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

Atemporal fall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most theology articles adhere to standards where they don't dwell too much on parochial interpretations of modern scientific facts. This article, however, seems to relish in the promotion of certain ideas that are minimally unique in the sense that these kinds of interpretation are nearly absent from the serious scholarship on cosmology and evolution that is found even in the philosophical treatments that sometimes permit elaborate flights of fancy. I am not skilled enough to decide whether this is a WP:PROFRINGE matter, but my spidey sense seems to indicate that this is the case.

@ Jjhake: the author of the article.

jps ( talk) 12:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair question. However, the thinkers cited all have extensive training and are widely respected. Sergei Bulgakov continues to have works translated into English by established publishers and international conferences organized in consideration of his thought attended by serious academics from excellent international universities. David Bentley Hart has published a long list of books with Yale UP and other respected publishers and has impeccable scholarly credentials. This idea of an atemporal fall is well-attested as a philosophical and theological position by both of these figures and more. Looking over the "promotion of fringe theories" criteria that you linked, I don't see how you can call this that. In researching this, I've corresponded about the topic with Stephen R. L. Clark, a distinguished academic and former editor-in-chief of the Journal of Applied Philosophy (1990–2001) and paleontologist Alexander V. Khramov (Borissiak Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ph.D. from Moscow University) who both made helpful suggestions. Several other scholars who have read it have complimented me on how well researched and cited it is. Jjhake ( talk) 12:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Certainly loads of dubious original research sourced to primary sources (a discussion of Tolkien's views sourced to the Silmarillion!?!?). Needs some heavy filleting as a start. Bon courage ( talk) 13:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I am citing two distinct passages in Tolkien as literary and mythic images of world reshaping events in stories. This can be cut down and focused, but Tolkien has these events in his story, and that point is relevant. Jjhake ( talk) 14:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my main concern as well. The article reads less like an encyclopedia entry as an overview of the topic for a journal. Particularly with the large primary sourced block quotes (often, significantly larger than the prose surrounding it, in apparent violation of MOS:QUOTE), which I think lends to the impression that it's a WP:PROFRINGE take on the matter (particularly without much WP:FRINGELEVEL and WP:EVALFRINGE level discussion). This needs to be fixed regardless. It's great writing, just not great encyclopedic content.

Regarding the boundaries with the physical sciences, there seems to be three touch points: "multiple forms of time", relation to the Big Bang, and relation to evolution. The first would probably be mostly handled with the above cleanup and discussion of broader theological interpretations of eternity. My initial take is that the latter two aren't intending to impose a theological interpretation onto physical sciences, rather to build theology around modern physical science, and so the fringe relation is to those more mainstream theological interpretations rather than to the sciences. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Bon courage: it makes a lot of sense that it would need to be substantially rewritten in line with MOS:QUOTE to be in keeping with an encyclopedia. Jjhake ( talk) 14:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Bakkster Man: yes to your point here as well: "The latter two aren't intending to impose a theological interpretation onto physical sciences, rather to build theology around modern physical science, and so the fringe relation is to those more mainstream theological interpretations rather than to the sciences." That is in line with the ideas from Hart and Bulgakov and others that I am seeking to convey (although needing to do so in a more appropriately encyclopedic style and format). Jjhake ( talk) 14:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I added a cleanup tag, since you appear to agree with the bulk of work to be done on the article. I'd suggest that, when done, the article will likely be half (or less) its current length, between quotes being summarized and the context in relation to other views being added. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. I do think I can make substantial improvements and trim extensively in line with the feedback here. I'll need other eyes, obviously, to support in that but will take an initial shot at it in the next few days. All of the feedback here is much appreciated and helpful. Jjhake ( talk) 14:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I've got it on my watchlist, and will try to help. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@ ජපස: in support of my comment above, here's an example of a recent international conference dedicated to the thought of Sergei Bulgakov, this one at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland and attended by many respected academics from multiple countries including David Bentley Hart and under the patronage of Rowan Williams.

https://www.unifr.ch/sergij-bulgakov/de/forschung/konferenzen/bulgakov-conference-2021/ Jjhake ( talk) 14:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the people you are citing in the article are legitimate theologians. However, a lot of the commentary is pretty far removed from that which might have been cited by the people who actually study the subjects upon which they are opining. Many of these interpretations are so specific to these theologian's belief systems that I think they can't be called much more than a personal dogma in light of the way they have not received notice by, say, the vast majority of scientists (even religious ones). Wikipedia generally excises precise expositions that delve deeply into personal dogmas of this sort per WP:FRIND. I am reminded, for example, of many different claims of Young Earth creationists who have to essentially retcon scientific facts to fit their personal beliefs. The sources for your article are rather more respected than most YECs, but I don't see how we can say, "No, we don't go into loving detail about Ken Ham's ideas, but it's okay to go on at great length about those of Bulgakov." Until there is significant notice of these particular claims by independent sources (even debunking would suffice!), I don't think we really should be hashing it out in such detail. jps ( talk) 15:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about a theological concept that is seriously respected and considered by several of the most distinguished living Christian theologians (Rowan Williams for example) and not ideas like those of Ken Ham. It clearly should have an article on Wikipedia. I'm hoping that the rewrite being consider will help in the issues that you have. Jjhake ( talk) 15:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the thing that would help most in this matter would be secondary citations of these ideas, especially by non-proponents. That's a really good way to indicate just how much weight to give it, by showing it's not just a relatively insular group of thinkers that, while interesting, isn't all that notable outside the insular group. You're right that this should be part of the concerns above, and if you can find those solid independent sources that will really help the rest of us participating in the cleanup. Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about the ideas in the article related to the Big Bang and evolution. Thus, "the idea of an atemporal fall is understood in modern scientific terms to mean that the fall of Adam resulted directly in the Big Bang". The words "resulted directly" have a very physical meaning in cosmology relating to discussions of causality and the idea that there is any connection to human beings which are made of atoms and molecules and the earliest moments of the universe where such physical objects simply did not exist is an extravagant claim that I see has basically not been noticed by anyone who is an expert in cosmology. Claims that the fall was "pre-cosmic" and "pre-temporal" are necessarily making claims about the physical universe and biology that are at once un-falsifiable and at odds with the modern synthesis. There is really no room in biology for "the vertical hierarchy of creation" that is "transformed into the violent horizontal sequence of natural history". At least, I see no biologist defending this idea or even acknowledging that it exists. Do you? jps ( talk) 16:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@ ජපස: that makes sense. I think it should be focused as a theological argument where there is a back and forth between serious contemporary thinkers. Fundamentally, I don't think it is making any scientific claims, and that needs to be cleaned up. There might be some exceptions to this with thought by those like J. Scott Turner, but I think this is too tangential to be in this article. Jjhake ( talk) 16:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for mentiong J. Scott Turner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which skirts ever-so-close to the WP:ECREE border. I don't think it quite crosses over into problematic territory, but it does seem to have a bit of WP:FALSEBALANCE implied in a sentence contrasting his ideas with "strong Darwinism" (whatever that is) and Intelligent Design. Ugh. jps ( talk) 16:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've started cleanup; my sense is this is not an encyclopedic entry but more an personal essay relaying heavily on unreliable/fringe (blog) sources. One this is all removed I'm not sure anything will be left. Is there any decent secondary sourcing on this "atemporal fall" notion? Bon courage ( talk) 16:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  @ Bon courage: Hart, Clark, Khramov and other contemporaries responding to all of the Russian theologians such as Bulgakov are secondary sources. This article is about a theological and philosophical idea coming out of Russian thought (Berdyaev, Troubetzkoy, and Bulgakov) and getting substantial attention from contemporary theologians and philosophers. I'll work on getting it reframed more clearly in this way.

  There are also critical responses to the atemporal fall idea in print from contemporary academics, so I'll pull those together as well.

  There are related topics such as this from Donald D. Hoffman that could be related, but I'm not sure if they are engaging with each other and therefore wouldn't connect them unless the scholarship is doing so: https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/neuroscientist-consciousness-didnt-evolve-it-creates-evolution/ Jjhake ( talk) 17:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, those theologians are primary source (for the theology). What we need is an academic (for example) commenting on this from an independent point-of-view. A chapter in a reference work on religions entitled "Atemporal Fall" for example - significant coverage. I am beginning to think this is not a notable topic. Bon courage ( talk) 17:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Got it. I'll gather a reference work on religions about this topic (I've read them in reference books from Oxford UP) as well as some coverage of this by other theologians that is critical instead of favorable. Jjhake ( talk) 17:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Searching around, the most prominent source is probably your own website, where you write: [1]

Few authors write about the idea of an atemporal fall outside of fiction and story. The first place that I saw any reference to it in a contemporary nonfiction source was in The Doors of the Sea by David Bentley Hart where he speaks explicitly of time as we know it now being “fallen” and reduced in its form. Even in this book, however, the concept is not developed but simply eluded to. Most other places where I have found this idea talked about are just recordings of conversations between authors and scholars as well as a few articles and blog posts

. If true, this means the WP:GOLDENRULE isn't met and this casts doubt on whether there should be an article at all. Bon courage ( talk) 17:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree here. If there's not significant independent coverage, it reinforces the interpretation that this is a good descriptive essay, but a bad encyclopedia entry. I'm willing to give a chance to find the independent coverage, but without it this does seem to lack notability. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The 2012 book Paradise Lost: Pre-Existence, the Fall, and the Origin of Evil by Mark S. M. Scott with Oxford University Press has substantial coverage of this topic. I'll get a few more as well in the next day or two. Jjhake ( talk) 19:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be the title of chapter 3 of a book titled Journey Back to God: Origen on the Problem of Evil. Reading the description of this book, it's a source that would convince me it's a topic notable enough to cover in the article about Origen, but not one indicating that there is an active field of scholarship in an idea of an atemporal fall that should have its own article. Maybe there's a stronger secondary source, but if this is the strongest then I'd lean towards merging a small set of this topic into the Origen article. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Both agreeing and disagreeing with it, many distinguished contemporary theologians and religious studies scholars ( David Bentley Hart's PhD from the University of Virginia is in religious studies) have written about this idea that is originally found in Origen, Evagrius, Maximus the Confessor, and Gregory of Nyssa. I'll keep pulling together the sources, but it seems very odd if a clear concept with a history of sustained attention by Christian theologians over many centuries cannot have a brief article of its own. Jjhake ( talk) 20:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I think if you can present that secondary source tying it all together that shows that clear and sustained history, that'll make it easier to get agreement. The current article seems to be lacking that (bordering on WP:OR), and is by no means brief. Brief to me is 5 paragraphs or so, not the article originally brought here that's been trimmed down to 'just' 7 sections. Bakkster Man ( talk) 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Bakkster Man: yes, with this feedback from today, I'm not advocating for the original article or it's current shape with the initial trimming that User:Bon courage started today. Secondary sources that tie it all together with this clear and sustained history as a Christian theological concept in much shorter article is what I would think reasonable. Jjhake ( talk) 20:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources that tie it all together with this clear and sustained history as a Christian theological concept in much shorter article is what I would think reasonable. I think you'll find support for that, once you provide those sources. Bakkster Man ( talk) 22:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The atemporal fall is a minority viewpoint among Christian theologians working in English. Wikipedia:Fringe theories notes that "in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear."

Most of the sources for this are in Greek and Russian. Also, as with most theological topics, this minority position is typically accused of being heretical especially in Western theological traditions (as with the closely related theological idea of pre-existence). However, I'm slowly tracking down secondary sources that give an bird's eye view of this theological minority viewpoint.

Another legitimate way to treat this from what I can see is as a historical idea shared among several prominent early church fathers and talked about by several contemporary scholars. This is much easier to source because, in this case, David Bentley Hart, Stephen R. L. Clark, Sergei Bulgakov and all of the other more contemporary thinkers that I cite are themselves secondary sources. However, it is not really accurate because none of these scholars are talking about this as a historical theological concept but as a concept that they themselves are advancing. Therefore, I'll keep working at the first approach, but this is going to take substantial work. Therefore, I hope that I can have some time to get this done. Jjhake ( talk) 00:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Bon courage: you removed four sources with just the note "junk source" and they were four articles written by these four scholars:

• David Bentley Hart (University of Virginia PhD, Religious Studies)
• Charles Andrew Gottshall (Durham University PhD, Theology and Religion)
• John Behr (Oxford University PhD, Theology)
• Mark Chenoweth (St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary Th.M. and M.Div., Theology)

I'll need to be able to cite scholars such as these to rebuild this article along the lines being discussed. Please let me know if there is any reason I can't use them again appropriately. Jjhake ( talk) 01:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Blogs, Substack pieces, etc. are generally not reliable sources. We need quality reference works, journal articles in reputable scholarly journals etc. I am still not convinced (and as you yourself write) there is sourcing on this topic which establishes it is WP:Notable. Bon courage ( talk) 04:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Having now done some library searching I believe that the concept of "atemporal fall" or "supramundane fall" is not one that gets treated at all in reliable sources, and the article we have is WP:original research. The term "atemporal fall" so far as I can see is used once, in doi:10.1111/1475-4932.00075, about economic tariffs. Have I missed anything? Bon courage ( talk) 05:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Bulgakov's translator uses the term "meta-historical" for the fall of Adam, and this is helpful in locating the many secondary sources on this topic. Also helpful is the fact that all of these Christian theologians continue to defend their own ideas about this meta-historical fall of Adam by referring back to Origen and three other church fathers who first developed the concept systematically. Within western theology, Jakob Böhme also writes a good bit about this and is noted in secondary sources on this theological idea as well. I've clearly got a lot of work to do and appreciate the time and attention here. Jjhake ( talk) 13:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  There seems to be zero suitable (i.e. secondary, independent) sources using the term "meta-historical fall". Do you know one? Bon courage ( talk) 13:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  "The Fall was often seen, in the patristic era, as being a transition not only into our present biological state but also into time as we now experience it. As Philip Sherrard has put it, it was a lapse ‘into a materialized space-time universe’. ...This kind of understanding of the character of our unfallen state has been explored by modern Orthodox scholars like Sergius Bulgakov, who have suggested that the Fall should be seen not as a historical event but as a ‘meta-historical’ one."

