanced article. So some editors respond with asking that an unreliable source be used to provide a balanced article. The solution to non-rs sources in articles is not to balance them with other non-rs articles, but to remove all non-rs sources. TFD ( talk) 03:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

So far as I can see, no one has tried to find out how he is received in peer reviewed journals. His book on the Mound Builder Myth has a positive review in the Journal of Southern History [21], as does The Western Historical Quarterly [22]

The International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts#Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts reviews The Science of Horror, the Horror of Science Review Essay: The Science of Horror, the Horror of Science Knowing Fear: Science, Knowledge and the Development of the Horror Genre by Jason Colavito Review by: D. Harlan Wilson Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, Vol. 20, No. 1 (75) (2009), pp. 109-116 in a long review concluding "Academia aside, this is among the finest introductions to the horror genre I have read."

Science Fiction Studies gives him a positive review of "The Cult of Alien Gods:H.P. Lovecraft and Extraterrestrial Pop Culture" Wilson, D. Harlan. Review of Review Essay: The Science of Horror, the Horror of Science, by Jason Colavito. Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts 20, no. 1 (75) (2009): 109–16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24352317.

Same journal, another positive review of ""A Hideous Bit of Morbidity": An Anthology of Horror Criticism from the Enlightenment to World War" concluding "I recommend "A Hideous Bit of Morbidity" to those interested in the history and development of the horror genre and I hope that a companion volume covering the more recent era will be forth" Ransom, Amy J. Review of Delightful Horrors, by Jason Colavito. Science Fiction Studies 37, no. 1 (2010): 115–17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40649592. Doug Weller talk 07:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Also the inclusion of an article by him in Society for American Archaeology's Archaeological Record. [23] - anyone interested in fraudulent archaeology might enjoy the whole issue. Doug Weller talk 07:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this is all good stuff and points to Colavito having some expertise and reliability. I hadn't seen any of this before. However, I do think that this still has an application which is somewhat narrow as it allow Colavito's self-published blog posts to be used. For example, the mound builder stuff is a very specific time and place in history. Same thing for the Lovecraft and scifi/horror stuff. Those don't give us broad license for Colavito to be an expert in everything pseudoscientific from Atlantis to ancient Roman stuff. They happen to all be very different fields and areas. I still subscribe to a narrow interpretation of how self-published blog posts can be used. This evidence means that we could probably use Colavito's self-published work for debunking in these specific areas, not that he's an expert on every topic. Andre 🚐 16:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Especially UFOs, which veer so far from any semblance of anthropology or archaeology. Seems a bit like asking your doctor how solar panels work. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 16:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, especially as on that subject Colavito presents himself not only as an expert on the pseudoscience but also as an expert on advanced military and aerospace technology which he just isn't. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I might actually consider Colavito to have sufficient expertise on some of the ancient alien stuff, like Erich von Daniken, since he's written about that and how it came from Lovecraft etc. But that has very little bearing on the present-day UFO people and the current stuff playing out in Congress and the Pentagon. I don't think we can use Colavito's self-published posts to attack the ex-military modern UFO people or senator Gillibrand etc. Andre 🚐 16:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah I didn't even mention the complete lack of expertise when it comes to American government, politics, and policy because we can't use SPS for statements about living people even if the author is an expert. For hecks sake he's trying to do original interpretation of legislation without any qualification to do so and it shows, he does not do a competent job. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I would respectfully ask that you tread a bit lightly. While Mr. Colavito's qualifications and expertise (or lack thereof) are obviously fair game, saying that a living person "does not do a competent job" at something inches uncomfortably close to a WP:BLP violation for me. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 17:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

We are clearly allowed to evaluate the competence of authors to write about a particular subject. We're actually required to do so in the case of SPS, no? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I would not phrase it in terms of "competence," as that is an inherently subjective measure that is beyond the purview of Wikipedia, as I see it. I would rather say "reliability," which, for a purported subject matter expert, is shown when their work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. As ever, reasonable minds may differ, and if I am the only one who feels this way, you can safely ignore me. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 17:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Calling a SPS "reliable" appears to have the exact same BLP impact as calling them "competent." Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree, as the former is (at least to me) an objective measure of publishing status, while the latter (as phrased above) is a judgment on inherent ability or skill. But I have said my piece; I will trouble you no more. Dumuzid ( talk) 17:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think either is an objective standard, if it was nobody would disagree about whether a source met it or not. It appears to be a highly subjective standard hence the creation of a whole noticeboard on which people form consensuses based on their subjective interpretations of the source, policy, guideline, and precedent. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not speaking about Colavito but one of the physicists who has come up in discussions related to the report. I don't want to see articles about non-notable people suddenly filled with criticism. TFD ( talk) 20:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

UFOs definitely are in Colavito's expertise as there is considerable overlap between the Lovecraftian ancient aliens stuff/pseudohistory and the beliefs of the UFO cultists of today. In fact, there are entire chapters in his book on the subject. It's particularly rich that certain commentators here are criticizing his expertise in these areas assuming, I imagine, that they understand the UFO genre better than he does! UFOs are part of anthropology, sorry to say. They are much more relevant to anthropology than they are to my field, in fact. jps ( talk) 19:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the current UFO frenzy is a mixed bag... Its everything from the classic Ancient Aliens guys who think that we're being visited by homies who built the pyramids to really solid national security guys who are worried about very real UFOs (almost certainly of terrestrial origin) around nuclear sites. Colavito paints almost all of that spectrum with his brush, his views do not reflect the mainstream they reflect a skeptical perspective. Also just to be clear there are real anthropologists who publish on UFO culture/history/cults and overlaps with real existing technology, we don't need an amateur anthropologist for that. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

really solid national security guys incorrect. As Colavito and others have shown, most of the people who have been marketed this way (even in otherwise reputable outfits like the New York Times) are bit players and either suffering from delusions of grandeur or just plain delusion. The propaganda that has been steadily drumming out of here is otherwise, but is simply isn't the case. That the Senate Committee was taken in by some pretty amateurish argumentation is worth noting for what it is. The "mainstream" perspective here is the one that experts hold to and, let me tell you, the experts in national security are snickering in private. They aren't commenting at all because it's that ridiculous. That's why Colavito is valuable as a source. Also, there is no way to determine what makes a "real" versus "amateur" anthropologist when it comes to UFO culture. You're trying out an impeachment that is falling flat. jps ( talk) 19:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that UFO claims are legit. My personal opinion is that it's mostly bunk. However, if the Senate is having committees and reliable sources are writing about it, Colavito's blog isn't an acceptable use of WP:PARITY. There are surely reliable sources writing debunking pieces that we could cite. Andre 🚐 19:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This reads like someone who hasn't been following this story is making up what they think is happening because they're impressed by Senate Committees. Colavito is way better informed than you are on this. Rather ironically. jps ( talk) 20:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say what I thought was happening? Senate committees are de facto notable if reliable sources write about their activities. I am not claiming to be more or less informed than Colavito, I am not claiming any amount of information. I am merely objecting to using a self-published blog as a source. Andre 🚐 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Because using a self-published blog is so double-plus ungood that you might as well not say anything at all. jps ( talk) 21:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The "its almost certainly drones" side of the current UFO frenzy is not "bit players and either suffering from delusions of grandeur or just plain delusion" its literally the mainstream. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you point me to some evidence for this assertion? That's not meant to be a challenge; I am honestly a bit at sea in trying to identify "mainstream" here. Dumuzid ( talk) 19:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The mainstream here is WSJ, NYT, etc who cover them as most likely drones but entertain the notion that aliens might also exist, ජපස isn't wrong that some of the people quoted on the "but it could be aliens" are best described as cultists but to make that out to be the entire field is I think an overreach. A good example of a writer who does similar work (from a similarly skeptical point of view) to Colavito but from the aerospace/national security side would by Tyler Rogoway at The War Zone (magazine), although of course it isn't apples to apples because as far as I know Rogoway doesn't have a personal blog. This piece entitled "Adversary Drones Are Spying On The U.S. And The Pentagon Acts Like They’re UFOs" [24] is a good example. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's one example: [25] [26] [27] [28] ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that's fairly compelling for a "mainstream" take on the 2019 incident, but I confess, I still don't know how far out we can extrapolate that. Does it really tell us much about sightings in 2004, for instance? I am just not sure. I don't think I could identify a "mainstream" as to the phenomenon writ large, but only as to specified incidents. As ever, reasonable minds may differ, even when considering unreasonable subjects. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 20:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This, linked to by HEB, and [29] add some more broad context. They're far from the only sources saying the same thing, but they're one I happen to be familiar with, and The War Zone is often cited in other RS. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

These are not particularly good takes. First of all, their experience with the null hypothesis seems non-existent. I'm not sure why that is (though I have a hunch), but there are far better evaluators of these proposals than thedrive.com. Colavito makes excellent points that these fellas have not dealt with. jps ( talk) 21:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly why we have pags dealing with sourcing, so an author someone likes isn't treated as an authority. The War Zone is an established source that is frequently cited by other RS. That's exactly the type of source we look for. The pags are in place to keep people from using a writer they like, especially when self publishing. This is basically fringe, "Sure that source has editorial control, fact checking, a good reputation, and is cited by other sources, but look what this guy wrote on his blog." ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the author of that piece missed some pretty big points in his work that Colavito identifies fairly clearly. It's not surprising. The author hasn't really dealt with previous stories of this sort and the associated hype (and yes, there was hype) that have accompanied them. I'm not saying it's a bad source, but the irony here is that the person is not an expert on the UFO phenomenon. He is convinced there is a there there, but his evidence for such suffers from the same critiques that UFO evidence has always suffered from. This is Colavito's main contribution to the conversation and is why he is a good source. He just has an expertise that outshines the source you favor. jps ( talk) 23:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming you haven't read the sources I gave, where multiple reporters multiple sensor systems detected what was seen. I guess the self published source you're fond of may believe there was nothing in that particular series of incidents, but that's a fringe view. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Let me just put in a brief word here for the idea that I think everyone is painting with a bit too broad of a brush. I will confess, I am a fan of Mr. Colavito's work, but, jps, where there is significant overlap with modern military technology, I am not sure he is the best source to use. That said, if you ask me, the "it's drones" theory doesn't do a whole lot to explain, say, the Kenneth Arnold UFO sighting. As far as I am concerned, both can be used in various ways for various purposes--though it will sometimes make sense to prefer one over the other. Just an opinion from a guy who listened to Art Bell way too much. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 23:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

When someone says that source A is better than source B and you believe source B is better than source A, of course you should assume that person has not read source B. Otherwise they would agree with you, right? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

From one of the sources linked, This Tuesday, more than a year after the story broke, the Department of Defense and Navy further clarified that the objects in these incidents were in fact drones in the aforementioned House of Representatives Intelligence, Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation Subcommittee hearing. But yeah, maybe it was actually nothing at all, someone said it on their blog, after all. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 09:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

From one of the sources linked Let me underline this again for you, the Nimitz encounter with the Tic Tac proved that exotic technology that is widely thought of as the domain of science fiction actually exists. It is real. It isn't the result of altered perception, someone's lucid dream, a stray weather balloon, or swamp gas. Someone or something has crossed the technological Rubicon and has obtained what some would call the Holy Grail of aerospace engineering. But, yeah, totally not sensationalizing anything. ::Eyeroll. jps ( talk) 11:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