  Knight, Christopher C.. Eastern Orthodoxy and the Science-Theology Dialogue (Elements of Christianity and Science) (pp. 54-55). Cambridge University Press. Jjhake ( talk) 14:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  If I can find a few more secondary sources such as this (of which I already know of a few), I would like to redirect "atemporal fall" to "meta-historical fall" as this is the standard translation in English of ideas pointed out by scholars as being held in common from Origen up through Jakob Böhme, Sergius Bulgakov, and David Bentley Hart. Thoughts? Jjhake ( talk) 14:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hooray, a decent source. If it has more than a passing mention and there are more sources, there might be a viable article here. Otherwise, WP:AFD is the next logical step. Bon courage ( talk) 14:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's expensive finding such sources, but I do have more on the way. I hope that a couple days can be allowed for the research as Wikipedia is a volunteer work. Is that reasonable? I'll also note that David Bentley Hart who has published many times with Yale UP (including two more books coming out with them this year) has written about this concept directly and at length in two books (published with Eerdmans and with Notre Dame Press). These two books by Hart should be permitted as sources on this topic, correct? I still can't entirely understand why a top scholar of the patristics and of Bulgakov cannot be considered as a source here. Jjhake ( talk) 14:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  doi:10.1017/9781009106009 is available at the WP:WL. It doesn't seem to develop the idea much instead veering into discussion of the Fall as psychological. Maybe this topic would be best dealt with, with a sentence or two at Fall of man? Bon courage ( talk) 14:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm content to see you continue to actively work on the article and see where we run out of steam, before we have a Move/Merge/Delete discussion. My recommendation would be to focus less on an in-depth exegesis of the theology, and more on an overview for laymen. Where the idea came from, its proponents, how it relates to the wider Eastern and Western theologies, notable critiques, etc. Focusing on that content, trimming it of all its block quotes and about half the remaining paragraphs to get a tight encyclopedia explanation, and I think there's a chance we'll have an article worth keeping on a topic (Eastern Orthodoxy) that's often underdiscussed on the English language Wikipedia.

  The specific books and whether they're reliable sources relate back to the various initial concerns.

  One is that WP:PRIMARY sources can only be used for statements of fact, and interpretation of them requires a secondary source. So you could cite Hart to describe what Bulgakov meant, or you can sometimes cite Hart on his own work, but you definitely can't expound on what you think Hart meant in relation to something else without a secondary source.

  On a related note, the question of whether this topic is independently notable for its own article, or should be merged into a section of another article (Origen, Bulgakov, Fall of Man, etc) with a redirect. If it's mostly just a topic of discussion among some Eastern Orthodox thinkers referencing Origen, then using them as secondary sources for Origen's article makes things simpler.

  Mostly, it's the WP:NOTABILITY concern that needs independent sourcing. The primary sources, used with care, can describe what proponents think. But in general we only keep the article as a stand-alone if we have people who don't ascribe to the idea thinking it notes independent consideration as a concept, rather than just an idea that Origen and Bulgakov came up with that gained no significant traction. It's a fine line between 'notable idea from Origen' and 'notable idea among Eastern Orthodoxy', and the more discussion of this theory as one considered by others (even if they criticize or dismiss it) the better the case that it's independently notable. That it's an idea which Origen and Bulgakov laid the groundwork for, but has a life of its own outside them.

  Hope that helps. Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the time and the additional clarifications regarding when a source is original versus secondary. That's helpful.

  This is not just "an idea which Origen and Bulgakov laid the groundwork for" but moves (with many references in secondary sources) from an idea "often seen in the patristic era" through German Lutheran figures like Böhme to others in the west like Samuel Taylor Coleridge as well as back East to Solov'ëv and Berdyaev, figures that inspire Bulgakov as well as more recently Hart and Khramov and others. I realize that all of this needs to be sourced in strong secondary scholarship which is entirely doable with a little time.

  I have a remaining question about sources form the comments above. From what I see on Wikipedia about good sources, if the author is widely-published and well-credentialed on the topic and the author is named in the article, it is okay to use blog posts by that author. I understand that these would not be adequate if they were all that existed, but top scholars writing online should be able to be used as far as I can tell. Jjhake ( talk) 15:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  If there are such examples of the idea extending beyond Eastern Orthodoxy, that's something I'd suggest should get top billing in the article, rather than the minutiae of how various scholars tied it into evolution. Even if we start with a list of notable theologians and draw in the details afterward. First show why it's a notable idea, then explain the most important concepts of the idea.

  You're looking for WP:SPS regarding self-published sources. Of note: Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. They're definitely weaker sources. Not because the author is dubious, but because we value independent review. Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Very helpful. Thank you. I've gotten a small start at the top of the article with sketching out the historical scope of this theological idea across various thinkers using some secondary sources, and I will continue to find more sources that connect these figures together with this concept. I hope that the basic scope of this article might be able to be clarified and agreed upon after I get another round of secondary sources in place within the next few days. Then, I realize that there will be a lot of trimming and restructuring to do with the rest of the article in line with this agreed upon scope of this concept within the secondary sources. Jjhake ( talk) 20:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Well with the latest edit [2] things seem to be going backwards, with WP:SYNTH, huge quotations, and the return of Substack. I'll unwatch now and assume other editors can sort this out. Bon courage ( talk) 20:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  @ Bon courage: I only have the quotations within the references themselves and not up in the text of the article. I will be very glad to remove the quotations if not in good form. (I just thought that with several people critiquing the scope of this concept and its notability, etc. that the specifics might save time for everyone.) Jjhake ( talk) 20:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I can also replace the Substack (one out of many sources added) if needed, but I thought it was noted above that the occasional use of a blog post by a leading scholar is okay. Hart is an eminent scholar of Bulgakov, I can find a book or journal article by Hart pointing to Bulgakov's influence on him in this regard if needed. Jjhake ( talk) 20:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, the concern is not how many WP:SPS get used, but that they're typically worse sources and their use outside of very narrow circumstances is discouraged. As the above quote indicated, it's rare that the content is reliable enough to cite to a blog, without being found in a more reliable source. Given the seeming lack of familiarity with sourcing policy and guidelines, I'd suggest you may want to WP:DRAFTIFY the article. It will relieve some of the pressure as you work through these policy concerns on what's an intersection between multiple potentially contentious topics. Bakkster Man ( talk) 21:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I've removed the Substack essay by Hart and will only use peer-reviewed scholarship and professional print publications moving forward. I have a good bit more work to do from all of the comments above, and I'll trim it down a lot yet. However, I no longer think that the topic of this article "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline." May I remove that tag? While these others both need more work, I've also started to address 1) if the "article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories" and 2) if "the article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia." When might it be appropriate to move all remaining questions to the article's talk page? Jjhake ( talk) 22:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I've moved the page to "Meta-historical fall" as this term is used for the same concept in all of the same thinkers but is the most common term within the secondary sources. "Atemporal fall" still redirects there, and it is used by a few scholars for the same concept (along with metaphysical and supramundane as noted). Jjhake ( talk) 12:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'd suggest asking others to review the tags when you think they're addressed, rather than removing them yourself. I think the Baptist and Dutch Reform reactions now in the lede (note: these need to make their way into the body, the lede should summarize the body rather than present unique content) suggest it is indeed a generally notable topic, and will replace the notability template with the undue weight template (ie. it's roughly twice as long as its notability warrants). I'll also make some tweaks to clean up the style to be more encyclopedic. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Helpful again. Thank you. I'll leave the tags and continue work. When I think that the points you've raised here (and any other related fixes) have been addressed, I'll use the talk page to ask the editors who placed the tags (separately, as I work through the three separate issues) if they think they have been addressed and can be removed. Jjhake ( talk) 14:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  I added one more cleanup tag (for over-quotation), and moved a bunch of stuff out of the lede. I think the current lede is the right length and detail, the specifics should continue to be in the body. I think most of the concerns would be resolved by rewriting the existing sections into a cohesive and neutral phrasing with minimal quotation. See my two rewordings for an example of changing 'research paper' wording into encyclopedia wording. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. Makes sense. I'm learning a lot with this help. With the over-quotation, I see a few places left where I can trim that down in the body. Do the quotes within the references themselves contribute to this as well? If so, I'll be glad to strip all of them (or 99% of them) out. (I also think I'll shift the Baptist and Dutch Reform reactions to the new History section.) All of the guidance, feedback, and improvements much appreciated. Jjhake ( talk) 14:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not personally concerned with quotes inside the citations, and the guidelines primarily apply to quotes in prose rather than the citation. Especially with the number of paper citations, it's better to err on the side of including a quotation inside the citation to make verification by others easier. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'll work on summarizing or trimming quotes that remain within the prose. Jjhake ( talk) 14:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Please note on Talk:Meta-historical_fall a request at the bottom to review and provide feedback on the remaining cleanup tags for this article. Thank you for the help.-- Jjhake ( talk) 14:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I notice as part of this they have created the article on the paleontologist Alexander V. Khramov, who supports the idea. While I personally have cited some of this persons research, given the early stage of his career, he seems to fail WP:PROF. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 12:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anand Ranganathan (2nd nomination). A said conspiracy theorist who claimed that COVID-19 "was designed (not fortuitous)". [3] Editorkamran ( talk) 19:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The entirety of the article depends on the charlatan Thomas Gold's deep gas hypothesis. The majority of citations and pro-data either originate with him or those closely associated. At the very least the article should be noted as a biased entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.221.196.35 ( talk • contribs)

My knowledge of the Abiogenic petroleum origin controversy is limited, but the whole point of the article is to give a history of the controversy, and as Thomas Gold was one of the major proponents of the hypothesis, its inevitable that his research will be significantly mentioned. That said, the article doesn't appear to be in a good state. The fact that drive-by (mostly IP editors) keep coming to the article in an attempt to whitewash it of the fact that the evidence for organic origin of petroleum is overwhelming is annoying though, and does need to be remedied. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

From time to time I have encountered articles or books about conspiracy theories that have been written by academics and published in reliable sources. I recently encountered one such article that isn't really about a conspiracy theory but the author has included some fringe material in it. I am wondering how that affects the reliability of other material in the article. Please see the discussion on WP:RSN. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 21:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it impacts the reliability of other material, as long as the source is reliable and editors do not use wikivoice when describing anything taken from the source. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 19:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Potentially, yes. The author's expertise and credibility are significant factors in due weight. Sennalen ( talk) 20:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• There are three scenarios to consider:

a) the source is promoting a fringe theory (ie the author is trying to convince readers that the theory is true)

b) the source neutrally discusses a fringe theory (ie the author is explaining what the theory says, but not saying it is true or false)

c) the source repeats the theory in order to debunk it.

Which are we discussing here? Blueboar ( talk) 01:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Blueboar: "a", the first scenario. In a discussion about organized crime, the source is repeating as fact various fringe claims about Jack Ruby that authoritative investigations about him found to be untrue. - Location ( talk) 19:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Can the non-fringe material for which this is being used as a source be supported by a different source that does not also contain fringe material? I would consider this a "better source needed" case. BD2412 T 20:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Making fringe claims that conflict with authoritative investigations speaks directly to the reliability of the source. Generalrelative ( talk) 20:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

We can't regard police as infalliable. I don't know what particular case you're looking at, but keep in mind that views can simply be minority views without being fringe. Sennalen ( talk) 14:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

All depends on context and how it is presented. If its presented as fringe/conspiracy then I don't think it has any bearing (that is how reliable sources talk about that sort of thing), however if it is presented as factual thats an issue for everything which the source has published. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Eyferth study ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

In the talk page for Eyferth study, a user asserted the following:

"Any reference to Jensen's views would have to be presented in accordance with WP:FRIND, that is, by non-fringe sources independent of Jensen," and proceeded to delete a section of the article outlining Jensen's views.

When it was noted that Jensen's views are cited without trouble in several other Wikipedia articles, the user responded: "thank you for letting me know about other places where Jensen's fringe views might need to be cleaned out."

Is this really in accordance with WP:FRIND? The user's actions strike me as tending to diminish the usefulness of the article. Mosi Nuru ( talk) 22 February 2023

This Project needs independent secondary sources as the basis of its coverage of topics, and fringe views should only be presented as they present them. Bon courage ( talk) 08:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That's very far from what's happening, see: [4] Dretynit ( talk) 09:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC) LTA comment struck Generalrelative ( talk) 16:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

From a quick look, appears to be the latest R&I battleground. Bon courage ( talk) 10:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The claim being contested is that a small sample size increases sampling error. There's nothing remotely fringe about that, regardless of author. Sennalen ( talk) 14:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

False. Here's what I cut from the article back in October, and which is for some reason attracting a rush of IPs, new accounts and LTA socks right now: [5] There were in fact four critiques listed (none of them referred to sample size), and the subsection was clearly framed as a defense of racial hereditarianism, which is definitively fringe. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NORN#This seems to be an mistaken interpretation of a source at History of the compass. The source doesn't actually say this as a fact but the article History of the compass now asserts this as a fact. The editor is an SPA trying to prove the Book of Mormon and accusing me of pushing a pov and saying I've been here too long! (He'll have his wish soon, I won't be around much longer anyway). Doug Weller talk 11:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Richard Case Nagell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is yet another tentacle of the JFK conspiracy theories. Court documents indicate that Nagell was a "former valiant soldier" (indeed he is now buried in Arlington) whose behavior demonstrably changed after sustaining a brain injury in a plane crash. After he was convicted of bank robbery, an appeals court reversed the conviction and directed the district court to acquit him because - in my layperson's understanding - his lack of sanity was obvious and the lower court failed to instruct the jury to take that into account. [6] [7] Nagell would later claim that he was a CIA agent and/or double agent sent to kill Lee Harvey Oswald after the assassination and that he got himself arrested because he didn't want to be complicit in the assassination. Of course he and his claims come to the attention of the CIA (they state in internal documents that he has no connection to the CIA) [8] and are eventually given traction by conspiracy sources, including a conspiracy book by Dick Russell. [9] As the article currently exists, the lede even has a "reliable secondary source" stating that he was a double agent. [10] ( Here is good self-published material on all of this by one debunker.)

I am wondering if other editors have thoughts on how to handle this article. It is difficult to properly develop articles like this without relying heavily on primary source documents to refute conspiracy claims that creep up, but should that be done anyway? Or should it be redirected and merged to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories per WP:ONEEVENT? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 17:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I full-protected Aisha a few days ago due to edit warring, and the subsequent discussion has become quite long at Talk:Aisha#There is an urgent need for updating the info on Aisha Age. Accusations of pushing fringe theories and cherrypicking seem to emanate from both sides. The second comment in the discussion wisely observes that there was no controversy about this until the 20th century, and no current schism between Muslims over it either. Personally I think emphasis should be on the opinions of secular sources or sources before the 20th century, but I'm staying out of it except to respond to edit requests while the article is full-protected. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

We already have a long dispute in talk page and can't get anywhere /info/en/?search=Talk:Red_hair

If the editor doesn't have first account, or historical records that prove a historical figure has red hair. SHOULD IT BE REMOVED. YES OR NO?

I see the portrait of Odegei Khan, his beard color is clearly brown but Hunan201p see's it as red beard https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/YuanEmperorAlbumOgedeiPortrait.jpg/800px-YuanEmperorAlbumOgedeiPortrait.jpg

I asked for the editor User:Hunan201p to provide me first account on historical description of Odegei Khan having red beard but all he provided are sources that doesn't mention him having red hair but instead light colored beard. If he cannot provide the source, we have the right to remove it, don't we? Gemmaso ( talk) 03:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Journal investigating Sodom comet paper for data problems] We use it at least at Tell el-Hammam but we might want to add this. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish we had a bot that could tag references to retracted papers. True, this one isn't retracted yet but still. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds feasible and is something we should probably look into more seriously. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 06:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Unmasking Hegemonial ‘Fingerprints of the Fraud’: Disinformation, Data Manipulation and Discursive Silencing of Native Perspectives in Graham Hancock’s Netflix-Series Ancient Apocalypse Doug Weller talk 21:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Ouch. Doesn't hold its punches: all reservations which have already been formulated and staged against Erich von Däniken and similar Ancient Astronaut ‘researchers’ apply to his interpretations in the same vein. In addition, an aggravated problem surfaces in Hancock’s Narration: that he subscribes to a ‘cultural dispossession narrative’ on the basis of his forged and ‘whitewashed’ colonial-era Quetzalcoatl figure, which appears directly connectable to typical White Supremacy milieus. Definitely needs to be cited in the Hancock biography. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Andreas Grünschloß is the author. Make sure to sprinkle "pseudoscientific" a few more times in Hancock's article to stay in the running for that hot date with Steven Novella. --Animalparty! ( talk) 04:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Animalparty Being an experienced editor does not make you exempt from showing good faith. Please stop this nonsense about sprinkling "pseudoscientific", it doesn't impress and it makes you look as though you have no real arguments. Doug Weller talk 08:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Does anybody else think that we should be putting "needs more cowbell" into the Hancock and other pseudoscientist articles? - Roxy the dog 16:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

See DW above, no as it makes us look too desperate. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• The Heritage Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank that has had significant influence in public policy making. There have made statements (often crafting bills) denying climate change, claiming voter fraud in 2020, against "critical race theory", and against transgender youth healthcare. It could use eyes on proper POV when it comes to their claims, the claims of others, and information that should be treated as facts rather than opinions. For example, since June of last year we've been going back and forth on how to present their claims against transgender youth healthcare vs the peer reviewed research. -- Hipal ( talk) 23:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

What's there to argue? They make unfounded claims based on junk science designed to fit into their far-right worldview, and peer reviewed research says they're wrong. This may be a collaborative project, but it's important to call a spade a spade, even if it pisses off conservative editors. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:E07A:2192:A002:3D4A ( talk) 00:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation's anti-trans rights activities are certainly due weight to include, but I'm very wary of the "they published a study that said xyz, and certain people criticized it". It's a biomedical claim made by a very non-MEDRS source. Rather than give it a full sentence before criticizing it, I've tried to made it a bit more vague and folded it into a list that includes related activities. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean they are an unreliable source... should never be used except to state that "this foundation, a right-wing thinktank, stated XXX in regards to the issue" LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 00:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Cryptozoology
• Talk:Cryptozoology#Compress_the_article

Does this article mention that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience too many times? Should the amount of criticism be cut back? Discuss on the Talk page please. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Definitely not. We need more coverage of this topic, not less. The subculture/pseudoscience was founded on (rather angry) rejection of mainstream science with the goal of presenting as 'true experts' to the public. This has continued to the present day. If anything, we need more in-depth discussion about how, why, and under what circumstances this happened/has happened, and what it means. For example, the uncriticial parroting of cryptozoology by media outlets needs a big expansion, and so does the subculture's long and close history with Young Earth creationism, in particular American evangelical circles. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Yes as we do not need to say it 3 times in the lede and once under the YEC section and 6 times in the pseudoscience section (excluding the title). There is such a thing as over-egging the cake, all it does is make the article look to desperate to make the case its pseudoscience. Note the criticism (which is not the issue), but the overuse of the word. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The proposal by the OP calls for the article to be cut back, specifically sections that are critical. And BTW I had hoped to encourage discussion at the article Talk page rather than here at FTN. Sigh. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

How (and why) should the word pseudoscience be avoided when it is utterly central to a topic? And why would that be received as "desperate"? :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Who has said avoid it, who has said "do not use it"? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

As an example of what I mean, a recent change changed the first paragraph from saying (in effect) "Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience...which is considered a pseudoscience" to "Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience...which is rejected by mainstream science", how does that weaken the claim is a pseudoscience? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You're proposing that we stop mentioning pseudoscience so much. Why? Our reliable sources aren't shy about this topic because it's central to the topic. Since Wikipedia isn't censored, why should we dance around a fundamental aspect of the topic rather than treat it as central? :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Words only rarely become more effective through excessive repetition. Not when there is actual evidence to back up a statement. Say it is pseudoscience, and then demonstrate why. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing unecessary repetition at all. The fact that cryptozoology is a small pseudoscientific subculture is all the reliable sources really discuss. There's no avoiding extensive discussion of pseudoscience—for which there's no good synonym—throughout the article. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I am advocating discussion of pseudoscience. Discussion, through evidence and explanation, not mere repetition of the same word. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, fringe articles can get into a problematic over-egged state ("X is a pseudoscience studied by pseudoscientists in a pseudoscientific way"). Many years ago this was a problem with the Homeopathy article which was then copy edited to have punchy, more effective writing. Bon courage ( talk) 07:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Slatersteven, AndyTheGrump, and Bon courage here. We should definitely use it, but overkill is also not NPOV. I would restrict it to a mention in the lead, and 1-2 mentions in the "pseudoscience" section, excluding any quotes. There are plenty of synonyms to be used here, folks. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• No Although I replaced one instance in the lede with "rejected by mainstream science", mentioning the word "pseudoscience" six times in a section titled "Pseudoscience" does not seem to be overkill in what is a fairly long section, and I do not think the amount of criticism should be cut back. Carlstak ( talk) 19:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Every time a Wikipedian uses "pseudoscience", an angel gets its wings. --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Trust me, the opposite is a lot worse. We veteran editors have seen some shit. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I know this isn’t technically a “fringe theory”, but fringe means “not part of mainstream consensus”, so I thought it be best to place it here.

According to a British Pathe film reel ^[1] (which misspelled his name as “John Asson”), John Aasen’s height was 8’10 at when he was 23 years old. So I’m assuming the film reel dates to 1913-1914. The article about him says his height is 7’3. Should this be included in the article about him? Or at least be mentioned? Thanks 🍻 Wolfquack ( talk) 23:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Wolfquack ( talk) 23:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't that suggest that British Pathe isn't reliable? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Don’t look at me Wolfquack ( talk) 23:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Pathe was sensationalist, they exaggerated all the time. Most likely that is what happened here, I would suggest just moving on as if you had never come across that film reel. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Oops just saw your comment! Wolfquack ( talk) 23:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Horse Eye's Back assuming you did watch the film reel, I don’t think British Pathe, considering their history, is an unreliable source. Would like to mention he was 48(AKA dead) when they measured him, and had lost significant height. Wolfquack ( talk) 23:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hindu astrology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Western astrology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See recent edits at the above two articles, where it is claimed that while 'Western astrology' might be a pseudoscience, we cannot say the same about 'Hindu astrology'. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be useful if there was a discussion on the articles' talk pages about the issue. All I see are two edit wars. Schazjmd  (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

given that the claim being made is entirely unsourced, I can't see why this is an issue for this noticeboard, at least for now. Wikipedia articles don't include unsourced assertions made by contributors, regardless of the topic. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This is an editor behavior issue, not FRINGE. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Arguably "Hindu astrology" is more pseudoscientific than "Western astrology" as instruction in it has received legal accreditation as a science from a court in India. jps ( talk) 21:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

courts in india would disagree with you about it being a pseudoscience though. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 00:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Fortunately, courts of law do not determine what is or isn't science. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

They do in their jurisdiction. Thankfully not on WP. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 00:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I hear if you include PSEUDOSCIENCE in the first sentence of enough Wikipedia articles, you win a date with Steven Novella. I wonder who's in the lead?! --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Astrology doesn't have to be a pseudoscience, it can also just be a folk belief or folk practice. There are many aspects of day to day life that fall within the parameters of folklore that are inappropriate to classify as pseudoscience. However, when it presents itself as science with, you know, scientists, then that's when we're getting into clear pseudoscience territory. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, something is a pseudoscience when reliable sources broadly consider it to be a pseudoscience. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 06:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

We should probably also include Chinese astrology in the discussion - that article describes the astrological system without any mention of whether it is based in reality.-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 12:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree. MarioJump83 ( talk) 02:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is more akin to religious and cultural belief rather than pseudoscience, in same manner with Chinese astrology. To be honest, once a belief became so widespread that it became a part of the culture, it will be very hard to shake off. I'll only consider them as pseudoscience if most RS declares them as such. MarioJump83 ( talk) 02:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• It's only a pseudoscience when people are trying to present it as a science (eg. prayer alone is not pseudoscience, but faith healing is, because it tries to present certain beliefs about prayer as scientific in nature.) So the question would be whether people are doing that - and also how significant that aspect is compared to the overall topic; if it's just the occasional crank, it might be worth a mention, but we wouldn't want it to dominate the article, no more than we'd eg. categorize the entire prayer article as pseudoscience just because of faith healing. -- Aquillion ( talk) 11:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Almost per the above, it is pseudoscience if RS call it pseudoscience. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• It's only pseudoscience if it comes from the pseudoscience region of France. Otherwise it's sparkling balderdash. jps ( talk) 03:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Ozone therapy ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Talk page thread "Why is the empirical research supporting ozone missing?". Can some medical person check this? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Terrance Yeakey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prominently placed on the front page of CNN this morning is an article promoting a lesser know conspiracy theory about the OKC bombing. I don’t see that it has gained any traction here yet, but an extra set of eyes monitoring those articles for a few days would be helpful. Edit: The author of the article, Thomas Lake, has also entertained the idea that James Brown was murdered. Like today’s article, most of this appears to be based on undue credence give to hearsay. [11] - Location ( talk) 14:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source which describes this as a conspiracy theory? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, the article quotes Terrance Yeakey's sister as saying, "I think they murdered Terry because he knew too much" and "they executed him." The article does not state who the sister thought "they" might be, but in context of other claims (e.g. Yeakey's report from the day of the bombing was suppressed; he was supposed to be meeting federal agents to discuss the bombing the day he died) it clearly implies nefarious intent to prevent the "truth" from coming out about the bombing. A great deal of the information in the article appears to come from Craig Roberts. Roberts promotes various conspiracy books about JFK and the OKC bombing on his website www.riflewarrior.com/ and in a promotional blurb there states: "Anyone who thinks that McVeigh and Nichols acted by themselves also must believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter in the JFK assassination." Talk:Terrance Yeakey has a discussion that links him to the fringe theories. It is currently the featured article at the top of CNN.com. Must be a slow news day. - Location ( talk) 21:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between minority and fringe viewpoints. It definitely makes it clear that this is not the mainstream view, thats very different from covering the story as if what people are saying has to be true. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. In this case, the idea that nefarious intent to suppress the "truth" about the OKC bombing makes this a fringe viewpoint. Lake does make it clear what the official findings were: however, absent any recent developments over the past 26 years since Yeakey died, it is difficult to understand why CNN (not Fox News) is featuring/promoting a fringe view - and extensively sharing the findings of a conspiracy theorist - so prominently on its front page. There is no active story to cover so this appears to be simply infotainment à la the History Channel... but to an audience of 80 million people. - Location ( talk) 22:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

IMO the article seems to be making the case that Yeakey was in some sort of mental distress and that him taking his own life was entirely possible, if the author is trying to make the conspiracy case they do a very poor job... Basically all they establish is that there are a lot of unanswered questions and a surprising lack of transparency. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 22:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Copying my comment from Talk:Terrance Yeakey: Having read the article, the most surprising thing about it is that it's on CNN. It is the usual conspiratorial genre - long on supposition and hearsay, and short on evidence. If you look hard enough, you can find the medical report online - unsurprisingly, it doesn't mention any rope burns / ligatures, only superficial cuts, as this article admits but skips right over. The evidence better fits the idea that Yeakey attempted to commit suicide by cutting himself in the car, was unable, got out and walked for a bit, and then shot himself in the head. However, as Wikipedia regards CNN as a generally reliable source, it's reasonable to add a sentence or two to the article on Yeakey discussing alternate views promoted by CNN. I'm not interested in doing so myself, but would not object if someone else did. I would recommend waiting before adding anything further / overly detailed at this time to allow other reliable sources to weigh in as well. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 22:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have anything intelligent to say about the issue at hand here, but I'd love to get more FRINGE-competent eyes on Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories. I just pulled some ludicrously bad external links out of the article, and the body content has a startling lack of mainstream view. Some sketchy sources. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• I took a stab at it after Thinker78's edits: see here. Thoughts? I think it's better if we focus on describing just the fact that that's what his friends and family believe, rather than trying to weigh up how likely the theories are ourselves. Endwise ( talk) 12:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Looks sensible. Reading Lake's article again, I'm less than impressed with CNN's editorial process, given the total lack of material evidence. The article relies almost entirely on the recollections of his friends and family, but all of their actual "evidence" is second-hand. Craig Roberts is treated as an expert source, but he is in fact a professional conspiracy theorist who usually makes his money from JFK books. Colleague Vassar "once read a report" which he cannot produce. Tonia was once told by an unnamed law enforcement "source" about rope burns and ligature marks. His sister remembers something that another sibling (now passed away) claims Yeakey told her (third-hand). Et cetera. The fallibility of human memory has been proven over and over again; people lie, people lie to themselves, and people simply misremember, after nearly 30 years. The only thing that seems to be obviously true (whether you believe the standard narrative or the conspiratorial narrative) is that Yeakey was deeply disturbed by the bombing and it led to his death, one way or another. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 15:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Emotion is one of those broad topics where our article will probably never be good, but I happened to notice something particularly bad in the references. It could stand a once-over for any more in that vein. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it was added in this edit. Seems like a series of good faith edits to resolve citation needed tags where in this case the nature of the source was overlooked. And side note, there's a lot of good work being done on these broad topic articles; the real trick is keeping them good, because they're often magnets for any detail that random editors want to add (definitely something that could benefit from close watching for fringe material). Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There was discussion going on since 2017 that this article does not talk about the subject's "racism and antisemitism".