What is almost certainly drones? And even so, who exactly is saying "UAPs are almost certainly drones" in a serious fashion while also arguing that they should be spending money investigating the situation in the ludicrous way the Senate Committee has proposed? That's the problem. There isn't even a consistent etiology to discuss here. The "hype", as it were, is about a claimed "pattern" that hasn't even really been established. No... this is a story of a few Bigelow-funded ex-military types who are excited by fame, their desire to believe, or perhaps Bigelow's millions. jps ( talk) 20:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if we take hardcore skepticism as mainstream Colavito just doesn't stack up well as an expert, the British version of him is a man called David Clarke (journalist) and they have really similar blogs/promotional websites [30]. The difference is that Clarke has a PhD, was a real journalist, and is now is a professor. Thats the sort of person I'd say is an expert in this context. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Not even close. Clarke is a credulous fence-sitter who doesn't even know the provenance of most of the stories he's waxing eloquent about. He thinks that there is "confusion" over Roswell, for pete's sake. If this is your counter to Colvaito, that is nearly a WP:PROFRINGE push. jps ( talk) 21:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What does "credulous fence-sitter" even mean in this context? I just don't see a world where Colavito is an expert and Clarke isn't... Now it may be that neither are, but for heavens sake one is an amateur and one has a PhD. They share the same skeptical POV, they share the same general subject matter, they even share part of their undergrad (archeology), they've both been published although it seems that Clarke has been much more widely published. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This is what happens when users naively think anyone can determine the reliability of any source with simple computations: multiply number of PhDs with number of publications, add citations from others, and you get a number - this number is great than that number, therefore this source is more reliable than that source. It simply does not work that way. WP:CIR, WP:CIR, WP:CIR. You need to have some familiarity with the subject to judge something like that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This 100%. It is not a logical construct. Some people are actually considered experts and others are not. Its a multi-faceted determination that must be agreed upon by many wikipedia editors, preferably some of those with subject-matter expertise. By way of example: Dr. Oz has been widely quoted about homeopathy and dietary supplements and has published lots of books about these things. He has an MD. These things do not make him an expert. Context matters. Scholarly consensus matters. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 13:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Andre 🚐 15:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed thats its evaluated on a case by case basis. Thats exactly what we're doing here, we're not trying to see which is more reliable we're trying to determine if either of their personal blogs are reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Excellent example Shibbolethink - Thank you for bringing up Oz - that brings such clarity to this rambling discussion. Competence matters. Sgerbic ( talk) 20:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not claiming any understanding of UFOs. My concern is self-published blog posts being used on BLP as they were on Jess Phoenix, not to debunk any pseudoscience but just to trash their work as bad. Andre 🚐 19:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Jess Phoenix's work on Atlantis is bad. That's hardly controversial. jps ( talk) 19:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's really not appropriate to have text that says it's "badly written" and "poorly produced" cited to Colavito's blog. He's not an expert on screenwriting and cinematography. It's entirely subjective, he is not debunking it. I haven't seen the work and I have no opinion. My concern is about the sourcing used for the statement and its weight. Andre 🚐 19:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a bad review. We include those in Wikipedia all the time. I know that WP:BLP is like a sacred space, but that's really all we're talking about here: a bad review. It's not a character assassination. jps ( talk) 20:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

As I've said several times, my concern is about it being a self-published blog, not any criticism being included. There is criticism which may be included from reliable sources. Andre 🚐 20:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I like how it has become fucking gospel that publishing matters determine reliability. What a ruse! I don't much mind one way or another, but to argue that an attributed opinion should only count if it is done in a third-party publication is borderline anal retentive. jps ( talk) 21:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact that he's a skeptic, or even an expert in the field, has nothing to do with his subjective review of the quality of production or writing. That is the job of film critics. If the production quality and writing was great, would that change anything about the nature of the content? Of course not. Therefore, his "expertise" as befits using a SPS in this way, does not apply. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems backwards to me to argue that we include film critics because they are experts. No, we include film critics because they have something to say that is useful for the reader. jps ( talk) 22:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Right. Being a film critic is what makes it useful to the reader. A reader doesn't care what Richard Dawkins, as a noted atheist, thinks of the font used in his King James Bible. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 22:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's all about context. I'm not sure what article this font criticism is happening in, but it isn't difficult to imagine why such a critique might end up included. All this is to say that this is properly an editorial decision. It isn't one that makes sense to be strident over as though it was the most important rule in the rulebook. jps ( talk) 22:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Because their opinions are notable! Because they are published by others, as in RSOPINION. Doesn't mean they are experts... There are lots of people who have opinions that are notable for all the wrong reasons. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 13:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Andre 🚐 16:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I hope everyone is aware that this is about 2022 United States Congress hearings on UFOs Doug Weller talk 10:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it? Reading it looked like an RSN discussion about jasoncolavito.com.

Honestly think a lot of this is overblown. He's notable enough for his own article, he's widely recognized as an expert in UFO/ancient aliens skepticism and he's prolific in his writing.

Because it's a blog, we should always attribute his words, but in articles related to UFOs and ancient aliens, he's a perfectly fine author to cite, per our parity rules.

 

I'm seeing a lot of arguments, especially regarding UFOs, about matters that are very clearly and simply covered by existing policies and guidelines (or even the five pillars). If people don't want to do things that way, they should be arguing for a change in policy, instead of arguing that we ignore those policies every time following them would introduce facts that might not reflect well on ufologists. Happy ( Slap me) 12:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@ HappyMcSlappy that’s why I posted it but failed to give the link. I did think some would be aware of it. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Ufology

Ufology#Flight_characteristics seems like WP:SYNTHESIS to me, but as an example of Knuth and others pushing the notion of fantasically advanced UFO technology which can only be explained by aliens, I would think Colavito could be used here. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I removed ~12K B of sensationalism sourced to absolutely dreadful sources. Likely will turn some heads. jps ( talk) 01:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ancient fossil of an article sourced entirely to Theosophist works, completely credulous. Given that it has hardly been edited since it was written over a decade ago, maybe it's not notable? Anyway, could use going over with a hatchet. Mangoe ( talk) 03:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

See also Causeless cause, Triple manifestation, Divine plane, Adi (metaphysical plane), and Monadic plane. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Source doesn't check out. Proposed for deletion [31] as mental plane doesn't mention it and can't find any WP:RS. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Also submitted to afd [32] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Some weird stuff going on at the Arupa article. I agree that it should also be submitted for deletion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Adi (metaphysical plane) [33] now at afd. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Users interested in these articles might want to take a look at Plane_(esotericism) [34] in which dchmelik has now added other names for the planes. Looks like original research to me. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep on-topic (heading): mental projection (discuss the others in own areas/sections) is being discussed on its own or other areas for improvement or redirection/deletion. Simply 1800s translations from Hinduism Theosophy/ Neo-Theosophy which originally popularized the entire sets of ideas of seven planes. All translations were on Wikipedia 15+ years in Theosophy & Rosicrucianism & New Age articles/infoboxes. Of course, there aren't seven planes (only one, not the point) but hundreds/thousands sources often don't use English so this makes easier for people to find.-- dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍( talk 16:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edits contain original research, see WP:OR. All content must be well sourced on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep on-topic (heading): mental projection (discuss the others in own areas/sections). It's not even research: common topic terminology in reliable primary, secondary, tertiary sources I can cite/reference/quote.-- dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍( talk 17:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I, too, have grave concerns about Plane_(esotericism): many sections are uncited, and reference 6 took me to a page, not in English, with pornographic ads. That's just a quick look. Dumuzid ( talk) 17:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Sadly sites halt/shut sometimes and are bought by spammers, so please fix such links-- dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍( talk 18:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Being that I know nothing about the intended target, and a google search is of limited assistance, I am not quite sure how I would do that aside from deleting the reference and things cited to it. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 18:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

One can check archive.org to see if was saved, or try to find current reference (I'm unfamiliar with the #6 there).-- dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍( talk 18:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No offense but every single article you have created is a mess, either entirely unsourced or a tiny stub with unreliable sources, I am amazed that none of these were deleted sooner but they appear to be low-traffic and left alone for a long time. None of them are properly sourced. Another example, Anupadaka. If you look up "Anupadaka", it originated with Helena Blavatsky. We clearly do not need an entire article dedicated to it but over on the Plane_(esotericism) article you have associated the Anupadaka as a plane with the Monadic plane, now that is original research and I doubt any academic sources will verify that. When you wrote these articles you stated they have a basis in Buddhism but this is not the case. Blavatsky was a well known charlatan and it seems a decade ago you swallowed up her books hook line and sinker. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Monadic plane should also be deleted/redirected. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep on-topic (heading): mental projection (discuss others in own areas/sections). I read her books at/after 1999 and quickly realized she critically contradicts herself and 10+ years ago knew she was possible/probable charlatan, but perhaps you don't realize how influential: Theosophy almost single-handedly birthed the New Age movement (a neotheosophy) which has been studied so many/myriad sources exists.-- dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍( talk

There is only one topic here: a series of connected articles which clearly don't meet Wikipedia requirements, all created by you. I've amended the heading. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, though I didn't create a few articles mentioned. I will reply at deletion proposals themselves. It's now anupapaduka (which is in Sanskrit dictionaries, but shorter one was 1800s translator typographical error). I read Madame Blavatsky's books at/after 1999 and quickly realized she critically contradicts herself and 10+ years ago knew she was possible/probable charlatan, but perhaps you don't realize how influential: Theosophy almost single-handedly birthed New Age movement (a neotheosophy) which has been studied so many/myriad sources exist, but I have to take many hours wikibreak so afterwards may consider/check sources or see what anyone who cares/studies about those topics more thinks.-- dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍( talk 18:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Anupapadaka is now at afd. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 22:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree 'planes (esotericism)' became mess; 'seven planes' sources tend to mix Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, English, and often at least give several synonyms, which Wikipedians had done to article before and I thought might clarify, but best to use all English headings (synonyms elsewhere). Actually ' dictionary: anupapaduka': relatively easy to misspell even for (non-Sanskrit) experts (Madame Blavatsky misspelled and people misspelled her misspelling).-- dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍( talk 10:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand sceptical editors are concerned, but these aren't research/fringe concepts; merely Hindu standard/renamed (article cites Theosophy was a Hindu movement) concepts translated & added (140+ years ago) into the two larger: secular ( philosophical/ spiritual but not religious & New Age), Abrahamism (Kabbalah, mystic/esoteric Christianity, Sufism) and as such I'd rather reply on specific talk (each topic or mine) and official/administrator-watched issue/problem pages/sections. Billions are familiar with at least some of these (as part of a mystical/ esoteric system with some/all the rest). New heading for all linked within ' Category:Theosophical_philosophical_concepts' & ' plane (esotericism)'-- dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍( talk| contrib) 07:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit of this discussion concerns me [35] because

1. the editor is changing the history in a talk discussion, even though others have replied. Please review WP:TALK#REPLIED. This should not be done; and
2. the editor has again changed the discussion title and again in a way that makes the context of the start of the discussion impossible to understand. I reverted it last time with a request to avoid such issues, so the re-inclusion of a confusing title change looks like edit warring.

Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

And indeed the title was changed AGAIN while I was writing that! Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Dchmelik has also been removing massive parts of their comments on talk-pages, days after I had replied, this is not playing fair [36]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Other articles that should be taken to afd are Buddhic plane, Etheric plane and Mental plane. Also see Septenary (Theosophy) Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Etheric plane, Mental plane and Septenary contain more information. It is all Theosophy WP:FRINGE stuff but the case for AFD is a bit less clear. If the whole Plane (esotercism) article is notable than the other issues are notable too. But is it notable? Would be interested in what others think.

Buddhic plane was one line, untouched in years, and significantly shorter than its parent article. I bold redirected that one. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

They should all be deleted because they are all unsourced and lack independent reliable sources, I have submitted this one first to afd Septenary (Theosophy). Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

38.126.71.24 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) edits could use some eyes. They were perviously suspended for making claims like Woodtstock being a plot to control hippies and the Who shot JR tv storyline was to cover up news of the JFK death anniversary, now that they are out of suspension their edits have a similar tone and could use a look by someone more experienced with this sort of thing than me. 2001:8003:34A3:800:F00C:80D0:21D4:4029 ( talk) 09:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Last edit 6 days ago, from a quick look not much WP:FRINGEy. Chronic problem editors should be reported at WP:ANI, not here. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The sentence fragment " the Who shot JR" after a mention of Woodstock (I just checked, they were there) confused me until I re-parsed it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 03:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

‘Superspreader’ Documentary

Apparently premiering tonight on Hulu and FX. Potentially useful source.

jps ( talk) 11:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

(Crossposting this from WP:Teahouse, since I forgot FTN existed:) I was taking a look at Lipstick effect, and the following paragraph was inserted some time in 2012:

"In a 2012 study by four university researchers, the effect was attributed to evolutionary psychology: "This effect is driven by women's desire to attract mates with resources and depends on the perceived mate attraction function served by these products. In addition to showing how and why economic recessions influence women's desire for beauty products, this research provides novel insights into women's mating psychology, consumer behavior, and the relationship between the two. [...] Although the lipstick effect has garnered some anecdotal lore, the present research suggests that women's spending on beauty products may be the third indicator of economic recessions—an indicator that may be rooted in our ancestral psychology."<ref>See Hill, S. E., Rodeheffer, C. D., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K., & White, A. E. (2012, May 28). "Boosting Beauty in an Economic Decline: Mating, Spending, and the Lipstick Effect". ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,'' available at http://personal.tcu.edu/sehill/LipstickEffectMS20March2012.pdf</ref>"

I'm not too well-versed on psychology papers and journals, but I have to admit it kinda sounds like pseudoscience a little to me. Or at least "we found some things that correlate, but that's not the same as causation". The journal, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, doesn't come up in Beall's list but did seemingly come to blows for some nonsense in 2011, 2012? I'd appreciate someone having a look in. Thanks!-- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) ({{ ping}} me!) 21:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. I went ahead and removed what you quoted as WP:PRIMARY and speculative. At the very least, discussion of the study should be summarized into a single sentence, but I am not convinced that even mentioning it is WP:DUE for that article. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any recent scholar in this field is "fringe", although there seems to be a lack of complete agreement among the relatively few people who've researched it. It seems to me somewhat misguided to gut scholarly papers and only leave news items and quotes from Leonard Lauder etc. ( WP:BESTSOURCES?). Many Wikipedia articles on scientific journals are biased towards emphasizing controversy, because generally journals receive little secondary coverage unless there's a controversial article or editor, and most Wikipedians can't resist pasting a juicy retraction onto a stub of a 100-year old journal, which thus risks perpetuating a distorted perception of "unreliable" or "suspicious" to mainstream, respectable journals. A 2016 article in Psychological Science (Netchaeva & Rees) doesn't dismiss Hill et al. off hand as 'pseudoscience' or 'speculative', and while not trying to necessarily disprove Hill et al., state "Whereas Hill and colleagues (2012) argued that women do so to attract a wealthy partner—what we term the resources-through-partner explanation—we argue that doing so may also help women create favorable impressions in the workplace". ^[1] The introduction of a 2020 article in Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (MacDonald & Dildar) states: "Few academic studies of the lipstick effect exist, but they all find evidence in support of it. The only major disagreement is over the mechanism driving the phenomenon." Rather than dismissing Hill et al. off hand as 'pseudoscience' or 'speculative', they treat it as one explanation deemed the "life cycle hypothesis", alongside the "employment-based hypothesis" of Netchaeva & Rees, and a "psychological hypothesis" that mainly appears in popular (non-academic) studies. MacDaonald & Dildar conclude they did "not find evidence of the life cycle or employment-based hypotheses. While we find that single women spend more (and a higher share of their income) on cosmetics than married women, this is true both during as well as before and after the Great Recession. Thus, there might be some truth to the life cycle theory, but it cannot be used to explain the changes in consumption that happen during a recession." ^[2] So there you go. --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Dubious Russian superstition of a few years running. Up for AfD but needs a look by people who can read Russian better than I. Mangoe ( talk) 04:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#Undue use of Comet Group material, etc.. Doug Weller talk 10:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Eric Lerner ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Our bio describes Lerner as an "independent plasma researcher". Perhaps some physics types round here can say if that's legit? Alexbrn ( talk) 14:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

That might normally mean "amateur", but if he indeed received funding from NASA, that makes him a professional. A BA doesn't make him a non-RS -- there are plenty of idiots with PhD's -- but as with anything, we look to confirmation in peer-review and 2ary sources. It looks like FRINGE should be considered here, as this alt theory might be fringe on its own, and from a quick glance Lerner does not appear to have the understanding to develop it further. His book was also published 30 years ago, so it would be obsolete even if on the right track. — kwami ( talk) 23:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that's about as accurate as we can hope for a description of Lerner. He has been barking up the dense plasma focus idea for a fusion reactor since the 1990s at least and, like a lot of claims of dubious engineering promise, this has not really amounted to much more other than treading water and less-than-exciting results. jps ( talk) 12:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Discovery Institute pushing this if you hadn't noticed already. fiveby( zero) 05:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I had an inveterate cosmology denier e-mail me gleefully and when I asked to talk about peer-reviewed claims he cursed me and ended the conversation. Suffice to say, there is no there there other than the there that we already cover here. jps ( talk) 11:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Ahmed Farag Ali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Farag Ali.

Please comment. jps ( talk) 12:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure this article should even exist. Notable? Doug Weller talk 14:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a "should not exist" vote from me. The case as presented for notability seems to be largely WP:SYNTH and taking one inferential step beyond what the sources actually say. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 14:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me the same material is adequately covered in other articles such as Kalergi Plan. Perhaps we should redirect it there. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 14:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The largest part of the article is the "History" section, which is actually about Miscegenation. That's obviously a related topic, but already has its own well-referenced article. ApLundell ( talk) 15:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this concept is probably not independently notable –– i.e. not independent of Miscegenation. I did find one peer-reviewed article about it if anyone is interested in seeing what an attempt at scholarship on the topic looks like: [37]. This source could perhaps be added to the article, though I'm not sure. Perhaps it's a bit too credulous about the objectivity of race, and would therefore run afoul of WP:FRIND? Generalrelative ( talk) 04:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

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

This RFC may be of interest to folks here. I can't really make heads or tails of any of it. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 01:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I've closed it because it's a waste of community members time against what is clearly a COI editor. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This article sees a lot of POV pushing by fringe proponents and could really do with a full rewrite if anyone happens to be knowledgeable about neuroscience. - MrOllie ( talk) 01:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The guy has come back to complain. I can't be bothered to deal with it so I'd appreciate if someone else would like to respond. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Wim Hof Method (WHM): a combination of frequent cold exposure, breathing techniques and meditation with many health and wellness claims. The article is heavily cited to non-independent, non-MEDRS (or even RS) sources. Could use some help. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I also mention this at Project Skepticism. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 00:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a pretty bad article already, in terms of sourcing and phrasing, and there is an IP who has been trying shift the POV to remove suggestions that these people might not actually be able to 'intuit' what is ailing people. It looks to be leaning heavily on in-universe sourcing - more eyeballs might be useful. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• • This definitely is a thing, but it does not seem to be noticed that much in mainstream sources. I think it is something of a rebranding from medical psychic. Perhaps we could redirect to a more general page on psychic medicine as I am having a hard time finding any evidence of a difference. jps ( talk) 17:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

    So like Edgar Cayce, but less sleepy? Dumuzid ( talk) 17:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

    • Arguably, Cayce is the prototype. I admit that I don't know what the sleepiness requirements ought to be. jps ( talk) 18:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I replaced "Dchmelik making bad edits" by "Bad edits" because of WP:TALKHEADPOV "Don't address other users in a heading". Putting this at the top to provide context for the next contribution. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This user is promoting fasting and making other POV edits on articles related to fasting, orthopathy and Herbert M. Shelton, just one recent example [38]. I have tried to engage this user a few weeks ago but it is impossible to get through to them. They admitted they have conflict of interest because their grandma or something was allegedly healed by an orthopath. I listed just one example of their bad edits in the previous diff "Since at least 1800s, many doctors (MDs, DOs, PhDs) carried out studies and wrote articles & books and were interviewed on fasting for many medical purposes", sources listed are John A. McDougall, Joel Fuhrman, Felix Leopold Oswald, Charles Edward Page (anti-vaxxer) and YouTube videos etc from Caldwell Esselstyn all fringe and primary sources, nothing reliable. When you confront this user with their bad editing you are accused of being "biased" or a promoter a scientism.

On the orthopathy article this user is making odd edits, check the "reception" section which has the same content added. "Since at least 1800s, many doctors (medical, MDs & osteopaths, DOs, philosophy, PhDs) carried out studies and wrote articles & books and were interviewed on fasting for many medical/health purposes" [39]. I don't know what's going on here, but as I have commented on the talk-page at orthopathy and list of orthopaths this type of bad editing is spilling out onto multiple articles. Please see current discussion at list of orthopaths [40] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 18:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Have they been notified of WP:ARB/PS? Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

No they have not been notified. If I knew where to find a template for that I would have notified them a few weeks ago but I do not have the template currently. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 18:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

At Template:Ds/alert, make sure to grab the correct subst below for the relevant sanction. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! yes I have found the template and notified the user. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Your editing above is pretty bad ( comma splices, 'a' instead of 'of'). I never stated such admission (maybe you did) nor story. Drs Esselstyn, Fuhrman, McDougall, Oswald, Page (and others in that particular citation set) are standard medicine medical doctors (MDs/DOs, not only naturopaths, chiropractors, or non-MD PhDs except various co-authors with MDs): you're libelling them. Dr Page was wrong about vaccinations but was a MD researcher/writer on fasting, which in more recent years has had larger studies (on thousands of people) by other MDs (as cited). What Dr Page wrote on the topic so long ago may or not be relevant (other than historical aspect how long research/writing has been going on). There's nothing odd about the particular citation set: see Wikipedia:Criticism for when to use 'reception', as already linked. I just want the articles to be accurate--pros & cons--and even made clearer some now better-known dangers of prolonged fasting unsupervised by MDs (which in older sources was originally theoretical based on new knowledge) which you removed as well.-- dchmelik ( t| c) 20:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You added 13 citations to the fasting article in the section "Medical application", none of those sources are reliable sources. I don't think you have read WP:RS or WP:USINGPRIMARY. Can you explain why you think this YouTube video is a reliable source [41], or a book written in 1892 by Emmet Densmore? Are you willing to admit you have a conflict of interest here? "The truth of NH/C, including modern updates) is basically common knowledge among some order of thousands to millions" [42], "I grew up with NH, and it's been very successful for me and friends/family, and I even talked to a couple people mentioned (and other experts.)" [43]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

They're all independent sources (secondary, tertiary) by/featuring standard medicine (reliable) medical doctors you're still libelling. I read Wikipedia:USINGPRIMARY 10+ years ago but you apparently haven't recently; isn't a guideline let alone policy/rule (unapproved and undergoes edit wars) and states primary sources aren't bad, which was in any past guidelines/rules (with examples of good usage and what may not be): only currently one being that one must be careful quoting large sections of copyrighted primary sources (same with any copyrighted).-- dchmelik ( t| c) 00:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The reasoning you use won't fly here. This board has lots of fringe-savvy editors who heard it all before.

• Your editing above is pretty bad is among the crappiest defenses you can use. Nobody cares about typos on a Talk page. It this supposed to be a meek attempt at the tu quoque fallacy?
• Drs [..] are standard medicine medical doctors [..]: you're libelling them Double bullshit. Some random person does not magically become a reliable source by being a doctor, and pointing out that someone's ideas are fringe is not libel.
• Dr Page was wrong about vaccinations but was a MD researcher/writer on fasting Quackeries tend to flock together in the same brains. Anti-vaxx ideas are a red flag.
• They're all independent sources But not RS or MEDRS.
• isn't a guideline let alone policy/rule That is disingenuous and not the point. It was linked because it explains the guidelines policies, rules. WP:RS was also linked in the same contribution, and that one is a guideline. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Saying I promote topics is false exaggeration: I even add/propose elaborations/citations (not always against) to articles for topics I disagree with and is all I do in some cases.

'Your editing is pretty bad [grammar/spelling]' is just reply to Psychologist Guy's own such (about typographical errors I made & corrected beforehand) criticisms wasting space on talk pages (he was warned and had other talk deleted in past for incivility).

A formal/Western/Aristotelean logic/reasoning principle is baseless assertions--assertions stating no basis (just 'no/'/‘isn't’/‘aren't’ but zero primary topic detail, lowest argument in Aristotelean logic (probably on an article/list of logical fallacies) & Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement except criticizing tone, and insults) such as all others' above--can be equally dismissed on no basis.

Proper English & technical writing is to define acronyms before usage: what's MEDRS?

Most cited MDs have their own articles (indicating some/large relevance, as do their academic degrees, which MD requires Master of Science) and most/all aren't categorized as fringe/pseudoscience, though some/few are criticized on specific other ideas, some/most are debatable but more believably when criticized/debated by those with equal/higher academic degrees (doesn't mean they're necessarily correct).

Everyone makes mistakes, including modern scientists (often make corrections or still right on other things); Dr Page is fully relevant as historical date documentation how long standard medicine MDs have done fasting writing/research, not cited for any particular detail of such writing/research's ideas (which can be analyzed on their own). Vaccines article itself states there are generations of vaccines and describes older generations can occasionally be dangerous (stating 'attenuated forms of a pathogen can convert to a dangerous form') so understandable more past centuries doctors disagreed, not always about germ theory of disease but that vaccines needed to become safer--and they did--but are topic deviation; many thinkers/scientists are cited for some subject(s) but unreliable for others: I've noticed some criticism citations in such articles are by non-biologists--psychologists & non-biologist/-medical bloggers--whom aren't likely experts/reliable.

‘[...] isn't a guideline let alone policy/rule’ isn't disingenuous: simply to-the-point fact, which I'm shocked is now so (unlike '0s and IIRC part/all '10s) but has more bad implications (until such former guidelines/rules are fixed/updated/resintated by administrators, which I'm aware you all aren't) for Wikipedia overall and more important articles (mathematical/logical/formal/exact science & rationalism/philosophy, non-applied natural science & science from theoretical & computational mathematics & physics and down to other natural science) than such mere applied lower natural science.-- dchmelik ( t| c) 08:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have very little grasp of how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 10:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, you talk too much, and with too little actual content per sentence. I could not find anything worth responding to except the question about MEDRS.