The discussion was renewed again in 2022 per this discussion.

This month, I had opportunity to write about these things by using high quality sources and without any original research.

But since my additions, the article is attracting edit wars (mainly by the subject's followers) on daily basis.

More eyes are needed here. Editorkamran ( talk) 15:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The article does not mention his wacky ideas about evolution - probably because there are no secondary sources. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Hob Gadling: Now it does. Editorkamran ( talk) 04:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It is worth expanding his views on evolution, I found 2 academic papers that might be of use. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It's really pretty bad. I found 4 books mentioning her and stopped. 3 self-published, this one reliably published. [12] There may be more. But I don't think there's enough. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oooh! Adventures Unlimited Press. Funny, it didn't turn up when I searched WP:RS/N. Donald Albury 14:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: This article has been nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henriette Mertz (2nd nomination). Partofthemachine ( talk) 19:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it's at least not promotional of her views. She's a kook, but that's not necessarily bad if we have sources. I've seen far worse. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 19:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Russ Baker has argued on his website (and presumably as an IP in Talk:Russ Baker) that Wikipedia editors have cherry-picked sources to negatively describe his journalistic approach and his book Family of Secrets. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Russ Baker to address these complaints. - Location ( talk) 16:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate Location starting this discussion. Yes, Russ Baker has graduated from editing the article personally and through proxies for at lest thirteen years (see [13]) to yelling about it off-wiki, and the article on him does present possible WP:FRINGE issues. But I think an even greater problem is presented by the article on his book Family of Secrets. Assuming the book even deserves an article, which is questionable, it This article is problematic by presenting Baker's fringe views without, I think, making it sufficiently clear that these are in fact fringe views. Yes it does include excerpts from negative reviews, to his great anguish, but I wonder if it requires more context as required by the guideline: in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. Is it clear? I don't believe so. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Russian pseudoscience device up for deletion due to marginal notability. Honestly it sounds like something Dr. Matrix would have come up with, so there's no dispute that it is fringe, but people who follow these sorts of things may have opinions about how well-known it is. Mangoe ( talk) 16:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

My initial thought is that it's really, really hard to evaluate notability of Soviet Union pseudoscience without speaking Russian and having access to Russian-language sources. I'd say that, as long as it definitely exists (as a thing that was tried), it doesn't try to promote it as working, and it has at least one decent source, assume it's fine. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 00:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for this deleted article to be recreated or him being used as a source. Right now his only mention is at Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#In popular culture. But he's been on Tucker Carlson's show twice this year [14] [15] so gaining more attention. Doug Weller talk 11:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, he might reach notability from that. Not to say his views should be promoted: I still like the old 2010 view that we need the sources to discuss a topic well, not merely to prove notability if the sources would only allow you to write an article promoting their bullshit. Skeptics organisations help a bit with that. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 01:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Eg In a January 2023 an episode of Tucker Carlson's Fox Nation show "Tucker Carlson Today]] had a guest who stated that "They didn't build 'em. Someone before them built 'em". Carlson replied "That's right" and saying there was "skeletal evidence of people who bear no genetic resemblance to the current Indians". ^[1] There's more nonsense in that video and in [16] Maybe some mention in Carlson's article? I'm using it in something I'm writing.

Doug Weller talk 14:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

We do not need every dumb ass thing he makes up. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Only if you can excise 3 paragraphs for the one you want to add. The article suffers from way too much detail for a political entertainer. Slywriter ( talk) 14:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree, except that millions of people don't consider him a "political entertainer". They appear to believe whatever he spews. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 15:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia debunking all (or even a majority) of his false claims won't change their minds. It would leave a bloated encyclopedia article, though. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we can't change the minds of his viewers. That's why I think "political entertainer" is a polite description and what he pushes is notable considering the power he apparently wields over his audience and seemingly his management. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 14:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Interested in ivermectin, antivaxx, COVID/cancer quackery, guerilla skepticism, homeopathy, or the history of how Wikipedia deals with FRINGE topics? How about all of these things in one article?

• Gorski DH (6 March 2023). "Ivermectin booster Dr. Tess Lawrie goes all-in for homeopathy for COVID and long COVID". Science-Based Medicine.

I don't believe Tess Lawrie is sufficiently notable for an article. Yes? Bon courage ( talk) 06:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so just yet, though she may be on the verge of becoming as such, unfortunately, considering these: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

I think I need to cue the Futurama "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" gif. Ugh. Silver seren ^C 06:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hm. Good article, though. Science-Based Medicine *is* considered a reliable source, isn't it? That'd be one of the two for WP:GNG Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 07:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It is. And looking at that simply dreadful local news piece [25] makes me appreciate anew why Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines are as they are for fringe science. If somebody creates Tesss Lawrie is would probably survive any AfD. I'm kind of hoping they don't. Bon courage ( talk) 07:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It ends up being complex. At the last RSN discussion I remember, SBM had released a statement that some authors (including Gorski and, at the time, Hall) were publishing without review. Other authors are reviewed before publication. I think it is wise to be wary about using articles from SBM as a source about living people when there is no review. That said, there is no reason to question the expertise of the authors overall, just cause to be wary about unattributed statements about living people. - Bilby ( talk) 07:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

They only show up in one article right no--- World Council for Health---and there seems to be scant reliable coverage in the last year [26] so hopefully the statues quo holds— blindlynx 15:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Dissociative identity disorder ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Is WP:FRINGE relevant here or not? Talk page say it is not. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a legitimate diagnosis in the DSM-5, so as an article overall it shouldn't be considered FRINGE. As a poorly understood disorder with a lot of competing theories, some of those views will need to get described in a FRINGE-compliant manner if they're non-mainstream. Bakkster Man ( talk) 20:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Anything may be fringe if there are fringe theories about it. For example, Earth is decidedly not a fringe topic, but there are fringe beliefs about the Earth which should not be presented as though they had wide acceptance. A specific article title is not the relevant thing at hand; rather it is whether or not text in the article is compliant with WP:NPOV, specifically " While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community." -- Jayron 32 19:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

FRINGE is relevant to this article in a few situations. There is a trend among youth right now of self-identifying as having DID (using "headmates," "alters," and other cute terms for their other identities). — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 19:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

And could anyone help me with the category I created Category:Archaeology and racism? It needs to cite this as its main article and be put in the proper tree. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Great work, Doug! Bishonen | tålk 18:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC).

I've added categories and set the main article for Category:Archaeology and racism. I also set the WikiProject banners for the article and the category. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Thebiguglyalien much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 08:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that most of the articles in the category do not mention racism in relation to archaeological claims, pseudoscientific or otherwise. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 10:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@ LaundryPizza03 You'll have to be more specific. If you list them I'll see what I can do or discuss it further. Doug Weller talk 13:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

For example, Leo Frobenius, Adolf Mahr, and Mound Builders do not mention the word racism at all. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 15:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@ LaundryPizza03 True. The Mound Builders coverage of the racist myth was terrible. I hadn't gotten around to fixing it but I've added material now I'd found earlier and planned to add. Froebenius's theory that whites were the root of African civilization is obviously racist but I've added the word. I don't think something so blue sky needs a source but I'm sure you could find one. I've removed it from Mahr because I can't find my source about his views on eugenics. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I also wish to thank those that helped me. User:Donald Albury, User:A. Parrot and User:Valjean gave me valuable advice on the talk page, User:Hoopes did also off-wiki and added some citations, and User:Nishidani in particular who also gave me valuable advice and some content editing which enabled me to move it to article space. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Everyone but a few rare birds was 'racist' a century ago (and not only). Racist with different degrees of intensity (or levity). Frobenius is a mixed bag but he did once write:'Over there in Africa, all of us, all Europeans are one blood, one race ; we have to be one will. We are taming this black beast, each of us the limb that fell to his lot in the distribution' which you can find in one of Kuba's articles. Great job, Doug. Nishidani ( talk) 16:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Could use more eyes. I reverted once, but a newer user continues to add single studies. Diff. This user appears to have been adding single studies to this article slowly for many years. May require a big cleanup. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, using single studies like this is a big fail of WP:MEDRS Umibe ( talk · contribs) doesn't appear to be taking that criticism on-board though. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 11:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Umibe hasn't been formally informed yet, ever. They'd probably only notice if they read the history tab of the article and read the edit summaries. I'll go ahead and leave a note on their user talk about this discussion. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 17:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I jusy rolled back their most recent additions, but someone with more medical ability will need to go through the entire "criticism" section and pick apart thr sources as theyve been active on this article for a long time now. 73.68.72.229 ( talk) 12:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Your rollback included studies published by Nature journals which is at odds with your claim that this is was somehow "profringe content". There was a section which I manually blanked, because it had nothing to do with the topic, but going to a pseudoscience page and deleting cited text based on it being fringe doesn't help other editors understand your intent. I don't have any stake in this, but other than the part I manually changed, what you did appears indiscriminate and has been reversed. If I'm wrong, please feel free to explain. Oblivy ( talk) 13:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

All the text and references supported by studies, including those cited to Nature, probably needs to go. Studies are not reliable per WP:MEDRS. Need review articles, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews, which are academic papers that summarize large numbers of studies. Single studies by themselves are too likely to be junk due to the replication crisis and bad study methodology. This is especially true for studies that have WP:REDFLAG results. I support 73.68.72.229's removals, although the deleted paragraph that cites a meta-analysis can stay if that is WP:DUE, since meta-analyses are reliable per WP:MEDRS. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I jumped into a debate that is ongoing. In my defense, this debate wasn't not mentioned at all in the comments justifying significant blanking activity. However, the insistence that bad science be removed from an article 'about' pseudoscience is bizarre. The phenomenon is genuine - real-life association of blood types with personality. Studies attempting to prove it are part of that phenomenon. Suggesting that WP:MEDRS should be applied to an article which states in the lede that it's about a pseudoscience is elevating rules over reason. You all are way passionate about this than I am so I'm going to back away. Oblivy ( talk) 05:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

the insistence that bad science be removed from an article 'about' pseudoscience is bizarre No, it is not.You got it wrong. The rules are for exactly this situation (among others).

Pseudoscientists claim there is a connection, and we should not quote primary studies supporting that, but secondary studies evaluating the quality of those studies. There is a reason for those rules: Wikipedia should not propagate fringe ideas by quoting fringe sources.

You all are way passionate about this What we are is: experienced in fringe topics. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly one perspective. Not sure it withstands a close reading of the relevant Wikipedia policies but you guys can figure it out. Just maybe improve your edit summaries or put a link to this discussion on the relevant talk page so people know that there are experts at work. Oblivy ( talk) 11:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Just accept the 'L' and move on, no need to get snarky. 73.68.72.229 ( talk) 22:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

See discussion here. Sentence is: Members of DRASTIC have engaged in personal attacks against virologists and epidemiologists on Twitter, falsely accusing some of working for the  Chinese Communist Party cited to the WP:RSP "yellow" CNET. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 15:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Surely this has been covered by a more reliable source? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That's what I thought, it's gotta be. I only looked through 1-2 pages of search results but couldn't find any easily. I think there probaly is something out there. I think part of the issue is that it's difficult to search for D.R.A.S.T.I.C. or "DRASTIC" because of the cruft that get's added to the search query. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Same, I got through four pages of google results without finding a single relevant article besides the CNET one. There are just way too many stories which induce the words "twitter" "drastic" and "harassment" from the last two years. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This 2021 piece in Nature [27] obliquely refers to them as a group that claims to independently investigate COVID, but doesn't mention them by name. Though it's pretty obvious it refers to them if you know the actual context. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

There's also this article in SCMP [28], but I don't have access to it. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

oh see below! I got a full text with WP:TWL. It does verify I think, and it's the strongest source so far. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It does the opposite of verify, it makes a contradictory claim. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I did find these with a bit of creative use of The Wikipedia Library and some google fu:

• South China Morning Post: Critics have questioned the tactics of DRASTIC – accusing them of cherry-picking evidence to support their claims and abusing scientists that have differing views.
• Less reliable: Newsweek: For a long time, DRASTIC's discoveries stayed confined to the strange world of Twitter, known only to a few nerdy followers. The sleuths ran into a fair number of dead ends, got into the occasional spat with scientists who disagreed with their interpretations, and produced a firehose of reporting.