When Wikipedians use abbreviations, one can find the meaning by using "WP:" in front of it: WP:MEDRS. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Andy, join Wikipedia 15 Year Society and get back to me; I've been thanked by editors including an administrator since '0s... I'm unsurprised in your first Wikipedia year you attacked other users (Psychologist Guy quickly did also)--in your first month then in first year threatened another user and were blocked... you could've asked for mediation... such 2010s increasing/popular behaviour trends caused Wikipedia's decline (less editing, and more quitting long/forever, than joining) and caused most Wikipedia:Mediation's end... there's still one mediation place seems odd people don't use first (do specific noticeboards mediate specific topics now?) and all such trends continued, so expect more decline.

Hob, thanks for WP:MEDRS line but you don't know what content is: half your lines are almost worse than worthless of response... if what fits less than half-screen is 'too much' (typical after twitter.com) I hope you read a 1,000+ page book... you started with 'also'--could've omitted it and several words and meant same. I haven't been largest section/paragraph writer on help-/notice-/talk-boards. Abbreviations denoted as Wikipedia--preceded by 'WP'--help find meaning. After seeing WP:MEDRS, it's possible some sources I cited wouldn't be considered good enough to cite details about medical fasting process, but are fine for mere historical fact/record how long MDs have been writing/researching on fasting. I cited two studies, including one on ncbi.nlm.nih.gov with MD Michael Klaper (no criticism in his article) and MD Michael Greger's (commendation & criticism in his article, but not called fringe) secondary/tertiary study (citing several/many MDs' studies) replicating method four generations of German MDs studied (though theirs isn't actually fasting but juice/soup diet less-knowledgeable people still call fasting). MDs Caldwell Esselstyn, John A. McDougall, Felix Leopold Oswald, Charles Edward Page also aren't called fringe in their articles and the first two are also commended in their articles so either Psychologist guy hasn't read articles or they may need updates/categorizations (if even any such case can be made)-- dchmelik ( t| c) 14:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems that your standard response is whatever criticism people throw at you, you try to reflect back at them. Among adults, discussions don't work like that.

This is a noticeboard. It is intended for notices. Please stop trying to write a 1,000+ page book here. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Dchmelik have you read WP:MEDRS or WP:RS? We do not add primary sources for biomedical content so adding single cohort studies is against policy. Nor would we add fringe sources like Klaper, Greger, McDougall, Oswald or Page to the fasting article in a section on medical content. It's quite clear if you read those guys articles they are not doing mainstream medical research into fasting nor do their views represent the scientific consensus on medicine. Felix Oswald was telling people to starve themselves for up to 20 days at a time. Michael Klaper promotes something called water fasting which is considered dangerous. John A. McDougall promotes a dangerous fad diet. I am not sure what your obsession with Charles Edward Page is? He was a germy theory denier and an anti-vaxxer. He was advocating fasting in the 1880s... what has that got to do with modern medical research into fasting? I have not seen you suggest any reliable sources. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 14:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the responses above, it looks to me that this is a WP:CIR issue, involving a basic inability to constructively communicate. Probably better discussed on WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

With a nice mix of personal attacks as well. And the added irony of complaining about how others write. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree to not add sources the cases aren't clear (mentioned/asked below) but if Pyschologist Guy thinks we're done here, try Wikipedia:Mediation.

Hob (and usually everyone) makes baseless claims (no basis main topic description such as clear (non-)RS reasons--only side topics and contradiction/'no', which isn't even a Western logic argument as clarified on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement) so there's nothing to either consider/accept (which I'm open to) or disagree, just 'reflect'; sorry: try harder on-topic. Already stated I've read: 'WP:RS' mid-'0s (and every year including several times this year & season & today) and read 'WP:MEDRS' after mentioned, but have you? On that, avoiding primary sources is general (in bold), not absolute (explained several times) and doesn't mention ' single cohort study' (no article, undefined in WP:MEDS and its linked cohort study articles). As undefined, I agree to not re-add studies until clarified unless clear case not to (generalizations/examples often used aren't clear, but there are & were some clear policies). Modern Age: 1500+ CE/AD (maybe you mean contemporary).

Every scientist makes mistakes and past ones made those described which fewer do now: even Dr Michael Greger recommends third-generation vaccinations (Natural Hygienists, NH, of course listen to him and some accept vaccinations even years before he mentioned, because of a fundamentalist NH's roughdraft book detailing such past errors)... scientists know Aristotle was wrong about human teeth but he founded Western// Peripatetic logic, and if you reject his logic, you'd delete all your Internet accounts, shutdown & sell your personal computers (PCs including cell phones, etc.) and live like extreme Amish (and without modern computer-aided science/technology which all built on Western logic): what scientists are/were wrong on is utterly irrelevant to what they're right on.

It's true some people shouldn't fast at all; no one should without standard medicine assistance/supervision, though 'starvation' depends on person: Angus Barbieri's fast (obese) was 382 days mostly/all liquid--which I thought was impossible 31 to 40+ days--but his body already had the calories and he took vitamins/minerals (and amino acid things) otherwise would've become deficient by 30 days or sooner... yes, without such precautions, water fasting can be dangerous. Fringe/pseudoscience categories exist, which you could add to aforementioned doctors' articles--if there's a case (which I think there isn't)--but they got some things right: aren't categorized fringe/pseudoscience (if they become so, I'll drop their topics).

I guess you all dislike the topic (as said I'm for documenting pros & cons); I'd even cited a MD book Errors In Hygiene in orthopathy which was removed. It may not use studies, but neither do any criticism sources there, which are similar (except unreliable/outdated including non-biologists, but I won't contest those currently): do you really want ' WP:NPOV' including more researcher MD criticism or are you all about only sources you like and assuming disagreers are automatically wrong?-- dchmelik ( t| c) 00:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"scientists know Aristotle was wrong about human teeth but he founded Western//Peripatetic logic, and if you reject his logic, you'd delete all your Internet accounts, shutdown & sell your personal computers (PCs including cell phones, etc.) and live like extreme Amish (and without modern computer-aided science/technology which all built on Western logic): what scientists are/were wrong on is utterly irrelevant to what they're right on." What?! Why?! How?! - It's hard to tell if you are a troll or you actually do suffer from some sort of mental disability. If you do have the latter then you have my sympathy and I think you should be open about it so other users may be able to understand you better. I have assumed good faith for quite a few weeks now in dealing with your account considering you have thrown out quite a few personal attacks but sorry this really is getting out of hand now because you are writing the above kind of nonsense on talk-pages [44], it is not improving any articles. Your over-all net influence on this website is negative. I agree that there probably is a WP:CIR issue here. If this issue is not resolved I will take it to the ANI board. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

As stated, I await single cohort study definition. I forgot some Wikipedia (WP) aspects and am (re)learning new (after I started and took long breaks, policy doubled or more with new addition). WP suggests mediation: ' WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)' (before Administrators Noticeboard: Incidents). I've never come close to breaking three revert rule on orthpathy (others have) and don't plan to... people removed my sources before and I don't always re-add, so (also as little/no on-topic detail replies) I don't consider this a dispute. Noticeboards are new to me. They're for discussion (not to try to force people agree). My influence is positive including orthopathy article creation to adding much/majority material including changes accepted/cited by others but is a less-interesting (though important) article I'd rather not edit (even if I'll consider it inaccurate/NNPOV, which often/usually has been years). I don't mind not being its largest nor (now Psychologist Guy) most active editor. I'm sorry if I argued (somewhat) then assumed bad faith--apparently not case as you invited me to related WikiProject (thanks) and created several/many related articles--just the article had a history of extreme health-based criticisms of vegetarianism/ veganism that never even were in their articles (despite often aren't health-based, but NH is... criticism described unhealthy vegetarianism/ veganism practices which are sometimes done but aren't NH).-- dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆( talk 10:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Dchmelik I believe this issue has been resolved now as you are no longer adding such content, but we have an article on Cohort study. You added a cohort as a source which is a primary source. If you read WP:MEDRS, it usually applies for any biomedical information, which means we do not add primary papers. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 01:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Multiple rather than single cohorts; multiple rather than single studies; both?-- dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍( talk| contrib) 08:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

See Why one Harvard scientist believes alien technology may be sitting on the ocean floor and tangentially NASA is assembling a team to figure out what UFOs are Doug Weller talk 13:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, this sort of thing is likely to keep bubbling. Fortunately, our articles are pretty sanguine on the topic still. jps ( talk) 13:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

What's the article(s) you are worried about? TFD ( talk) 02:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Seatbelt Psychic ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Feels a bit lonely there with only four people. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

User:ScottsdalePrincess is pov deleting text from this article about a fringe author. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

July–August 2022 United States floods has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --- Aquillion ( talk) 18:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I am more than a little concerned that there seems to be people active in weather articles who think that any mention of climate change is necessarily controversial. jps ( talk) 13:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Or that climate change is "political". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

To be fair to the peanut gallery, climate change is political inasmuch as it has political consequences (and, for that matter, political causes). Of course, the fact of climate change is something that occurs regardless of the political arguments that swirl around it. Carbon dioxide causes radiative forcing whether it is produced by a leftwinger or rightwinger. jps ( talk) 16:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused why there's an article about a string of major weather events in the first place, without discussing what seems to be the primary explanation linking them together. If not for the mention of climate change as the unifying factor, why would this be one article instead of three? Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a much bigger can of worms. Like roads, video games, fandoms, and sports rosters, looking under the hood as to how weather events are handled at Wikipedia is usually quite eye-opening. jps ( talk) 16:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

An editor who used to be topic banned from US politics for troublesome anti-Biden edits and so on, who is now leading the charge to keep climate change out of weather disaster articles with rather far- fetched arguments? What a surprise... Fram ( talk) 16:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Self-same editor seems to be pushing articles published in this fantastic journal as reliable sources about climate science. For real: [45] jps ( talk) 03:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh goody! Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_Journal_of_Park_and_Recreation_Administration_a_Reliable_Source. jps ( talk) 03:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I am so thankful an editor actually notified me that my edits were being discussed and linked to on a noticeboard. Anyway, I feel my words kept getting twisted, so I just dropped the entire discussion and went back to my super huge draft article project; so I would greatly appreciate y'all stop talking about my edits without notifying me. Elijahandskip ( talk) 18:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this imaginary continent really mythical? Doug Weller talk 15:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say probably not, by most definitions of 'myth'. Unless there are sources asserting the contrary, we should maybe follow the pattern of the Atlantis article, and describe Mu as 'fictional'. I'm not 100% sure we should even have separate articles for Mu and Lemuria, though the latter term has some validity beyond pure fiction, in long-disproven hypotheses concerning primate evolution. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, Doug, but given the tangled backstory of 'Mu,' I am not sure 'imaginary' is quite right either. While that term is quite apt for Le Plongeon's Mu, insofar as 'Mu' became a synonym for Lemuria, that's more of a hypothetical continent (though the hypothesis was quite wrong). 'Legendary' also seems apt to me for Le Plongeon but not Lemuria. So I guess I would agree that "mythical" is wrong (with no real grounding in anything anyone identifies as 'myth') but I am not sure what the right descriptor would be. I suppose we could go with 'imaginary' and trust the reader to suss out the Lemuria difference, but I don't love that. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Not really its more fictional. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Imaginary is used here [46] and in "Scuttling Atlantis and Mu" E. D. MERRILL Source: The American Scholar , SPRING 1936. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I think "imaginary" is better than "mythical," just that it's not perfect. That said, the perfect term might only exist in the ancient Lemurian tongue. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 16:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be more fictional than anything else— blindlynx 15:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Linus Pauling Institute - Micronutrient Information Center

Of course, Linus Pauling and nutrition together in one sentence should ring alarm bells. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

In this case, the alarm bells are probably not merited. This institute appears to be more of the "serious chemist" Pauling ilk, doesn't copy any of Pauling's crank statements on the value of Vitamin C or the like. Andre 🚐 22:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The user who filed that has allegedly closed their account and scrambled their password - see statement on their user-page [47] and conversation here [48] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 22:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Repressed memory ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

See the last edits of article and Talk page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Seconding this, as the TP discussion could really benefit from additional eyes. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Additional eyes, or "the right kind" of eyes? Perhaps a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology would attract some more knowledgeable editors. --Animalparty! ( talk) 01:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem with that. Just posted it. I am sure it is roughly the same kind of eyes. (They probably don't have as many skeptic-haters.) -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Now expanded to False memory syndrome and False Memory Syndrome Foundation, the same user is playing the "false memory is an idea by pedophiles" card. It is not surprising that the claim "this is only about repressed memory, not about recovered memory therapy" was just temporary. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

[49] Whitewashing the status of recovered-memory therapy and its methods with "critics say". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

....aaand Pseudoskepticism. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this article is a bit unbalanced at the moment, especially the "recent findings" section, which treats the rather extraordinary claim that humans were present in the Americas 130,000 years ago, as if the 2020 study confirms it, when there is still incredible skepticism regarding the site, see [50]. For a quick primer on the site, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343834817_The_Cerutti_Mastodon_Professional_Skepticism_and_the_Public Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I've done some work to remedy this. I still feel that the structure could do with some work. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it is a fringe theory though. It's possible that archaic humans, who were adapted to cold climates, could have had a larger ranger than originally thought. They left Africa 2 million years ago, while modern humans left only 50 to 100 thousand years ago. That some of them made it to California is not outside the range of possibility. TFD ( talk) 03:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible, yes, but the site doesn't really provide evidence for it. Sumanuil. 07:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Socionics ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

This article is probably familiar to some of you, it appears several times in this Noticeboard's archives. A new editor has shown up and is adding a lot of in-universe stuff to the article, including removing criticism and making claims that The scientific status of socionics is confirmed More eyes on the article would be appreciated. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion posted at RSN regarding the reliability of globalsecurity.org, see-> link. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi all,

Please see Avatar Medicine.