—  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Well now we have a problem because those sources don't support what CNET said. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

the SCMP does for the most part. I would prefer it if the article were worded more closely to what this more reliable source says, though. such as: ...have abused scientists with differing views on Twitter. or ...have been criticized for abusing scientists with differing views on Twitter. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The SCMP verifies something completely different, which is that these claims have been made by critics. We can change what the article says, but the wording based on CNET isn't at all supported by these new sources. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

yes, so let's say instead in the article: ...have been criticized for abusing scientists with differing views on Twitter. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

But none of the sources say that. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, are you saying the assumption of it being on twitter is WP:SYNTH? Or? I figured it was not, since that article very clearly says they operate on twitter. But what about: ...have been criticized for abusing scientists with differing views. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources support "criticized for abusing scientists" one of them does support "Critics claim that DRASTIC cherry picks evidence and abuses scientists who disagree with them" which is the closest you're going to be able to get to your preferred language without OR. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, I just proposed on the article talk: Critics say the group cherry-picks evidence and abuses scientists who disagree with their conclusions. That's very close without having the copyright concerns of what you just said, which is almost entirely identical to the source. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks great! There is also probably room to say that they've gotten into disputes with scientists who disagree with them in wikivoice, for that part its really only whether the dispute constituted abuse that we shouldn't be putting in wikivoice. Also just a note that what we already had "Members of DRASTIC have engaged in personal attacks against virologists and epidemiologists on Twitter, falsely accusing some of working for the  Chinese Communist Party" was much closer to the source than anything I proposed so the barb just seems uncivil. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh my apologies, 100% didn't intend any barbs. That's the sentence that's in dispute! I agree with everything else you've said here, I just think it's best to include the attributed claim and not make the mention overall too long or UNDUE by also including disputes etc. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 19:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be a discussion about the extent to which the scientific community holds that a particular mummy discovered in 2021 was actually pregnant at the time of mummification. This is way out of my comfort zone, so I am coming here to ask someone here with a familiarity with Egyptology if they would be willing to offer an uninvolved third opinion at the talk page. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 04:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The article has been deleted after unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marzena Ozarek Szilke. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

AfD on Kendall Harmon. Does it need more than one SIGCOV source? Do his views need to be contextualized with mainstream views on homosexuality (and it has not been established that the SIGCOV source does this), or can they be sourced strictly to things he has said/written/been quoted saying in RS (but without secondary analysis)? JoelleJay ( talk) 00:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If he's notable, it would be in relation to Anglican views. Unless he's making notable scientific claims. Bakkster Man ( talk) 01:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Chiemsee Cauldron ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

People doubt this article on the Talk page. Is it a Celtic artifact? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The recent additions were made by the author of the works being referenced, and they appear to have used the article as if it was one of their works. The article before the additions could have used a lot of work, but the current article is a mess. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 22:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Jean-Émile Charon ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Guy believes electrons think. Primary sources only. Is he even relevant enough to have an article? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

After a GS and JSTOR search, I'm dubious. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Now at AfD. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's ask the electrons Sennalen ( talk) 14:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted persistent fringe edits on the page of a medical society by a WP:SPA attempting to legitimize pseudoscience and conspiracy theories with respect to the long-discredited chronic Lyme disease. I laid out why the sources were unreliable on the talk page. ScienceFlyer ( talk) 03:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

A student editor named Misosoupley has just added substantial content on spirometry (lung capacity measurement) at Race and health: [29]. I took a look and couldn't make heads or tails of it. The sources look good but there is a lot to untangle, and anytime we are dealing with the conjunction of 19th-century racial ideas and modern medicine, potential FRINGE concerns arise. At the very least, the language certainly needs a good copy edit. On the other hand, the main source for this content, Brown University professor Lundy Braun, appears to be 100% legit, and she won an award for her work on race and spirometry. Anyone who has a bit more familiarity with the topic is invited to take a look! Generalrelative ( talk) 17:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Vyas, D. A.; Eisenstein, L. G.; Jones, D. S. (2020). "Hidden in plain sight—reconsidering the use of race correction in clinical algorithms". New England Journal of Medicine. 9 (383): 874–882. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiveby ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Fiveby: what are you adding to the discussion with this reference? It doesn't appear to discuss spirometry at all. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  They are supposed to have ten sources, but only got six so far, so let's give them a hand. The spirometry content looks a little out of the blue without a more general introduction to the topic. fiveby( zero) 17:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Aha, sounds good. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

User Cukrakalnis removed a number of categories from the Święciany massacre article ( [30]), including the Category:World War II crimes in Poland category, despite the fact that it was a village located in pre-war German-occupied Poland. When I asked him about this he stated: Švenčionys is now Lithuania and there was no Polish state there after 18 September 1939 ( [31]). When I replied: This is a fringe theory, according to the legitimate Polish government and the Western Allies it was part of the occupied Polish state. The claim that "there was no Polish state there since September 18, 1939" is a repeat of the Soviet interpretation. An absolutely scandalous statement. Category:World War II crimes in Poland contains crimes comitted on territory of Poland in 1939 borders, he repeated it saying: What? The Polish state objectively collapsed during the Invasion of Poland. Few if any of the things that characterize a state could be attributed to Poland from mid-September 1939 to basically the end of World War II. No more control over borders, no monopoly of violence by the Polish state, etc. That's a fact, not a fringe theory or Soviet propaganda. AFAIK the Western Allies never said that it was part of the occupied Polish state, otherwise the Tehran Conference would not have decided what it did, where the Western Allies obviously had a 'flexible' view towards Poland etc. He also did it on Koniuchy massacre article ( [32])

In my opinion, there is no problem for an article to be simultaneously in two categories Category:World War II crimes in Poland and Category:Massacres in Lithuania during World War II, or maybe even three taking into account the current occupation regime. But in my view, removing such a category under the pretext that "the Polish state did not exist" is promoting fringe theory, since states do not cease to exist while under occupation. Marcelus ( talk) 19:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

My actions were according to WP:CATSPECIFIC, which is why I removed some categories which were the parent categories of others. Święciany massacre happened in Švenčionys, which is in Lithuania, not Poland. Same goes for Koniuchy massacre, which happened in Kaniūkai, which is in Lithuania, not Poland. So, that is why I put the categories only in Category:Massacres in Lithuania during World War II and removed Category:World War II crimes in Poland. It is illogical to put an article simultaneously in two categories concerning location in different modern countries because that is a highly unnecessary duplication which only causes unclarity and further problems.

Polish state, in the sense that it had existed for roughly twenty years until then, no longer existed during most of WWII after it was destroyed in September 1939. That is a fact. However, it seems that Marcelus thinks that the destruction of the Polish state/Poland in 1939 never happened and that this is somehow fringe. This would mean that what Marcelus himself is saying is WP:Fringe and thus clearly a WP:POV-PUSH. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 20:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly not WP:POV-PUSH nor WP:FRINGE. There is no reason for it to NOT be in both. It actually causes more clarity, as it was an area that was Polish, where Poles were killed, and now it is not. Makes sense to me. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 23:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The territory was not Polish at the time that the massacre was committed. It makes no sense to say that it happened in Poland when it was no longer part of that state. There is good reason for it to not be in both - see WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 13:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

How was it not Polish if Poles were living there? Arguably it was a part of Germany at the time. Should we list it there instead? LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 15:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Ostland was not really a part of Nazi Germany, even if obviously subservient to it, but it was intended to become part of the Greater Germanic Reich.

How was it not Polish if Poles were living there? This is ridiculous - it's the same as asking "How was the Volga region not German if the Volga Germans were living there?" The ethnicity of the inhabitants doesn't mean that the area is automatically part of the state that the ethnicity is generally associated with (e.g. Germans with Germany). Cukrakalnis ( talk) 16:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The Volga region was German, just not a part of any German state. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 20:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That argument would make sense if you'd inserted a cat like World War II crimes in Germany, it doesn't actually explain adding the cat Massacres in Lithuania during World War II. That would appear to have the exact same issue as the one you raised about World War II crimes in Poland, it wasn't Lithuanian territory when the massacre was committed. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Those categories are about where the massacre's location is in modern countries. If we would add a category for who was the contemporary ruler there, it would be a separate category like Category:Massacres in the General District Lithuania ( Generalbezirk Litauen) or something similar, as we already have categories like Category:Massacres in the Independent State of Croatia. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 16:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the category system here itself is largely at fault. The category is not "World War II crimes in territory historically claimed by Poland" it is "World War II crimes in Poland" which to any reader will imply "this crime was committed within the boundaries of the country currently known as Poland". It probably belongs in the current category of Lithuania because the category naming implies current boundaries, not historical ones. But it doesnt change the fact it was committed in a territory that was occupied by Germany that previously was claimed by the Polish state. And until we have a category that covers that, the best we can do with the category system is cater to what the category title means to the reader rather than what the historical perspective is, or we can IAR and put it in both. Personally I think it should be in both, as the situation is a)complicated, and b)should anyone click on it, the relevant article will no doubt explain its geographical issues. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Not to any reader, i would just take it as a best effort to help me find information and not implying anything beyond that. At a stretch might even be able to read the article to and learn more. fiveby( zero) 17:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

the category is not "World War II crimes in territory historically claimed by Poland", but it wasn't "claimed by Poland", it was a Polish territory under a German occupation, the same way eastern Ukraine is still part of Ukraine today; Polish border changed only after Polish–Soviet border agreement of August 1945, which internationally recognised agreement. Marcelus ( talk) 22:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

On the IAR point I'm not sure what rule we would be ignoring, as far as I know there isn't anything which says that for historically complicated topics we can't use multiple categories. We do that all the time when there is shared history. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 22:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Which this is a prime example of. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 20:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should mention of the conclusions of a Harvard “pre-print” paper by Avi Loeb [33] and the head of AARO be included in the article? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it seems to be significant in the context of the AARO. Sennalen ( talk) 14:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, external work by leadership of an organization, even related to the organization's mission, isn't necessarily notable to the organization itself. Particularly the portrayal that the AARO is the one who "released" the draft, which does not seem to be the case (despite erroneous press reporting). Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed the section from the article for the above reasons. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do they have to rename that thing every few years? Just call it "Ministry for Weird-Looking Clouds and Venus" or something like that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Eh, this one's a defense department initiative taking military reports and removing the UFO stigma that limited them, because identifying either sensor issues or actual foreign adversaries is a legitimate national security activity. It's definitely not "weird looking clouds and Venus", the only fringe bit is the jump from 'we don't know what military sensors detected' to 'alien motherships are hiding in the solar system'. Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Pentagon Officials Say Alien Mothership Possible" IMO, even reliable sources can indulge in this kind of clickbait, so sources using alien mothership headlines should be ignored per WP:SENSATIONAL. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

From what I saw when I looked a few days ago, very few sources which can be consider RS have even talked about this anyway. In fact, the only one I've seen which is likely an RS is The Independent. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:PREPRINTS we should wait until the peer review process is finished. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) ^{Talk to Me!} 15:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

On any other page Sennalen ( talk) 15:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Not yet. There is no rush. Once the article is reviewed and published there is no question whatsoever that it will be cited, despite the lead author's clear COI and pro-fringe inclination. I note also that the argument immediately above - On any other page - is groundless. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The cherry picking of the juiciest/most misleading quotes has begin. We could definately use eyes on the article and talk page, to avoid a replay of all the nonsense that went on at Talk:Pentagon UFO videos/Archive 3 - MrOllie ( talk) 23:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

A pretty similar conflict to #Book of Daniel is taking place at [34].

While I am prepared to admit that the claim that the Book of Isaiah has only one author is fine and dandy as theology, it is WP:CB as history. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Watchlisted the chapters, but they all have: ...book contains the prophecies attributed to the prophet Isaiah so you've already told the reader there was one author. Looking at it from the point of view of a reader with no background, and expecting the lead to be a self-contained intro to the topic, I don't see how pointing back to SI really helps that reader.

By the way 44 and 45 should have, the same language in the intro shouldn't they? Nothing different about those particular chapters? fiveby( zero) 13:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

...book contains the prophecies attributed to the prophet Isaiah does not mean that Isaiah is the author, just that the prophecies got attributed by we-don't-know-who to Isaiah. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Robert Baldauf has several extraordinary claims about Ancient texts that lack in-line citation though does have general references. A quick glance at de-wiki suggests our article may be too optimistic. Bit out of my expertise, so dropping here for other eyes. Slywriter ( talk) 05:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There are some fringe concerns about this article as unreliable content is repeatedly being added, also see the related afd. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Page currently describe absolute terms that there was a government misinformation fed to him about UFOs whilst the page for the source of the claims is more ambivalent, is there a way to get the two to sync up? 2001:8003:34A3:800:30A4:5115:2B06:4977 ( talk) 11:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The book Mirage Men is obviously not a reliable sources but is used 11 times on the article. I agree that some major clean-up needs to happen there. Perhaps editors involved in this topic area can help. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This issue has been raised before on this noticeboard [35]. The user SanctumRosarium who has been blocked in the past for edit warring on this article is adding credulous information to the article including entire sections of Pio's alleged feats such as bilocation, celestial visions, demonic attacks etc without any rational coverage. It seems he has re-written much of the article in February 2023. In the Stigmata section, there is also dubious content such as Raffaele Rossi being quoted citing Pio's stigmata as genuine and a "real fact". There seems to be some serious NPOV issues here. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Also see Gemma Galgani. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a {{More citations needed}} banner on the article, but it looks like the problem is cherry-picking from the good sources already cited. Example: summarizing Peter Jan Margry's "Merchandising and sanctity: the invasive cult of Padre Pio" (available elsewhere if you can't get the T&F content) with only Padre Pio has become one of the world's most popular saints. Can't find Luzzatto but i'd bet that is a case of cherry-picking also. fiveby( zero) 01:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

fr:Padre Pio has Sur cette base et celle des autres dénonciations mentionnées, l'auteur prétend à un truquage des plaies par Padre Pio from [36] [37] but that's maybe an overstatement. Says in the prologue he isn't setting out to disprove the stigmata. Found the full Italian but only see the google preview in English. fiveby( zero) 02:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The other big issue is Castelli which is for the most part a primary source from our Vatican historian being put on a he-said-she-said basis with Luzzatto who is taking a critical look and giving much more than the details. Straight biography here, Gemelli this and Rossi that will probably always be unsatisfactory. Just a quick glance at Margry is enough to show this should be much more than biography with the stigmata and miracles a smaller part. fiveby( zero) 05:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes this is part of the problem, SanctumRosarium has been citing Francesco Castelli's biography almost exclusively like a religious script. The reference is used far too much and taken at face value. It is not a critical source and contains little to no skepticism of Pio's claims. The Odor of sanctity section and the others should be removed because they only cite Castelli. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe WP:Summary Style in the main article, and confine the quoting of primary sources to an "Investigation into..." article? fiveby( zero) 13:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

[38] Doug Weller talk 15:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

CNEOS 2014-01-08? fiveby( zero) 15:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I still don't see how they're going to find anything, given the suggested 60 km/s impact speed (about 3x the speed of the Chicxulub impactor) would obliterate basically all of the rock present. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

As time passes, I become more confident that a RSN discussion regarding the reliability of anything Loeb writes or says will become necessary. Their "Prove me wrong!" approach to sensational data interpretation is becoming suspect. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 11:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Can't find anything if you don't look, I guess? Sennalen ( talk) 13:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering if there is enough doubt of "confirmed by Space Command" expressed in the article based on this in WGN? fiveby( zero) 13:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That's another issue. Is the USSC really in the business of publicly confirming/calculating natural objects' orbital and physical characteristics? That organization, I thought, existed to conduct military operations in space, not to provide physical data that the astronomy community typically receives from the MPC, JPL's solar system dynamics group, or their own labs. Lastly, I have a pretty good idea of how Loeb would react to the Vaubaillon paper, seeing that it doesn't exactly fit with the sensational "Look at all these artificial devices from extraterrestrials!" message he is selling claiming. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Space Command collects that data and sometimes shares it. e.g., https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/us-space-force-releases-decades-of-bolide-data-to-nasa-for-planetary-defense-studies Sennalen ( talk) 16:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Nicola Scafetta ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Climate change denier; article seems to contain gobbledigook. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Article seems to be from a neutral point of view - even academics can be climate change deniers. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 18:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the fringe theories noticeboard, not the NPOV noticeboard.

Maybe I should be more specific: The article says, Scafetta's climate model is based primarily on a numerological comparison of secular periodic changes of global surface temperature and the Sun´s periodic movement around barycenter of the Solar System caused by the revolving planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune

So, numerology combined with the tiny movements of the sun caused by planets? Looks like fringe to me, and fringe ideas need to be presented within their context - which means, with mainstream criticism. "Failing to disclose code" is independent of that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't trust what you read on Wikipedia. The word "numerological" was just randomly added by an IP one day and has nothing to do with what the paper is about.

From a 2 minute glance, here's the TLDR of what I think it's about: Scafetta looked at historical records for global surface temperature and the orbits of some planets, said "hey they look similar on a spectral plot", and made a simple phenomenological model of orbital cycles driving surface temperature. And then said if you applied that model to astronomical data from the 1970s onwards you get a solar forcing which would account for about 60% of the heating over that period.

How useful or meaningful or accurate that analysis is is up to you decide, but it certainly has nothing to do with numerology. Endwise ( talk) 09:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, that is one fewer problem. But still, that silly cum-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc idea should be put in mainstream context or deleted. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Because all observational studies are worthless, rather than a sound starting point for future research? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Serious white-washing going on this article by an IP claiming Maryanne Demasi is being smeared by the scientific community. The IP who has about 4 different IP addresses is repeatedly deleting sources. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What are the legitimate uses for these templates? in the sense of moving those that should be to {{Cite journal}} what should be left over? Poincaré_conjecture#Solution per here?

For instance arXiv: 2105.10088 in Apollo 11 should be a citation doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2021.105304 and Planetary and Space Science with a convenience link to arXiv. But if i can't find any journal publication, what should i leave alone? fiveby( zero) 14:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There might be, for example, lecture notes by a notable mathematician that explain some uncontroversial mathematical topic. Because journals don't always have room for a leisurely expository style, arXiv posts might be the best sources for some aspects of a topic, like heuristic arguments for why definitions were chosen the way they were. This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics, which John Baez has been putting on the arXiv, would be suitable under WP:SPS for many such purposes. Then there are publications that attract sufficient attention and commentary before officially appearing in a journal that they are noteworthy. Maryna Viazovska's paper on eight-dimensional sphere packing appeared on the arXiv in March 2016 and wasn't officially published in the Annals of Mathematics until April 2017, but there was no doubt about it during the interval. Not citing arXiv:1603.04246 during the year before it became Ann. Math. 185(3), 991 would have been downright silly. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, was thinking of removing something like arXiv: 1503.04376 (which cites Star Trek, Star Maker and Ringworld twice) as i went, but maybe just focus on finding those that should be moved to {{cite journal}}, don't know that i would recognize all the ones that should be kept. fiveby( zero) 20:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

In some cases you can tell something from the arXiv classification. physics.pop-ph might generally not be as reliable as astro-ph for this sort of topic, for instance. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure this falls under fringe, but I would really like more interested eyes and opinions at Jai Shri Ram, edits and discussions from mid-March. It's a CT-topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:CT? Or CT? If the second, which meaning? I cannot find a connection. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:CTOP, methinks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That one, yes. New-fangled Wikispeak. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I assume that you're not referring to the content of the article as fringe, but to the narrative that one user is pushing? I have no prior knowledge, but I searched google and google scholar and I found no reliable sources that support their claim that "Jai Shri Ram" translates to "Glory to Sita & Rama". All reliable sources I found give the same translation as the article: "Glory to Lord Rama". In fact I found articles (that are probably not reliable sources) according to which the whole point of using "Jai Shri Ram" instead of " Jai Siya Ram" which is translated as "Glory to Sita and Rama" is to exclude Sita. Additionally the general behaviour of that user seems to be very disruptive and politically motivated with no regard for reliable sources. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 09:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You read my mind correctly (thus proving you have extrasensory perception), and I agree with what you say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In the Talk:Carolina bays section, Conflict of Interest And Cintos Edits, a single purpose editor requests that that fringe material arguing for the Middle Pleistocene origin of the Carolina bays be added to the Carolina bays article. The "“Davias” hypothesis" proposes that a Middle Pleistocene impact created Saginaw Bay, Michigan. The same impact also claimed to have formed the Carolina Bays and blanketed the eastern Atlantic Coastal Plain of the United States with a thick layer, many meters thick, of sandy ejecta.

The main primary source is:

Davias, M., and Harris, T.H.S., 2022, Postulating an unconventional location for the missing mid-Pleistocene transition impact: Repaving North America with a cavitated regolith blanket while dispatching Australasian tektites and giving Michigan a thumb, in Foulger, G.R., Hamilton, L.C., Jurdy, D.M., Stein, C.A., Howard, K.A., and Stein, S., eds., In the Footsteps of Warren B. Hamilton: New Ideas in Earth Science: Geological Society of America Special Paper 553, https://doi.org /10.1130/2021.2553(24).

I have been unable to locate secondary and tertiary sources critically evaluating this ublciation.

This single purpose account is apparently being used solely to promote the "“Davias” hypothesis" in Wikipedia articles and likely represents a siginifcant Conlfict of Interest. Paul H. ( talk) 17:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely COI: User:Cintos#Links to paper & abstracts Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 21:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also a Wikipedia:Username policy violation, as "Cintos" is the name of the organization. The account is 16 years old, however, so there may be a grandfather-clause situation here. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 02:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• CO2 Coalition ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

User with a WP:COI tries to whitewash the article. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hob Gadling's accusation refers to me. (He didn't notify me that he was making this accusation, but, fortunately, another editor noticed it and informed me.)

I have no conflict of interest which would prohibit me from contributing the the article. I'm just a member and an unpaid volunteer for the very worthy 501(c)(3) scientific educational charity which is the subject of the article.

The reason that Hob Gadling knows that I am a member and an unpaid volunteer for that charitable organization is because I revealed it, per the WP:COI guidelines.

Because of my connection to the organization, I reviewed WP:COI before editing the article. I concluded that my unpaid volunteer work for the organization did not make me ineligible to contribute to the article, but that I should be open about my connection, which I was.

Hob Gadling's post here is, itself, a false accusation, on two counts:

* First, because the CO2 Coalition does not support or promote fringe theories, and

* Second, because I'm not trying to "whitewash" anything.

There's nothing to whitewash, with respect to that very worthy charity. I'm just trying to bring the article into compliance with WP:NPOV, and make it accurate. The fact that someone reading the current article might mistakenly conclude that the CO2 Coalition supports or promotes fringe theories is simply a reflection of how inaccurate and misleading the article currently is.

It is clear that Hob Gadling despises the CO2 Coalition, but he has not revealed why. I've repeatedly asked him work with me, to improve the article, but he just reverts and insults. Examples of his name-calling and insults include: "ravings," "anti-science ideologists," "pseudoscience," "pseduoscientist," "pseudoscientific," "crazy," "bullshit," "misinformation," "lies," "stupid," and "disingenious."

His violations of WP:Civil are so extreme that I thought that he must be new, and didn't know the rules, so I gently directed his attention to WP:Civil and WP:Respect. But it turns out that he is a very experienced editor, who has made over 14,000 edits, and who has been editing Wikipedia since 2004. Obviously, his rule violations are intentional. NCdave ( talk) 20:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem with anyone (individual or organization) saying that they "don't support or promote fringe theories" is that they really mean they "don't support or promote things that they believe to be fringe theories".

So the more practical question would be: If you could survey a thousand scientists in the field of environmental science, randomly chosen by a magic genie from all around the world without regard to political standings but always choosing people who are considered well-qualified in the specific, relevant field, and you asked them about an organization that says "There is no 'climate crisis' and there is no evidence that there will be one," what would they say? Would you expect them to say something closer to "Oh, that's right; the climate crisis is just a fairytale, sea levels aren't rising, storms aren't getting more violent, and even if they were, it has nothing to do with pollution" or would you expect them to say "What a load of nonsense"? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

When an organization's positions are supported by numerous peer-reviewed studies, published in well-respected academic journals, as is the case for the CO2 Coalition's positions, those positions may be minority positions, or controversial, but, by definition, they are not fringe theories.

All of the CO2 Coalition's positions are well-supported by robust scientific evidence. The organization does not support any fringe theories. The fact that someone reading Wikipedia's current article about the CO2 Coalition might mistakenly conclude that they (we!) support or promote fringe theories just proves that the article is misleading.

Of course, I'm talking about the organization's actual positions, not a straw man like "sea levels aren't rising." Sea-level is rising in some places, and falling in others, but it is rising in more places than it is falling, so the global average is rising, albeit very slowly.

Crucially, in most of best long, high-quality, sea-level measurement records, there's been no detectable acceleration in the trends, over at least the last nine decades. That's a period of time during which atmospheric CO2 levels have risen about 110 ppmv, and global average temperatures have also risen measurably. Yet coastal sea-level trends have scarcely changed at all.

That's not a fringe theory, that's what the measurement data shows, and what the best peer-reviewed scientific studies have reported. Here's a summary of ten major studies of coastal sea-level trends (excerpted from Houston 2021). Some of them reported detecting negligible acceleration of the average coastal sea-level trend, and others reported no acceleration at all:

https://sealevel.info/Houston2021_Table2_annot2.png

The ten studies reported "global" (average) rates of coastal sea-level trend acceleration which ranged from -0.012 mm/year² to +0.0128 mm/year². None of those accelerations are large enough to be worrisome. An acceleration of +0.0128 mm/year² (the highest acceleration reported by any of the ten studies), if it persisted for 200 years, would increase average coastal sea-level by just 25.6 cm (10.1 inches), which obviously does not support claims of a "crisis."

Your other example, "Storms aren't getting more violent," which you apparently disbelieve, is actually true. The best data and studies show that neither hurricanes & tropical cyclones, nor nor'easters, nor tornadoes have detectably worsened. For example, here's a peer-reviewed paper about hurricanes & tropical cyclones:

Lin & Chan (2015). Recent decrease in typhoon destructive potential and global warming implications. Nat Commun 6, 7182. doi:10.1038/ncomms8182.

Sea-level rise and storms are just the two examples which you mentioned. Many other harms have also been suggested as possible consequences of anthropogenic climate change. Yet it turns out that they are not actually happening, either, to any significant extent. All of the major harms alleged to be caused by anthropogenic climate change are merely theoretical. Thus far, the supposed climate crisis has not detectably worsened any of them, to a significant extent.

That's in sharp contrast to the CO2 fertilization benefits of rising CO2 levels, which are large and well-measured.

The widespread ignorance of these proven facts is proof of the importance of the CO2 Coalition's educational mission. NCdave ( talk) 04:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Quotes from this edit, emphasis mine:

• articles from other sources which mention our organization
• I shared my opinion that that article reflects badly on our organization

Yes, you obviously do have a COI. A blatant one.

And you can stop playing the tone card, the FTN inhabitants are familiar with it and know that it is regularly played by those who have nothing else.

Even if you were able to prove on this page or the article Talk page that there is no climate crisis (you can't), or that the CO2 coalition did not say there is not (you can't), it would not help you one bit because it would be WP:OR. I repeat: We have reliable sources saying they are denialists. If you want to remove that, go get more reliable sources saying they are not. (The Coalition itself is not a reliable source.) We are finished here until you do. Everything else is beside the point. You really do not know the basics of Wikipedia, do you? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hob, as I've told you repeatedly, I am a member and unpaid volunteer. If you read WP:COI you'll find that that does not disqualify me from editing the article.

I've also been an unpaid volunteer Expert Reviewer for the IPCC's Assessment Reports. Do you think it is a conflict of interest for unpaid volunteer Expert Reviewers and Authors of the IPCC's Reports to write about the IPCC and its Reports in Wikipedia?