Pete AU aka User:Shirt58 ( talk) 🦘 11:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Declined drafts shouldn't become articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avatar Medicine. jps ( talk) 11:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be argued at Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories#Unreliable sources become reliable...? that it should be acceptable to cite unreliable sources (such as crackpot self-hosted websites and individual blogs with deranged posts about conspiracy theories) to indicate that such conspiracy theories exist and are held by the authors. I contend that this is also a poor use of unreliable sources, because their existence does not really lend any credence or notability to the conspiracy theories in question. More input is welcome! Elizium23 ( talk) 23:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Note - context is important here… the sources in question are being used as primary sources - purely to verify the content of the various conspiracy theories … similar to how we might cite a work of fiction itself when describing the plot of that work of fiction. This is a limited, acceptable use of primary sources. They are definitely NOT being cited to say that these nutty theories are accurate or true. We do need to verify that someone makes these silly claims, and that they were not made up by Wikipedia. Blueboar ( talk) 01:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If there are no reliable secondary sources discussing the silly claims then we shouldn't be covering them at all. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 01:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That is my impression of how WP:DUE works, indeed. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

What we need is which of these two cases we are talking about in this concrete case:

1. Crackpot A writes X on website "A-blog". We do not cite "A-blog".
2. Crackpot A writes X on website "A-blog". Expert B refutes X in journal "B-journal". We cite "A-blog" and "B-journal". Or maybe only "B-journal". Both are acceptable.

Your "Unreliable sources become reliable...?" contribution does not say which blogs you want to cut and if there are mainstream secondary sources for the claims made there. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The proposed removals consist of about 7KB of patently unreliable sources. The edits can easily be browsed in recent revision history of the affected article. Elizium23 ( talk) 07:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, killing that is good. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

absolutely concur, these are clearly undue inclusions. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 12:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Blueboar: Typically I'd suggest that the primary source shouldn't be cited for a plot synopsis, as that's potentially WP:SYNTH territory. Typically I see the otherwise-unreliable primary sourcing used for direct quotes (e.g. to cite that the source is indeed accurately quoted, particularly if secondary sources are trimming the quote), in addition to the secondary sources discussing the context and notability. Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• (Indent) This is definitely a change from past discussions (held on the article talk page), so let me ask… WHY are they undue? How is citing these websites different from citing a novel itself when outlining the plot of the novel? Blueboar ( talk) 12:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  The novel itself is the direct subject of the article. The conspiracy theory is the subject of this article, while the websites are random people who believe it. Are their particular interpretations and beliefs notable? We must use secondary sources to determine that. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 12:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  To be honest, I'm not particularly enthused when people directly cite a novel in Wikipedia articles either. I understand the desire to produce synopses so that the reader has context, but my opinion is that Wikipedia should only provide such synopses when others have highlighted the content. Otherwise, how are editors to choose what is or is not notable in those regards? I might think one particular scene in a novel deserves careful exposition while another person might think it is completely unnecessary for the reader. The only way to resolve such a dispute should be through third-party sources. jps ( talk) 13:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Also, the existence of the novel article implies that there are reliable secondary sources demonstrating its notability. The plot of the novel is shown to be due by those sources, and we can then safely proceed to cite (implicitly) the primary source text itself. If the secondary sourcing doesn't exist for these conspiracy theories, the analogy here doesn't hold up. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 13:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m getting the vibe that people are commenting without actually reading the article in question. The article DOES cite secondary sources to establish notability, and to talk about the conspiracy theories in broad scope… so that isn’t an issue. What we were using the conspiracy theory websites for was purely to verify the specifics of various claims… to show the variations of theme. Blueboar ( talk) 14:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Finding specific primary-source material to illustrate something we only have generalised sources on? Isn't that WP:OR? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We used to run into this problem with creationist articles here on Wikipedia. For every single creationist claim, you can find a Talk.origins archive page that references it. The argument that some made was that it would be useful to link to these specific claims to the primary sources, but this really isn't what Wikipedia is for. WP:TERTIARY, I think, implies that we should really only be focusing on what is prominently noted in third-party sources in which case we need to only cite primary sources in instances where the citation is clearly indicated by the sources themselves. jps ( talk) 15:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's one snippet of the removed content, including all the cited sources:

* That Freemasons intertwine various symbols and numerology into modern culture, such as corporate logos. ^[1]

The source is ForbiddenKnowledge.com, and it is not a reliable, secondary source. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No one is arguing that it is a reliable secondary source… The argument is that it is reliable when used as a primary source. Blueboar ( talk) 16:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You claimed, just above, that the primary source citations are supported by secondary sources. This is a counterexample. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I said that the article contains secondary sources to support notability and to talk about Masonic conspiracy theories in the broad sense… but that we use primary sources to verify the details of specific claims. That is not inappropriate. Blueboar ( talk) 17:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I see how my point could be seen as straw-manning you, and I apologize. I continue to think removal was appropriate, as I think secondary sources are needed to demonstrate that the primary source material is due. If we were using your analogy appropriately, each primary source would be analogous to the novel, not the conspiracy theory as a whole. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 17:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Blueboar: , can you look at this from the perspective of the reader? The nutshell version of V begins: Readers must be able to check.... How does a link such as [51] serve the reader in this case? In general as a reader I might want to occasionally see primary sources but here I have no idea what you are directing me to and how it should increase my trust in the article content. It fails to help me in any way "checking" the article, for that much more is required. If you can establish something about this source, why is it useful for me to look at, why more than just random ramblings that once appeared on the internet then it might increase my trust in the article content, otherwise it decreases trust. If you cite a journal or text in support then the burden is mostly on me as a reader to evaluate the sources, if you wish to cite a little known primary source then i think the burden should be on you as a writer to in fact establish some context and let me know why it would be worthwhile reading and how it would establish trust in the content. fiveby( zero) 17:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The primary sources verify that these (often contradictory) claims are in fact what conspiracy theorists say about the Freemasons, and that WE (Wikipedians) are not making them up. My take is that this is the only article where it would be appropriate to site these sources, but … in this extremely limited context, they are appropriate, and reliable. Blueboar ( talk) 18:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable for what? Existing? If Wikipedia contributors are going to cherry-pick from primary-source material to provide as 'verification', what criteria will they use? The ones they think are most extreme? Their own personal bugbears? Conspiracy theories linked to factions (political, religious, whatever...) they don't like? Selection of examples should be left to secondary reliable sources that comment on them, not subject to the whim of contributors. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If the secondary sources talk about the conspiracy theories in broad scope, then we can quote primary sources talk about the conspiracy theories in broad scope. If we quote a primary source claiming that Freemasons intertwine various symbols and numerology into modern culture, such as corporate logos, then we need a secondary source refuting the claim that Freemasons intertwine various symbols and numerology into modern culture, such as corporate logos. Otherwise we are spreading fringe ideas without proper context. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, please read the article. The fringe stuff IS presented with proper context. We are using the primary sources to support descriptive statements as to the content of the theories… no more no less. If it helps, think of this as citations supporting quotes. Blueboar ( talk) 21:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying we do have a secondary source refuting the claim that Freemasons intertwine various symbols and numerology into modern culture, such as corporate logos? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, read the article and look at the secondary sources that are cited. The secondary sources tend to discuss “Masonic conspiracy theories” in the abstract… intellectually. They break them down into broad categories (political, religious, social etc.) They tend to be written by historians, so the focus is on the history and development of the theories, as a phenomenon in itself… they rarely include refutations of the theories. This is what the bulk of our article focuses on.

The problem is that these secondary sources tend to assume that the reader is already familiar with the specifics of what the conspiracy theorists say. However, here on WP, we can not assume that… our article is written for the average person who might not know these specifics. So, we include a brief’' list of the more commonly made claims. We don’t present them as being accurate (nor do we present them as being false). They are listed with scrupulous neutrally… merely as examples. We cite the original primary sources to verify that, yes, this is what the claims say. Any analysis or discussion about the claims is cited to secondary sources. Blueboar ( talk) 15:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I gather that the answer to my question is no. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Why should we be quoting unreliable sources? Who decides which ones to quote (there are plenty of them...)? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

First - No source is unreliable for verifying its own content. It may not be reliable for anything else, but the original is actually the most reliable for that.

As for deciding which primary sources to cite, that is done by Wikipedia editors who are familiar with the topic/subject. In this case, I and the other editors who worked on the article read a whole bunch of these conspiracy theory websites, assessed which claims were most frequently made (so we had a representative sample)… and then determined which of the sources were the best laid out - ie which presented their nutty claims most clearly (conspiracy theorists are, unfortunately, often not very good writers). The choice was a bit random, but at least there was thought behind the choice. If you know of any better sources, I would have no objections to swapping them in. Blueboar ( talk) 12:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The question is not solely reliability, but also due weight. What you have described is not in compliance with WP:DUE. it is not editors reading primary sources which should determine weight, but reliable secondary sources. What you have described is OR. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 12:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

But the article DOES cite secondary sources to give DUE weight. The reason we cite primary sources is to verify that we are accurately presenting the DETAILS of the claims (which the secondary sources tend to assume you already know). WP:PSTS says that primary sources should be used with caution, but can be appropriate for purely descriptive statements… and this is what we are doing. Blueboar ( talk) 15:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I would expect those "familiar with the topic/subject" to point me to primary sources such as John Robison or Lebbeus Armstrong. Why are the claims found from sifting through these websites more important than say these claims? fiveby( zero) 15:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent WP:POVFORK of UFO proposes UFOs are piloted by various aliens and interdimensional creatures. Any criticism is framed as mere "allegations". Fascinating. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Now draftified: Draft:Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. Prototyperspective ( talk · contribs) arguing on user talkpage with me that the content is not WP:SYNTH. ‎ jps ( talk) 14:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  It does not propose that. I find the interdimensional hypothesis rather hilarious, I don't know why you read it this way. You are supposed to adhere to and cite Wikipedia policies and not delete things just because you don't like them or find them stupid. The article complies with the policies, please see WP:RS and the points I made on the talk page. Prototyperspective ( talk) 14:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There is zero prospect of this crock of badly-sourced fringe-POV-pushing WP:OR nonsense surviving an AfD discussion, which sadly looks like being necessary now that the redirect to the Unidentified flying object article has been reverted. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

How is it badly sourced? It's based on WP:RS like quality secondary sources like The New York Times, NASA, The Washington Post, nonprimary scientific studies, BBC, etc. How is it "fringe-POV-pushing" or WP:OR? It's fine and compliant with policies, redirecting/deleting it is not, please make specific concrete points and see WP:RS, WP:NPV & WP:DEL and especially WP:DEM. Prototyperspective ( talk) 15:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There is so much wrong with this article it would take a wall of text to go through it point by point, but here’s a few highlights: a classic WP:POVFORK, it contradicts Unidentified_flying_object#Studies at the main article....sources like the ‘’Journal of Scientific Exploration’’, Knuth’s conference paper/Entropy article, ufologists like Budd Hopkins, etc. completely outside WP:FRIND..... Synthesis of WP:SENSATIONAL speculations extracted from disparate sources assembled into a narrative....attempts to balance fringe interpretations with mainstream views, as if both are equally valid. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not a POVFORK, I addressed why at the deletion discussion even without you clarifying why that would be the case. How does it contradict with that section? It's irrelevant here anyway and probably that section is just a bit outdated or incomplete. One can use academic articles as refs and these did have additional secondary sources, if there's some that you find should be removed you'd need to remove them in specific. The Knuth paper was a topic of WP:RS as well and these refs are right next to it. Hopkins is not referenced or mentioned and name-calling somebody an "ufologist" is not a valid Wikipedia-policy-compliant argument, it is not synthetic or sensational either (why would it? for example even Director of national intelligence Avril Haines or NASA administrator Bill Nelson appear to affirm the validity of this subject as a topic of academia in principle and so without precluding any potential explanations), instead of violating FRIND, WP:RS are used, if your personal opinion favored view is not portrayed as the only valid view, that's still not an argument at all and would violate WP:NPOV. Prototyperspective ( talk) 16:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said, the problems with this article are too substantial to list here. But if you want to just address the images: [[File:Scars from different "abductees".jpg|thumb|[[Budd Hopkins]] thought these scars on people's bodies were examples of evidence of the physical reality of alien abductions.]] remains as hidden text within the article. (And yes, Budd Hopkins is a ufologist.) The Giancarlo Cecconi image leaves out the identification as black plastic bags by the Italian Ministry of Defense. The mystery airship illustration again leaves out the context that airship reports were not taken very seriously even at the time of publication. And the technosignatures chart is lifted from a paper that isn't even vaguely related to UFOs-UAPs. Far from being a summary of academic thought on the topic, these images appear to have been added into the mix just to spice things up. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed that already commented out image and added the identification as black plastic bags by the Italian Ministry of Defense. I don't understand your concern about the mystery airship illustration. Why would the illustration imply that and why would it be relevant whether or not it was taken seriously and which info do you think is missing (if it is that it wasn't widely taken seriously do you have a source for that)?

The technosignatures chart is very related to UFOs-UAPs – stopping just short of including something like "Probes within Earth's atmosphere", it includes "Artifacts on Earth co-orbitals" and "Interstellar probes". In principle, "Probes within Earth's atmosphere" could actually be a subcategory of "Interstellar probes", albeit the inclusion of the image does not suggest that. It's there because it's relevant content that shows which related or similar things some scientists are looking for in SETI (e.g. some indicated UFOs may be technosignatures and these are [the other] technosignatures illustrated in one useful image). These are all the article's images already, there certainly aren't too many in there. Prototyperspective ( talk) 20:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note the off-wiki coordination: [52]. jps ( talk) 11:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is not "coordination", I'm allowed to post links to articles there, especially as I don't want my work to be wasted as in never getting read before getting deleted for no good reason.

  As I have already stated, I don't think the way some of you apparently routinely (or very frequently) keep out content you don't like and coordinate on skeptics community noticeboards like this one here complies with WP:DEM (but I could be wrong about that and this is not meant personally but just as a concern I have which I think am allowed to express [if not please remove that part of the comment]). Decisions should not be made with voting but via arguments-discussion, proper rationales and Wikipedia policies, like WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I don't think this is currently the case in a category of topics you are heavily involved in, possibly even approaching single-purpose type of editing in some sense. Prototyperspective ( talk) 12:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please stop pretending you have the slightest clue what WP:RS means. [53] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's not bite newbies. IF they don't understand RS, they certainly doing understand OFFWIKI. Closers over at the AFD obviously need to be on the lookout for votestacking, but this isn't our first rodeo, we know how to do that. We're a wiki -- this user came and gave us a whole article. Is it up to our standards?? no. But let's not treat them like a criminal just for TRYING to help us. Feoffer ( talk) 12:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your WP:AGF spirit here, but none of this is helpful. Read about the derision directed towards our community in those threads. They aren't out to add to Wikipedia; they're here for WP:AGENDA purposes. Feels like old times. jps ( talk) 12:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not here for WP:AGENDA. Have you checked my contributions, does that look like a profringe agenda or like trying to improve Wikipedia on a variety of mostly UFO-unrelated topics? No derision. albeit I do have concerns about your contributions.

Again I think decisions should not be made with voting or with whether it "feels like old times" or what you personally assess as "helpful" or how you think of my personal concerns voiced here but via arguments-discussion, proper rationales and Wikipedia policies, like WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Prototyperspective ( talk) 13:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You didn't follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV in this terrible article. So if you take your own medicine, it would be a great gesture of good faith for you to ask for the article to be removed from articlespace so that you can work with others who might be able to help you attain this. However, from your commentary in the off-wiki link I see above, it seems that you have already decided you are better than the rest of us here, so I won't be holding my breath that you're actually going to take this criticism on board. jps ( talk) 13:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Read about the derision directed towards our community in those threads. Why? Third parties are totally free to deride us in other venues. We're a wiki -- finding fault with extant content is the first step to participation! If we see anons piling up at an AFD, we can compensate at closure. Feoffer ( talk) 13:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

What third party? This is the person who wrote the article! jps ( talk) 14:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Pentagon UFO videos severely violates WP:NPOV, while this article does not. WP:RS was complied with and the article has good referencing. It is "based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". I did not decide that I'm "better than the rest of us here". Anyway, this is going nowhere: you're not making any objective arguments (constructive criticism that includes but not only consists of e.g. citing policies) except for various hollow claims and more or less personal attacks. Prototyperspective ( talk) 13:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Pentagon UFO videos severely violates WP:NPOV ORLY? Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it violates NPOV? jps ( talk) 15:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Quote: I'm not here for WP:AGENDA. Have you checked my contributions, does that look like a profringe agenda... I'm going to go with 'yes', having looked at the history of the Ufology article, and at its talk page, where Prototyperspective tried and failed to gain consensus to include content now found in the new article, tried to edit-war it in anyway, and having failed, created this blatant POV-fork. And I'd have to suggest that a statement that posts were made to the r/UFOs subreddit because I don't want my work to be wasted as in never getting read before getting deleted for no good reason looks to me very like an admission of canvassing - an off-Wikipedia posting made with the intention of influencing the AfD result. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Full quote: Have you checked my contributions, does that look like a profringe agenda or like trying to improve Wikipedia on a variety of mostly UFO-unrelated topics?. And concerning your other concern That is not "coordination", I'm allowed to post links to articles there, especially as I don't want my work to be wasted as in never getting read before getting deleted for no good reason.As I have already stated, I don't think the way some of you apparently routinely (or very frequently) keep out content you don't like and coordinate on skeptics community noticeboards like this one here complies with WP:DEM (but I could be wrong about that and this is not meant personally but just as a concern I have which I think am allowed to express [if not please remove that part of the comment]). Decisions should not be made with voting but via arguments-discussion, proper rationales and Wikipedia policies, like WP:RS and WP:NPOV.. What I meant was that if people read my work before it is getting deleted or despite of it, then my, btw fully WP policies-compliant, work at least isn't completely wasted. Prototyperspective ( talk) 14:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No work which cites 'Space Navy' as a source [54] is policy compliant. Not even remotely. Not ever. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't. Prototyperspective ( talk) 16:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain the reasoning by which you came to include it in the first place? Is this just not knowing any better? Or is this because it's a source you were hoping you could use for other reasons? Or is it because you didn't know you had used the source? jps ( talk) 16:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, it was a mistake and I didn't check the source good enough (I previously read another, maybe the primary, source). Sorry about that, it was my fault. Prototyperspective ( talk) 16:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you see now why this is a bit exhausting for us? This isn't the only source like that included in the article. It isn't ready for mainspace. And yet you insist that there isn't anything wrong. WP:CLEANUP is one thing, but WP:TNT is closer to what is needed here. Again, if you would just allow this to be draftified and get some help, that would be one thing. But you keep insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong in spite of evidence to the contrary. This does not bode well for future collaborative work on this sort of project, does it? jps ( talk) 16:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Evidently the assertion that the article was 'fully WP policies-compliant' was in fact incorrect. There is a pattern evolving here. One I'm sure some here are familiar with, from other AfD discussions. Someone submits a ref-bombed article. Insists it is fine. Others say it is badly sourced. Examples are asked for. Examples are given. Eventually, a single reference is removed, grudgingly, followed by an insistence that the article is now policy compliant. Rinse and repeat... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This was an exception and I don't know of any other well-referenced article that gets deleted just because a minor mention with an unreliable source is included. There are already hatnotes at the top of the article and you could tag or remove things, which as f now isn't required.

Concrete concerns are asked for. One (and at most two) concrete issue is given. This issue is immediately fixed without a grudge, followed by an insistence that the article must not be ready for mainspace and unelaborated links to various Wikipedia policies that the article meets. Prototyperspective ( talk) 16:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous inline tags I put in the lede. You haven't dealt with any of them. There are numerous sources that are worse than the one you removed. They are still in the article. Like this one. Are you really unable to see these problems? jps ( talk) 16:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Because that needs a little bit of time, dealt with most of them now and I don't think most of the are appropriate. For example, I replaced one with an excessive detail tag now as this level of detail shouldn't need to be in the lead. That source is from transcluded content. Deal with it one the respective article, here I only transcluded it and I haven't added this reference, next to which there are multiple other ones (however, please consider the contextual text next to it). Prototyperspective ( talk) 17:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

If it needs "a little bit of time", it should be sandboxed. The article is atrocious and yet it is in mainspace. I agree that excessive detail doesn't belong in the lede, but you can't put generalizations in the lede for which is there is no reference in the text. You have, essentially, a propaganda piece written by UFOlogists right now. That's not okay. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse for poor writing. jps ( talk) 17:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There are references for these things in the article body. Afaik, most ledes on WP don't have references / many references if their respective refs are in the article body. Saying things like "some scientists" is better than specifying who all stated that explicitly which is overly detailed. Prototyperspective ( talk) 17:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There are references for these things in the article body. There are not. That you think there are indicates to me that either you did not author this piece or you are very bad at remembering what you wrote. Saying things like "some scientists" is definitionally WP:WEASEL. You need to do more work learning to write for Wikipedia. What you are doing right now is not good enough. jps ( talk) 18:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Prototyperspective I had some misguided optimism yesterday that maybe you would work together with me to get to an article that would be okay. Lord knows there are people out there who might like to learn about the (lack of) academic research that has gone into UFOs. But you seemed either willfully or obliviously impervious to understanding the basic problem of source-based writing. You want to make hasty generalizations and labeling of people as "some scientists" versus "other scientists" as if there are two opposing camps in these situations which is very much not what any reliable source says about the situation. What we have are a handful of, let's call them "mavericks" who are making noise in a way that gets media attention and we have a relatively quiet opposition in exactly the way that WP:FRINGE describes. The article then falls into WP:GEVAL traps almost immediately instead of patiently explaining the lack of academic research on the subject. Additionally, a tremendous amount of space is spent on explaining things that are manifestly not academic studies. And this was just the lede. I have given up trying to collaborate on this because I don't see a way forward that is not [[WP:TNT}]. You say you are worried about editors being driven away. I have to say that this is a legitimate worry, but it is the way of the wiki because fringe subjects are hard to write about. WP:PROFRINGE is just too easy a trap to fall into and you have fallen into it whether you want to believe it or not. I was hoping you might find your way out, but it doesn't appear to me that you will and I've seen this kind of circus too many times before to not identify the patterned behavior here. jps ( talk) 11:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy to further work constructively on the article.

What we have are a handful of, let's call them "mavericks" who are making noise in a way that gets media attention and we have a relatively quiet opposition That's a statement of personal opinion as is. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

I added some further info about the way the research has been described by WP:RS after the criticism with the section "Status as a field", even right at the top. The relative! lack of academic research on the subject is expanded upon in the section "Research about the status of the field". Do you find that info is missing there...what is your concern?

The lead was very short until you wanted it to get expanded, and even after adding to it you added tags about specifying "some scientists" which made it even longer due to listing specific examples.