I don't have to "prove that there is no climate crisis" in this context, because that's not what the article is about. The article is about the CO2 Coalition, which is a very fine 501(c)(3) scientific & educational charity. I've already shown you it is reported by reliable sources to be expert on climate.

But you keep making false accusations: that the CO2 Coalition supports fringe theories, that it disseminates misinformation, etc. It does none of those things.

What is the reason for your extreme hostility toward the CO2 Coalition, Hob? Do you have some personal history or connection which is triggering you? Frankly, I don't think someone as passionately antagonistic toward the subject of an article as you are toward the CO2 Coalition is the best person to contribute toward a neutral article about it.

As you must surely know, the CO2 Coalition is a reliable source for information about its own positions. In fact, that's even true for for-profit businesses. WP:PRIMARYNEWS says, "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities."

Contrary to your repeated accusations, the CO2 Coalition's positions are not "disinformation" or fringe theories. The simple fact is that the CO2 Coalition's positions are all well-supported by scientific evidence, including peer-reviewed scientific papers in the academic literature. I've cited a few of those papers, and I could cite many more. Here's one which supports the CO2 Coalition's contention that climate change is not a crisis:

• Dayaratna, K.D., McKitrick, R. & Michaels, P.J. (2020). Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND. Environ Econ Policy Stud 22, 433–448. doi:10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w

Here's an agronomy paper (one of thousands), which supports the CO2 Coalition's contention that elevated CO2 is highly beneficial for agriculture:

• Fitzgerald GJ, et al. (2016) Elevated atmospheric [CO2] can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves. Global Change Biology 22, 2269–2284. doi:10.1111/gcb.13263

Some of the CO2 Coalition's positions are minority positions in the scientific community (though not that one). But none of the CO2 Coalition's positions are scientifically unsupported, or misinformation, or fringe theories.

I don't know what "the tone card" or "FTN inhabitants" are, but I do know that your repeated insults and name-calling are violations of WP:Civil and WP:Respect. Please stop that. Please cooperate with my good faith efforts to make this very biased article reflect a neutral point of view. NCdave ( talk) 08:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:FTN is this page, and playing the tone card means complaints about the tone of contributions instead of their content.

No, Fox News is not a reliable source for scientific questions. To the contrary, it is part of the denial industry, and it regularly helps denialist organizations pretend to be scientific ones.

Your claims that the Coalition is not fringe are just that: claims. It is normal the proponents of fringe ideas are not aware (or pretend not to be) that their position is fringe. Climate change deniers, like creationists, claim that what they are doing is science. But climate change denial is ideologically motivated pseudoscience, not "a minority position within science". 40 years ago, maybe. Now, no.

Personalizing this will not help you. This is not a problem of an attitude of mine; there is a real conflict between science on one hand and your organization on the other.

Your agronomy stuff is highly irrelevant to the essential question of climate change denial. Correctly praising a chemical for one of its effects will not eliminate unscientific denial of another. It's a red herring. Your use of it for bolstering the claim that the Coalition is a scientific organization is WP:OR and therefore a double red herring. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The "statement of fact," in this case, is not about a scientific question. It is simply the fact that that the CO2 Coalition are recognized experts on climate change. Foxnews is a major mainstream news organization, and WP:RS says, "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." Calling them names doesn't change that.

Contrary to your accusations, the CO2 Coalition does not promote "fringe theories," or engage in "pseudoscience" or "climate change denial." The CO2 Coalition's positions are all based on robust scientific evidence. Your name-calling doesn't change that fact, either.

Your constant insults and name-calling are not a question of "tone." They are deliberate violations of WP:Civil. I've asked you repeatedly to please stop that.

The focus of the CO2 Coalition is carbon dioxide, of course. What you call "agronomy stuff" is a very big part of that. The "agronomy stuff" is, by far, the most important consequence of CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels. You can't just ignore the large proven benefits of CO2 for agriculture and natural ecosystems, because those benefits conflict with cherished but dubious claims that CO2 emissions are net-harmful.

Here's another relevant peer-reviewed paper, about one of the important benefits of elevated CO2:

• Uddin S, et al (2018). Elevated [CO2] mitigates the effect of surface drought by stimulating root growth to access sub-soil water. PLoS One 13(6):e0198928. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198928

I don't think you understand what WP:OR is. The fact that the CO2 Coalition bases its positions on well-supported science, like the peer-reviewed studies which I've cited, is what makes the CO2 Coalition a scientific organization. Citing those studies is not WP:OR, it's just showing you the proof of the scientific basis for the organization's positions.

Of course, you could have learned that yourself, by perusing the excellent scientific resources on the organization's web site. But you're apparently unwilling to do that. NCdave ( talk) 10:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS says that for political and scientific matters "Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas", which applies here.

We need to go with what reliable secondary sources say about the CO2 Coalition, which is well referenced in the article and the talk page. You clearly disagree with those sources but posting primary sources and arguing for why you think the CO2 Coalition is correct isn't helpful, as has been pointed to you this is WP:OR. JaggedHamster ( talk) 12:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Responses to some of @NCdave's points:

• I again suggest Effects of climate change on agriculture and CO2 fertilization effect are articles that @NCdave might profitably contribute to. It is there that Wikipedia gets into the weeds (so to speak) about the benefits of CO₂, a topic which that editor seems highly knowledgeable about.
• Regarding copious reference to the scientific literature: irrelevant. The CO₂ Coalition pushes a view that more greenhouse gasses would be good for the world. This standpoint is decidedly fringe. No matter how many articles its believers cite, the overwhelming consensus among the scientists who produce and engage with that scientific literature is that more greenhouse gas is not a good idea. So please don't wave articles at us, the lay public. The people who are equipped to evaluate such research and place it in bigger context have come to a different overall conclusion.
• We followed WP:PRIMARYNEWS says, "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." In particular I accepted @NCdave's edit to put the organization's own description of itself in the lede. It is the second paragraph, following the description from reliable sources. Arguably this ran counter to WP:MISSION, but it seemed fair. Also there is material in the infobox.

Anyway, none of @NCdave's arguments asserting the CO₂ Coalition isn't fringe are persuasive, but I think there are places where Wikipedia could benefit from that editor's interests. -- M.boli ( talk) 13:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You are mistaken, M.boli, in your belief that the CO2 Coalition "pushes a view that more greenhouse gasses would be good for the world." That's not what the organization says.

The risk of that sort of accidental inaccuracy is why when, when citing someone's opinions or claims, a direct quote from the primary source is preferable to a paraphrase of a secondary source. Here's a prominent direct quote from the primary source (the organization's own web site):

"First and foremost, CO2 is plant food."

As you can see, what the CO2 Coalition actually contends is that more CO2 would be good for the world. The CO2 Coalition does not say the same thing about other GHGs, because scientific evidence is ambiguous about that. The effects of releases of other GHGs are generally minor, and benign, but they are not unambiguously positive.

Perhaps what you meant to say is that the CO2 Coalition contends "that more CO2 would be good for the world." That would be a true statement.

But that position is not fringe, and it certainly is not disputed by an "overwhelming consensus among the scientists who produce and engage with that scientific literature."

Your confusion on that point might be due to confusion about what "that" scientific literature is. The primary field relevant to that question is agronomy, not climate science. That's why the organization focuses so heavily on agronomy: because the largest effects of CO2 are on agriculture, not on climate. The fact that more CO2 is beneficial is settled science among agronomists.

That settled science is why the use of CO2 generators by growers is widespread: because agronomists know that more CO2 makes plants healthier, faster growing, and much more productive.

The fact that more CO2 is beneficial has been settled science among agronomists for over a century. For example, here's an article from Scientific American way back in 1920.

• Gradenwitz, Alfred (1920). Carbonic Acid Gas to Fertilize the Air. Scientific American, November 27, 1920. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican11271920-549

To understand who the organization focuses so strongly agricultural effects -- and why Wikipedia's article about the organization should do likewise -- you need to consider the relative importance of CO2's effects of plants and agriculture, and on temperatures.

The effect of elevated CO2 on temperature is detectable, but slight. The 45% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the mid- to late-1800s late Little Ice Age is generally estimated to have contributed about 2/3 (per Keihl & Trenberth 1997, etc.), of the estimated 1.14 [1.02 to 1.27] °C of average warming (source WMO) since then. That means if all of the warming since the late Little Ice Age was anthropogenic, then a 45% increase in CO2 concentration raised global temperatures by about 3/4 °C.

That's very minor. It corresponds to a typical isotherm shift of about 40-50 miles. It's effect on temperatures is about the same as an elevation change of about of 115 meters. It's only about half of the (generally nnnoticed) typical continual fluctuations in indoor temperatures, due to the " hysteresis" or "dead band" built into home thermostats.

In contrast, the direct CO2 fertilization effects on plants are major, and very positive. They are "greening" much of the Earth, especially in arid regions. Here's a paper about it.

• Zhu, Z Piao, S, Myneni, RB, et al (2016). Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 791–795. doi:10.1038/nclimate3004

The benefits for agriculture are even more important. That 45% rise in CO2 level has increased global agricultural yields, and productivity of C3 crops, by about 20%.

That is a very big deal, and it is certainly not a fringe theory to think that it's a more important consequence than 3/4 °C of warming. It's why over 30,000 American scientists signed a petition, expressing their shared conclusion that, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The CO2 Coalition is widely recognized as expert on such issues. That's why, for example, they were invited to testify to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment, as you can read on the Democrats' web page, here:

• https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/subcommittee-on-environment-to-examine-impact-of-global-warming-on-public-health

Surely you do not dispute that house.gov is a reliable source, do you? NCdave ( talk) 16:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think @NCdave's several longish climate change denial essays above amply bear witness to the problem mentioned in @ Hob Gadling's original post. (And yes, more-CO₂-is-a-good-thing is both a fringe theory and in-denial about the problems of climate change.) -- M.boli ( talk) 17:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a good example of why we have the COI guidelines in the first place. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You are mistaken, M.boli, in your belief that the CO2 Coalition "pushes a view that more greenhouse gasses would be good for the world."

As you can see, what the CO2 Coalition actually contends is that more CO2 would be good for the world.

These two statements add up to the profoundly false claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@ NCdave: I am a member and unpaid volunteer. If you read WP:COI you'll find that that does not disqualify me from editing the article. To be clear, WP:COI says you should still disclose your COI, and you are "strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". Let's not conflate the lack of an outright prohibition with acceptance of your editing behavior, particularly when (as this discussion makes clear) it is not unambiguously uncontroversial (see: WP:COIU). Please stop. Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Bakkster wrote, "WP:COI says... you are 'strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly'."

That's not what it says, Bakkster. It says that "COI editors" are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. I have no conflict of interest, and I am not a "COI editor."

As I've already mentioned, because of my volunteer relationship with the organization, I reviewed WP:COI before working on the article. Based on that, I concluded that I do not have a conflict of interest.

However, I am a strong believer in full disclosure, so, as you've seen, I've been open about my relationship with the organization.

WP:COI says, in relevant part:

"Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation. COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead."

Nobody is paying me for my volunteer work for the CO2 Coalition, and they are not my client. The WP:COI page does not say that an unpaid volunteer for a charitable organization automatically has a conflict of interest, so I am not a "COI editor."

A conflict of interest occurs when a relationship influences the editor's opinions. For unpaid volunteers, the causality generally runs in the opposite direction: we volunteer our time because we value the work which the organization does.

That is why I have no conflict of interest which would prevent me from contributing to articles about the organizations for which I volunteer my time, like the CO2 Coalition and the IPCC.

Since I'm not a "COI editor," WP:COI does not say that I am "strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly."

Unfortunately, since the editors here who are hostile to the CO2 Coalition use anonymous IDs, WP:COI effectively does not apply to them, because there's no way to know whether they have conflicts of interest.

Note that, as has been my longstanding practice while editing articles on Wikipedia, I've also tried proposing changes on article talk page, several times. I've pleaded there with the other editors to work with me to reach a compromise, to improve the article. But neither of the hostile editors have been willing to do that. Instead, my requests have been answered by an avalanche of invective. NCdave ( talk) 18:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

because of my volunteer relationship with the organization you are not a paid editor, but you clearly have a COI. From the guideline: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. It seems clear from your comments here that your COI prevents you from editing in a neutral manner, hence my warning to stop. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on that, I concluded that I do not have a conflict of interest. And you were wrong. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI." ( Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#External roles and relationships)

You definitely have a COI. No question about it. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 01:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

As others have noted, you seem to be confusing paid editing with having a COI. Paid editing is a specific kind of COI editing that is covered on the ToU with a disclosure requirement. Failing to follow that requirement, means an editor is in violation of the ToU and is therefore forbidden from editing and the WMF may block the editor and could even take legal action. CoI editing is covered by policy and covers any kind of conflict of interest, paid or not. There should be no question that a volunteer for an organisation has a CoI with respect to that organisation. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Obvious COI editor who is WP:NOTHERE. WP:PROFRINGE edits should be reverted and if they continue, block/ban. Bon courage ( talk) 18:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Donald Albury 19:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely unacceptable COI behaviour. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 01:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly based on the number of warnings on their talk page regarding other matters, I think it's probably time for someone to take NCdave to ANI now. I see at least two different final warnings for disruptive behaviour, numerous blocks for edit warring, and zero signs of changing behavior. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 09:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wow! The user has caused trouble since 2005. The first warning came just days after they joined. How is that account still active? Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 09:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've taken the logical next step and filed the ANI report. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 10:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Today I've found changes from Pseuoscience to science and pseudoscholarship to scholarship. Doug Weller talk 09:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Sound good. We can't police every page. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

But we do police many… to be useful any filter would have to discount instances where the removal was immediately reverted (perhaps have it wait an hour?). Blueboar ( talk) 11:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As long as we don't get false positives from uses of "pseudo" in other contexts. For instance if someone changing pseudoephedrine to ephedrine is caught by the filter then its overly broad and should not be implemented (insert Pseudo-penis joke here). Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