This is at the very least not as fringe as you make it out to be at this point, and yes things do have changed in recent years. Copying from the discussion:

• • Please actually look into what the WP:RS say about that. Some indeed call it a minority opinion, however a significant one (see WP:NPOV)! Others don't and these include this reported by WP:RS which said: A smaller but still sizable share of the public (51%) says that UFOs reported by people in the military are likely evidence of intelligent life outside Earth. Most of this sentiment comes from people who say that military-reported UFOs are “probably” evidence of extraterrestrial life (40%), rather than “definitely” such evidence (11%), according to the survey of 10,417 U.S. adults, conducted June 14 to 24. On the other hand, 47% of Americans say the military reports are probably (36%) or definitely (11%) not evidence of life outside Earth.
  • Many other sources only implicitly saying it's not a minority view at least at this point. Moreover, if you read the article you'd know that NASA administrator Bill Nelson stated that UAP could be from a civilization that is civilised and organised like ours, the U.S.' Director of national intelligence Avril Haines has stated There’s always the question of 'is there something else that we simply do not understand, that might come extraterrestrially?'. It is a valid possibility to take seriously. There are further WP:RS, many of which in the article, that show this to be a significant possibility that is not to be precluded (or reduced to ~one small sentence which nearly ridicules it) and to be (sufficiently) covered via WP:RS, including(!) statements from various experts / scientists.
  • It's very important for the public perception of and quality of Wikipedia that we do not make decisions based on opinions (see WP:DEM), but on WP:RS & WP:NPOV (facts, not our views), and policy-based-rational-and-specific arguments.

Maybe something about the relative(!) lack of academic research on the subject should be added to the lead, beyond the very brief content about that already included there?

I'd like to contribute as constructively as possible and am open to criticism that is specific and that I can understand, even if I do not agree with it. Sorry if my efforts seem like a "patterned behavior" you identified. Constructive criticism is welcome. Prototyperspective ( talk) 11:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This is at the very least not as fringe as you make it out to be at this point, and yes things do have changed in recent years. This is simply not true and is essentially a WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSH. Until you recognize that you do not have reliable sources which indicate this we really cannot move forward because you will just be promoting a fringe understanding of this topic. jps ( talk) 11:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I have put 3 quotes that are cited in WP:RS right there (plus there are more).

If you referred to the second part things do have changed in recent years beyond those three things many WP:RS of the article said so, often quite explicitly, I don't know if this info is included in the article (of the recent change, not just e.g. the current status) and would have to revisit them to check which ones it were. Prototyperspective ( talk) 12:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Quotemining does you no favors if your goal is to show how you aren't succumbing to WP:PROFRINGE behavior. You also have not identified reliable sources. You've identified many sources that are of questionable reliability due to WP:SENSATION and more than a few which are blatant violations of WP:FRIND. I think you need to stop working in this area. You just are not competenet enough yet. jps ( talk) 12:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• I would not put lots of quotes there if you didn't appear to require such for it as proof of the validity. I only added it after the criticisms to address them as far as I could understand them despite their inspecificity. That it is sensational is, again, your personal opinion, please see WP:RS. In cases were a source you find incompatible with FRIND, which you think applies here, is used such are only next to even better sources so they could be removed without any change in content.
• I'd like to revert this revert of yours for which you had the rationale Rv fringe POV pusher and None of these are published in mainstream journals. They don't count as academic studied and there are no reliable sources that identify them as such.. You are not the one who decides what counts as academic studied, this is about what WP:RS said. Please see that policy – your removal is unwarranted and not compatible with Wikipedia policies. Per WP:BRD you should now consider that these are WP:RS – you can't just remove info about these studies & reports which are backed by lots of WP:RS and need to discuss the removal by addressing my point ( WP:RS).

Prototyperspective ( talk) 12:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to collaborate, you'll have to start from the WP:STUBified version that doesn't suffer from your wild beliefs that interviews in news sources or quotes from UFO fanatics are somehow indicative of academic works. jps ( talk) 12:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The article was not called "Academic works about..." but "Academic research about..."² and research findings can be communicated as well as covered in WP:RS news sources (which I used intentionally to avoid criticisms about WP:PRIMARY when citing studies). (²Alternative article names are possible and a few have been proposed.) Most RS news sources aren't interviews or cited for quotes and in the cases where they are, they are usually not the only source but next to plenty of other RS. Prototyperspective ( talk) 11:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Articles relating to the assassination of Huey Long appear to be giving undue weight to a conspiracy theory about Long's death. Huey Long was shot and killed by Carl Weiss in 1935, but text has been added to several articles to cast doubt on this, giving undue weight to a theory that Long was murdered by his own guards and that there was a "cover up". About half of the text in the article Assassination of Huey Long is dedicated to this theory. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There is quite a bit about the theory, yes, but there is also quite a bit written in the media about it. Perhaps it could be spun out into a separate article, like is done for the Assassination of JFK. Or trim the section and rename to "Conspiracy theory," rather than "Counter theory". Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 19:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers has been doing an excellent job mediating a protracted dispute over race and intelligence at Talk:Intelligence quotient#The "no evidence" statement. At this point, however, I don't think it's fair to be putting the entire weight on their shoulders. I know that there is reticence to get involved in this topic area, but wider participation here would be helpful. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Steve Cokely ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

No specific recent activity, but probably worth watching and improving. Cokely gave over 5,000 lectures on the topic of global warming and corporate conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission, The Bilderberg Group, Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Boule, etc. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Now thats a name I haven't heard in a while, in his day he was a perennial fixture of the conspiracy circuit (and in the writing of those critiquing said conspiracy circuit). Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Macroevolution ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

has been turned into creationist propaganda. I reverted, but I guess that is not the last we will hear of this. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It was not. The guy seems to think that this is about me, and tries to argue on my Talk page instead of the article Talk. Also, refuses to adhere to WP:BRD. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Turns out I did not check the whole content: the section said those ideas were refuted. But the inappropriate section title "Criticism" fooled me - it looked profringe. Still does. Could somebody else tell him about WP:ONEWAY? He probably won't listen to me. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

There was an unusual incident at the article Sathya Sai Baba. A user changed the subject's religion to " Humanity" and added content which is unsourced and gave false balance to claims of supernatural powers. They're at AIV now, since they have resorted to long-winded personal attacks, such as [55], which typically accuse users of imperialist fact-distorting. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Now blocked for 72 hours, officially due to a legal threat in one of the attacks. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Martin Kulldorff ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

After some months of stability, this has flared up again, with disagreements about Kulldorff's stance on various COVID-19 matters. Could use more eyes. Bon courage ( talk) 14:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bachelor's Grove Cemetery (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The spooky should be cut down, but I am unsure how much. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

let me take a pair of sheers to it Sgerbic ( talk) 17:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean Hob. The Ghost Research Society is notable but the citation for the cemetery looks like it's just something from their website. Several others are linked to books I don't have access to. Let me see. Sgerbic ( talk) 17:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice images though - I love me some photos! Sgerbic ( talk) 17:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The Element Encyclopedia of the Psychic World and ghostresearch.org are not remotely WP:RS. News stories published on or around Halloween such as "Visit Dead for a Halloween Treat" and "Dixon Shutterbug Boasts a Supernatural Snapshot" etc. are WP:SENSATIONAL not-meant-to-be-taken-seriously coverage by normally reliable sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

okay - let me cut farther Sgerbic ( talk) 18:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, done Sgerbic ( talk) 18:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of this mention of a paranormal test - in the Journal of Perceptual and Motor Skills? I can't locate it, it's not R/S and if I remove it then all the ghost stuff is gone. Sgerbic ( talk) 18:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

[56] Here is the abstract Sgerbic ( talk) 18:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay I just read the study (thank you WikiMedia Library). Summation - these researchers used a lot of different camera types and went to this cemetery and set up quadrants. They cite Joe Nickell who says that "film anomalies are a function of conventional mechanisms, rather than parapsychological factors." He also says that "film anomalies are merely conventional artifacts misinterpreted do to contextual variables such as a belief in the paranormal or demand characteristics of the situation". The final conclusion is that they think this test might be helpful for future researchers. But the main takeaway seems to be this "Researchers using photography or analyzing photographs in the investigation of anomalous phenomena have not extensively pursued alternative causes for photographic anomalies. Clearly, researchers must consistently take into account such variables to begin to distinguish between photographic artifacts and possible evidence of paranormal or Fortean-type phenomena." They also say in the study that "that ambiguous (yet otherwise normal) events are often considered meaningful due to paranormal contexts."

In other words, they found nothing. And in conclusion what seems to be happening is ghost-photographers are seeing ghosts in their pictures because they aren't looking for the reasons why the photo looks that way, they are seeing what they want to see.

So what do you think we should do with this? Expand on the reference or leave the paranormal section out? The Bachelor's Grove Cemetery was where this test was done, but back in 1997. Sgerbic ( talk) 18:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This particular cite to Houran is probably OK. It's typical of parapsychologists of the era who were aiming to distinguish "false" paranormal evidence from "real" paranormal evidence. Some of his other stuff published in Parapsychology journals would not be considered a WP:FRIND source. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay - I'm about to go run some errands (cats are out of food) so I'm leaving this on my desk and will get back to it in a couple hours. I did a search on Newspapers.com and found two articles, one on Halloween eve talking about how it might be haunted and the other was ghost hunters cleaning up the place as it is always vandalized and trashed. I don't think I will add those articles. Kitties await their dinner. Sgerbic ( talk) 18:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Despite the cute headline and Halloween season publishing date, this Chicago Tribune story is one of the least credulous, and establishes that the place is most notable for legend tripping-related vandalism [57]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I did some cleanup and added some sourcing. I'd advise fleshing out the history section using this history page written by one of the local trustees. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Pretty soon all that will be left are the photos. Sorry I got distracted after my cat food run. About to check out that history article now. Sgerbic ( talk) 02:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I just added a bit of history about how the place might have gotten the name - and who were the first and last people buried there. I also removed the haunted category. So now the page has pretty much been de-ghosted. The video by the historian looks really interesting, he starts off talking about how all the folklore and ghost stories were just made up. I didn't watch the rest of the video, but added it as an external link. I'm sure anyone really interested in the cemetery as a historical place will find it interesting. I think we are done team. Good job! Hope I don't have nightmares of bachelors haunting me tonight ooooooooooooo Sgerbic ( talk) 02:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I also removed the haunted category - um... are you aware of the huge category tree this is part of? One large branch of the tree is Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States by state. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh Lard - Hob! More! I have cats that need feeding! Sgerbic ( talk) 18:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I ended up removing the Houran cite. As a holdover from the old days when alleged photos of ghosts were minutely analyzed and hotly debated, it's no longer relevant to the focus of the article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

great! Sgerbic ( talk) 20:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Cats may now eat undisturbed. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I was looking at the German Wikipedia article about Tiwanaku for recent information and found that it has several pargraphs discussing many of its building stones being manmade blocks composed of synthetic geopolymers. This concept is incorrectly presented as being main-stream, instead of fringe, science and give undue weight to this idea. Paul H. ( talk) 18:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This page has "jurisdiction" over the English Wikipedia, not other languages. Sadly, a similar noticeboard is missing in the German version. But I'll check that article. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, dubious things not pointed out as dubious clearly enough (that microbiologist is a layman, and what he says is bollocks). But I think you should try the Talk page first. Most of the people there should understand the subject better than me or anyone else you can pick up here who understands German. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

In my understanding, the German Wikipedia is in pretty poor shape for matters fringe. But the problem needs to be sorted there, not here. Bon courage ( talk) 19:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

So the Lancet commission report dropped recently and has caused some consternation for its apparent suggestion of US/NIH involvement in SARS-CoV-2 origin. Lab leakers in particular seem upset this is the wrong kind of conspiracy theory (it should have been blaming China!). Anyway relevant edits/discussion at

• Investigations into the origin of COVID-19‎ ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
• COVID-19 lab leak theory ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

and a recent thread at

• WP:BLPN#COVID-19 lab leak theory#Fringe views on genetic engineering

could all uses input/oversight of fringe-savvy editors. Bon courage ( talk) 06:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Myers–Briggs Type Indicator ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Lots of activity and some disagreement here recently. Could use eyes. The article in general has been in pretty poor shape for a long time. Bon courage ( talk) 06:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User is edit-warring and saying in the edit summary, I'm not interested in Edit War. Mistakes mainstream psychology for "bad faith". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Levitation (paranormal) ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Someone wants to add questionable fringey sources. Discussion has just started. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 21:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you think about [58]?

Yes, that's the point. The naive churchgoer's understanding of Christianity is "the Bible, then the fundamental doctrines like the Trinity, then the patristic fathers debating other stuff." But in fact it was totally different: The NT was produced *by* the second generation of disciples, and reflects controversies that already had arisen in a church that was at least 40 years old by the time that the oldest material in the NT was written, then only centuries later did trinitarianism become a significant issue. There isn't really anyone who disputes this other than a small fringe of non-academic Protestants who will tell you that God prefigured later debates by divinely inspiring resolutions to them in material written centuries earlier. The article leads people to the wrong idea about the historical development of the doctrine and presents the false apologetic notion that trinitarianism was a commonly understood belief in the early church.

The beliefs of traditionalist Christians should be accurately included in the article, but its structure should not depend on them. Predestiprestidigitation ( talk) 11:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I see [59] as WP:SOAPBOXING for WP:FRINGE views. tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

All thise opinions do need to be attributed, if that's what you mean. St Anselm ( talk) 13:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Mutatis mutandis:

Wikipedia works on the basis that whatever scientists commonly consider to be true is true. Binksternet ( talk) 23:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The text in 14 which was removed and may be some of what is at issue reads:

The claimed theological unity of the Christian Church was propaganda retrospectively projected by the clergy, rather than a genuine historical reality. Post- Bauer historians give the lie to Eusebius's Historia Ecclesiastica with its claim that true faith precedes heresy, and heresy being a wilful, devilish choice to disbelieve the theological truth.

There are some WP:WEASEL words and WP:PEACOCK terms in there. Was it " propaganda"? The word "propaganda" did not exist until the Counter-Reformation, so it seems at least somewhat anachronistic to label it as such in Wikipedia's voice. Surely another term could be used ("doctrine"?, "dogma"?, "belief"?) that does not suffer from this problem. "Genuine historical reality" as well didn't really exist as a rhetorical proposition until post-Enlightenment. You might as well say that it was "pseudoscience". And while post-Bauer historians may have consensus on a topic, do they really "give the lie to" a third/fourth century bishop? I'm not sure that you could find a quorum of scholars who would agree that this is what they are doing when they evaluate the context of the writing of the New Testament. The sources do not seem to be going on about "debunking" Eusebius in spite of what contradictions are evident from what we know happened in comparison to what may have been written about circa 400 CE.

Besides, to have any iron in the fire at all about whether "true faith precedes heresy" presupposes that true faith and heresy actually exist. Most non-believers reject that premise out of hand. Neither side is correct just as the there is not necessarily a correct "side" in the conflict between heaven and hell. :)

jps ( talk) 17:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Made me laugh. But books of Bible scholarship are rife with claims of Ancient propaganda, e.g. in respect to the United Monarchy, the House of David, the chosen people, Babylonian exile, Cyrus as the Messiah, etc. Just because the Ancients could not use the word "propaganda" does not mean we should not use the word, either.

And of course, I believe in making it simple, without adulterating its meaning. But others are free to rephrase my words. E.g., terms like "heresy" and "true faith" reflect the views of the group which has won the Ancient theological struggles, but we use these terms without endorsing their perspective.

If you ask me, propaganda simply means preaching something, or WP:SOAPBOXING as we say. I would translate the title "Book of Ecclesiastes" as "Book of the Propagandist".

I don't see propaganda as necessarily nefarious, e.g. I wish that propaganda for peace had more power. See also emic and etic. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I can agree to all that. Still, it strikes me as a bit startling to read the term "propaganda" in that context. If we have sources that use that kind of description, we could attribute, and if most of the reliable sources use the term we could WP:ASSERT it, but from what I could see of the sources I don't think that's the word they use. I'm not necessarily a stickler for precise word usage to determine our choice of vocabulary. But when it comes to a term as loaded with meaning as "propaganda" (what, is there an equivalency between Eusebius and Leni Riefenstahl?), I think it's good to at least consider whether there is a way to say this differently or expand upon the point if it is really one that is being made in the sources. jps ( talk) 03:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

And a citation to Keith Hopkins "Christian Number and its implications" is inappropriate for "propaganda". Unrealistic to accept the self-representation of unity certainly: Of course, the drive towards unification did not succeed completely, ever. The house cult-groups and communities were too diverse and too diffused over different regions with their own cultural traditions, and individual Christian believers were too passionate and inventive for unity ever to be achieved in reality. But the ideal and illusion of unity as a church and as a grand (apostolic) tradition persisted, and had a powerful effect on Christian organization and self-representation. Christian church leaders repeatedly tried, at least from the middle of the third century onwards, to achieve unity of belief and practice. I think in some measure our author might have agreed with "propaganda" as a term if there were more expansion and explanation, but as is this is somewhat a disservice to his work. Hopkins is interested in the implications of: One tentative but radical conclusion is that Christianity was for a century after Jesus' death the intellectual property at any one time of scarcely a few dozen, perhaps rising to two hundred, literate adult males, dispersed throughout the Mediterranean basin. How these numbers and dispersion played into dogma, exclusivity, and an illusory self-representation of unity are all very interesting and hit ideas appropriate for the article, but consider: I don't think that anyone in the middle of the second century could have reasonably predicted that the policy of dogmatic exclusivism would end up with a triumphant monopoly. The success of the strategy was discovered only over time; it was not purposively invented as a marketing device. Editors should summarize sources, rather than pulling quotes to support a preconceived construction.

Also, Hopkins is a source beyond the competence of editors to use without reference to more general and comprehensive works. This paper is an experiment in both method and substance. My methods are frankly speculative and exploratory. For the moment, I am interested more in competing probabilities, and in their logical implications, than in established or establishable facts. He is looking at Rodney Stark's work and speculating on implications. In the same way "primary" and "secondary" are often used on this board to describe how for instance an original paper shouldn't be used without reference to a review or more comprehensive source. fiveby( zero) 15:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"Propaganda" could mean lying like a dog, but it does not have to. Having grown in a Communist regime, I know their propaganda follows the pattern lie, lie, lie, blame the capitalists. Having analyzed the propaganda of the Dutch government, it follows the pattern real fact, real fact, real fact, desire. Dutch propaganda is preponderantly reality-based, Communist propaganda is preponderantly out of touch with reality (creates its own fake reality). tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Chiropractic in Canada ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

See Talk:Chiropractic in Canada#This article seems pretty non-neutral. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I cleared out most of the promo, poorly sourced material, and copyvio. There was little left, and I took it to AfD. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Robert Thieme ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
• Berachah Church ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

This is a classic example of a non-neutral, fringe religious figure whose biography is written from the perspective of a member of their church (which I'm convinced, based on the edit history, is exactly what happened). Our biographical article on Robert Thieme and Berachah Church have flown under the radar for many years. Looking at the administrative archival record, the only thing I could find in regards to this problem was an edit war that took place back in 2017. [60] Moving forward, all the usual problems noted on this board can be found in the biographical article. (@ ජපස: as he is a recognized expert on this topic.) It isn't clear if we need the article on both the biography and the church. Someone might be able to make the case that we only require one article on both subjects.

I think Thieme is more notable than the church itself, but when one looks closely at the current biography (and the link to the edit war above), it is evident that the article was written by a member of the church as an overt hagiography of Thieme, as well as a deliberate whitewash of the published criticism of Thieme and his church, which have been repeatedly described as a Christian cult, most notably in the popular press for having the family of Dan Quale, the 44th vice president of the United States, as members and believers, specifically his wife's family. The Associated Press initially covered the story [61], followed by Elinor J. Brecher and Robert T. Garrett of The Courier-Journal, who published a brief expose in The New Republic back in November 14, 1988, followed by the New York Times in the Summer of 1989, [62] and the Chicago Tribune later that year. [63]

I'm fairly certain the cult literature has additional information on Thieme and his church, but it's not easy to find. In any case, the Christian literature, which is apparently highly skeptical and critical of Thieme and his church, isn't represented at all in the article. I would appreciate any help with this. Viriditas ( talk) 20:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I rather agree with your assessment: the man is likely more notable than the church, but I actually like the church article somewhat better. Lovingly documenting the finer points of a particular preacher's theology is not something Wikipedia is really set up to do. We don't even really do that with legitimately famous preachers like Oral Roberts or Billy Graham. jps ( talk) 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a disturbing pattern of this in the extant literature. For example, the entry for the church and Thieme in the Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions (Lewis 1998) on pp. 73-74, briefly touches upon some of the internal controversy in the Christian community, but the entry mentions nothing about the greater controversy documented by sociologists, religious historians, political scientists, and cult experts, and is mostly written from the POV of the church. I get the feeling that this reference work was written based on Thieme's promotional materials, not on a critical appraisal by a religious historian. Viriditas ( talk) 21:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Gary Wills was able to interview Thieme for about two hours, and summarizes the event in his book Under God (1990). As you can imagine, almost none of this material appears in the current article. My overarching point is that the current article is mostly composed of primary sources, when we have secondary sources that aren’t used that provide a more reasonable, neutral, and critical appraisal of the topic. Viriditas ( talk) 21:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Trait Emotional Intelligence (Trait EI) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page was created today and appears to be largely promotional, created by a user who's contributed little beyond pushing this model and fluffing its originator. I have a few concerns but unfortunately little time right now to devote to resolving them. First of all, the article contains lots of WP:PEACOCK language that I doubt is supported by the sources. Second, I'm not sure the topic merits a standalone article separate from Emotional intelligence, and may be a WP:POVFORK. Third, the model's originator has some prima facie WP:PROFRINGE associations –– allegedly serving on the board of Personality and Individual Differences (though this actually failed verification) and publications with Hans Eysenck. More eyes on this would be helpful. See also Konstantinos V. Petrides. Generalrelative ( talk) 20:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I've opened a thread at COIN. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Konstantinos_V._Petrides. I agree that this doesn't warrant a standalone article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This may be of interest to editors here: The article Todd Siler includes a section in something called a "fractal reactor". Here's the entire section:

In 2006, Siler used a multimedia exhibition at New York's Ronald Feldman Gallery to present his proposal for the nature-inspired "Fractal Reactor," which offers an environmental-friendly, alternative method of using controlled nuclear fusion for energy purposes. While the actual processes used by the fractal reactor, rely on highly sophisticated physical and mathematical formulations, its principles re-examine the hypotheses behind nuclear fusion in novel ways. This proposal has been taken up by the International Atomic Energy Agency for further study.

There is no citation, and the red flags are obvious, so I looked for sources. Most are reviews in arts journals which lack topic expertise. Here's a presentation PDF given by Siler at the 13th International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems. At a glance it's not quite as bizarre as the Wikipedia article makes it seem, but it's still above my level.

The current article is very poorly sourced, but an older version includes a lengthy list of sources, most of which are offline or not linked. Grayfell ( talk) 23:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It's conceptual art, mostly, firmly part of what I call the "fractals and chaos craze" that captivated popsci discourse for the twenty years following the publication of James Gleick's book Chaos: Making a New Science. While nonlinear differential equations and fractals are fascinating things to learn about, they did not really lead to the breakthroughs that were implicitly predicted by certain commentators. jps ( talk) 14:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Certainly this idea is not notable because it hasn't gotten any further attention or citation by others. As ජපස says this is art and nothing else. Further I wonder if the article should be deleted: I don't know that the artist is notable. On the other hand the award he received may be sufficient for notability. Invasive Spices ( talk) 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Sacred geometry ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

See Talk page "This is woeful". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 03:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree: it is woeful. Here I think, is a better explanation as to what is going on: [64]. What we might do is recast the article to refer to academic works that examined geometrical design elements in churches, mosques, temples, and religious artwork. There is a lot of literature on that which is routine and interesting. A disambig link to Drunvalo Melchizedek could then be used for those people looking for what is passing for this subject in the woo-obsessed communities. jps ( talk) 14:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I have been investigating this situation a bit more. It happens that in 1982, Robert Lawlor wrote a book: Sacred Geomtery which I think is probably much better attested to than Drunvalo Melchizedek. In fact, it may have been the source for some of Drunvalo Melchizedek's flights of fancy. jps ( talk) 14:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Daemonologie ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

An IP found a sentence embracing a witch-hunter POV in the lede. See Talk page.

The user who added it, User:Mysticalresearch (contributions [65]) has done similar things in other articles.

• Martha Brossier ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

An earlier version said, Charles Miron discovered the fraud by making her drink holy water under the disguise of normal water - yeah, that is how you find out if someone is possessed. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You can also test water on known-possessed and known-non-possessed individuals, to find out whether it is holy water or not. Science at its best... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Autism National Committee ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

AfD: [66] -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Joni Patry ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Where to begin? This biography of an American vedic astrologer was created on September 2012‎ by User:Babaji31085, an account that was locked for long-term abuse in 2018, [67] the details of which I am not privy to. As of 2022, the biography has 11 sources, none of which are considered reliable or secondary. I became aware of this subject due to their social media following and their presence in the QAnon and Trump community. I think it's best if the article is sent to deletion, but I'm no expert, so I bring this matter to the rest of the community to deal with. Viriditas ( talk) 20:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)