While we are at it, how about a filter showing excessive use of 'pseudo' too? If something is pseudoscience, per reliable sources, say so once. Then present the evidence. You won't convince people of anything much through mere repetition of a word... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to go for. MarioJump83 ( talk) 14:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If the filter just creates a list to watch then some false positives are not a big deal. Warning is probably useless and blocking edits would need a very strong case. A list does the job I think. -- mfb ( talk) 15:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• The filter doesn't have to disallow any edits, it can be set to only keep track of them. -- Jayron 32 16:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• I agree that there are too many unrelated uses to track pseudo- alone; for example, random is likely to be changed to pseudorandom (or vice versa). We can, perhaps, track only changes to keywords for pseudo-scholarship, as Mfb suggested. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 16:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• I would definitely be in favor of such an edit filter. I like LaundryPizza's idea of restricting ourselves to key words such as: "pseudoscholarship", "pseudoscience", "pseudohistory", "fringe science", "junk science", "alternative medicine", "quack medicine", etc. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  So shall we request one or find someone who can make one using Shibbolethink's suggestion? Doug Weller talk 11:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

And here is a classic example of why such a filter might be helpful. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

So shall we request one I say, "Yes." But how/where does one make that request? JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps at this dauntingly complex page: Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Please excuse the late response. Two of my least favorite words, 'dauntingly' and 'complex.' Excellent. So...before I give it a try, do we have a consensus here on what precisely should be requested? My reading suggests the targeted search parameters should include changes of: "pseudoscience" to science; "pseudoscholarship" to scholarship; "pseudohistory" to history; "fringe science" to science; "alternative medicine" to medicine. (I assume I have missed some.) The result would be a running list posted, uh, somewhere? JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The list of terms would be included in the filter's source code, unless it is made private. Your list is a good start, although I'd also add inflections of these words as regex. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@ JoJo Anthrax: Also, nobody has yet provided any diffs about this type of change where it's performed in bad faith. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@ LaundryPizza03 Happens all the time with anything relating to Graham Hancock, one off IP edits. Doug Weller talk 07:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller: In order to file an EFR request, we need specific diffs where this happens. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@ LaundryPizza03 Like [39]? Doug Weller talk 17:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Or [40]? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Removal_of_fringe-theory_keywords. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I certainly would have fouled-up the syntax, and probably more than once. Thanks for doing that work. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

They want to know if the proposed filter should warn editors who attempt to remove fringe-theory keywords, in addition to tagging such edits. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a good and harmless idea. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the next edit filter request could be for removals of the word “conspiracy”. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this is relevant here. It's mainly based on material by Iron Thunderhorse, a wannabe Native American. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Metropolitan Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Probably some undue stuff. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Much of it was copied from the sources used, removed as copyvio. Brunton ( talk) 10:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

A primary paper "Effects of 7 days on an ad libitum low-fat vegan diet: the McDougall Program cohort" written by McDougall is being repeatedly added to this article. It has now ended up in the "reception" section at the bottom, although we wouldn't normally cite this type of paper per WP:MEDRS. There was a consensus to remove the paper on the talk-page but it is repeatedly being added. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 09:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The "reception" section is the last place it should be. That makes it look like it is independent. It is definitely not a reliable source for its content. Whether or not it is worth mentioning as something he wrote is a different question. According to google scholars it has been cited 109 times. That may or may not mean it is a notable publication. But I doubt it and I wouldn't mention it in the article unless it was seriously reviewed somewhere and the reception/evaluation of the paper is mentioned, too. Adding it in the list of publications may be acceptable if it is considered one of his more important works. Given that so far only books are listed, I doubt that. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 13:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

See [41] for instance. [42] says the source is published in cooperation with the Early Site Research Society] - see [43] for its goals. I don't see why we should be using this source. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

See also America's Stonehenge, which seems to be citing some questionable sources. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yarmouth Runic Stone is worse, a lot of OR/unsourced material. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This "Gungywamp Society" looks completely unreliable. What's more their URL is up for sale and the links to it on Gungywamp are broken. It is unclear whether the "society" even exits anymore. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 13:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The best sources i found so far are pretty old: Jordan, Douglas F.; Poirier, David A.; Gradie, Robert R. III (1981). "The Gungywamp Controversy". Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut (44). Archaeological Society of Connecticut. and Frederic W. Warner "Stone Structures at Gungywamp" Ibid.. Hmm, maybe most of that issue. fiveby( zero) 15:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and Feder cites two of those papers in Frauds, myths, and mysteries. fiveby( zero) 15:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've removed the unreliable source and tried to reflect Feder more. I've just grabbed a copy now of the Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut, thanks, that looks useful. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin with Eurasian (mixed ancestry). While there are a few section that are probably okay the majority of it is at best WP:synth and at worse misreading of research papers through the lenses of 19c race theory. I haven't touched it because i have no idea where to even being...i have half a mind to just send the whole thing to AFD— blindlynx 17:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

What an absurd concoction. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think this is one for AFD. It gets the definition for eurasian wrong right off the bat, so I'm not sure how there could be anything worth saving in there. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 17:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There are some comically bad sources i'd hate to see go. I'm not super familiar with the AFD process or what kind of reasoning is needed thought:/— blindlynx 17:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Eurasian not meaning someone from Eurasia but someone who is half "European" and half "Asian"????????????? Lol, thats really funny though. Like some sort of weird backwards portmanteau based on archaic racial concepts? AFD indeed. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I've browsed through the history and quite unsurprisingly, much of it was written by the racialist-POV warrior LTAs WorldCreaterFighter and Vamlos. Especially the Central Asia section heavily reeks of their twisted take on human history. – Austronesier ( talk) 17:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

i've gone through and got rid of a few super obviously bad sections. There doesn't seem to be to much use of the term outside of a bizarre time magazine article. Academic papers that discuss this tend to place the term in scare quotes— blindlynx 18:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• listed at AfD. Feel free to salvage what you can but I don't really see anything worth keeping here.-- Licks-rocks ( talk) 18:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!— blindlynx 19:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The same problems also seem to apply to the Afro-Asians article. Should that one be taken to AfD also? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably, It has a lot of the same twisted genetic essentialism— blindlynx 17:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That one I think is more a deep clean than a TNT situation. If nothing else the concept of "blasian" appears to have a lot of significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Is "blasian" even the same concept as "Afro-Asian" as definied in that article? People like the Malagasy seem like a completely different topic than people usually considered "blasian". Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that blasian has a tighter meaning than what the article appears to mean by "Afro-Asian." The coverage I can find addresses it in the context of intermarriage among immigrant groups in places outside Africa or Asia (for instance in the American and Trinidadian experiences). Coverage of the intermingling of African and Asian groups in Africa or Asia, such as this [44] recent coverage in Smithsonian Magazine, don't use either term. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I correct myself, blasian does appear to be used in a wider context [45] although it still doesn't appear to be as broad as "Afro-Asian" as defined in the article. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I've started going through and removing bits of the article that talk about genetics of ethnic groups in general — blindlynx 16:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm worried about the material which has been recently added into these two articles, and which suggests parallelisms with the Exodus narrative. Sounds fringe to me, or undue weight at least. Need some expert opinion. Lone-078 ( talk) 16:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever that theory is, it certainly does not need to be expressed in that many words. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Answers in Genesis ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

New account with a COI tries to whitewash. I predict more of the same. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Warned them about coi and paid editing, they weren't impressed, justified their edits. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Now indeffed by IronGargoyle. Bishonen | tålk 20:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC).

• Vikram Sampath ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

There is a content dispute over a fringe author named Vikram Sampath who is mainly known for writing a biography on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar "to fit the Hindutva politics". [46]

Sampath believes that [47]:-

• history of his country India makes itself a “nation of losers”
• "India needs to reclaim its history" (best talking point of conspiracy theorists)
• “Hindu genocide” (which never happened)
• 80 million Hindus were killed in the "Hindu genocide" (Generally Holocaust is believed to be the largest with 6 million murders)

The WP:LAME edit war over changing "popular historian" to "biographer" has been going on for weeks. It is largely because this person cannot be termed as "popular historian" at all, but "biographer" because that is what a number of reliable sources already describe him as.

Should this person be described as a "biographer" or "popular historian" or something else? >>>  Extorc. talk 20:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Context behind this - [48] [49]. This user has been engaging in an edit war regarding this topic without achieving consensus on the talk page. Mixmon ( talk) 20:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think he should be described as a "writer". See: [50] [51] [52] Editorkamran ( talk) 20:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I am honestly tired of engaging with you on this useless argument. I will repeat the gist again. Reliable sources almost universally mention him as historian. [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] , [62] [63] , [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] Razer( talk) 20:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

"Sampath’s arguments are animated by perspectives that have been regularly utilised by the proponents of Hindu majoritarian rule in India in order to give their claims a historical basis." Is what your own source notes. [72] He cannot be called a historian because of the crisis with his own credibility. Editorkamran ( talk) 20:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read the thread on the article talk page. The gist is - MOS:ROLEBIO says, The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources.. There is a reason why a wikipedia page is a article and not a single line. There is ample of space in the article and his criticism and other controversies can be and are included in the article. Razer( talk) 13:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:ROLEBIO notes we need to "emphasize what made the person notable". He is notable because of his pro- Hindutva discourses. Dympies ( talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be about the word "biographer" or about the conduct of an editor? Sennalen ( talk) 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is about refusal to discuss the issue properly on talk page. Mixmon ( talk) 20:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Sennalen: Obviously it is about the word "biographer" vs "popular historian" or something else. The attempts to derail this thread (just like the talk page discussion) should be ignored. >>>  Extorc. talk 20:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The refs provided by Razer2115 clearly indicate that sources support calling him an historian. (He might not be a good historian, in some people's views, and they might not like what he writes, but that's not the point.) Schazjmd  (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

See my reply above and tell about the sources that call him only a "writer". Wikipedia cannot call him a "historian" given the crisis with his own credibility, and his clear-cut promotion of Hindutva fake history. Editorkamran ( talk) 20:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, your 3rd link was a 404. And your links simply don't outweigh the preponderance of other refs that use "historian". Schazjmd  (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see this comment. Also I would request all the participants here to see the talk page arguments to avoid repetition. Mixmon ( talk) 20:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Schazjmd: You can use Google cache. [73] In which world you are thinking that I am competing with a comment, posted minutes after my comment, in terms of "preponderance" of links? You are required to address how someone can be called a "historian" after being described has a fake history peddler. Unless you can address this, then I will try bringing up more links to defeat the so called "preponderance" of references that call him historian. One of the posted ref at the same time as clearly defined his arguments to have been "animated by perspectives that have been regularly utilised by the proponents of Hindu majoritarian rule in India in order to give their claims a historical basis". [74] First you have to address how he can be called a "historian" when he is regularly promoting fake history. Editorkamran ( talk) 21:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Obviously sources that criticize him professionally should be covered in the article. Schazjmd  (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That is a different topic. There is a clear dispute over him being a "popular historian" or a "historian". That's why I think describing him as "writer" would be correct. Editorkamran ( talk) 21:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Vikram Sampath has evidently engaged in plagiarism [75] and he is pro- Hindutva ideologue who employs significant amount of Islamophobia in his discourses as highlighted by OP. It is laughable to stat that he is a historian. I never had this idea before but describing him as a "writer" would be better option for now. Dympies ( talk) 02:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, revisionist agenda is very important for a particular set of authors which includes him. Doug Weller can share his view since he also came across many similar revisionists. Azuredivay ( talk) 05:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. There does seem merit in looking beyond the facile characterizations of "historian" or "popular historian" that have presented themselves in the sources above. For one thing, such brushstroke characterization does not capture the damning and scathing attacks Sampath has incurred from professional critics in academia for his shoddy efforts at dredging up the focus on a communally tainted, controversial Hindutva leader Savarkar through his dubious, overblown panegyric on him, revisionist, Islamophobic accounts of otherwise apodictic aspects of Indian independence movement, brazen plagiarism and for endorsing Hindutva fairytales in the name of academic research. The imputations of intellectual malpractice are profound and have been brought out by renowned academicians. To exemplify the foregoing, here is what Audrey Truschke, South Asian specialist, observes with regard to Sampath: Sampath and subject his body of work to the scrutiny that he has thus far evaded from academics, in part because his publications are largely in non-peer reviewed venues. While popular historians are a vital part of our profession and discipline, plagiarists cannot be. Dr. Sampath's predations against other academics, including members of the Society and against vulnerable unpublished student scholars, is in breach of both the letter and spirit of the Society's stated ethics. [76] As Dympies above observes, MOS requires us to emphasize the work that made the person notable, it is only discerning we employ other uncontested terms such as a biographer or a writer that have come through reliable sources. He is primarily known for his biography on Savarkar after all . MBlaze Lightning ( talk) 07:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

After reading this, I checked if we have an article, and we do. It has not been edited often... -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

My first assumption was that this would overlap with epigenomics, but it looks like it's actually transcriptomics of social stimuli. It sounds like an interesting thing to study. Sennalen ( talk) 13:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The Homo floresiensis article devotes a lot of its length to now thoroughly discredited claims that they represented modern humans with microcephaly/Down syndrome. Should this be cut down? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of space, which might be too much on the whole. On the other hand, it consists of a number of different theories by different people, none of which individually seems overweighted. There is value in having the history of these investigations and the reasons for favoring a new species. A WP:SPINOUT could be a good option. Sennalen ( talk) 03:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What I find more problematic than the space these theories take up is that the section relies directly on individual studies which should be avoided according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves" Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 03:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The article seems to give preference to the studies that reject the birth defect hypotheses, in which case those are secondary sources on the original theories. It's possible that some of the rejections could be considered primary in their own right, but de-weighting them would not seem to lead in any direction the article ought to go. Sennalen ( talk) 13:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping there would be some kind of review of the scientific discussion that would present and evaluate the different theories. Alas, so far I have found none. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 14:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Over at the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act talk page there is a discussion about how to characterize some statements by politicians who support the law. Some editors have argued that the statements as rooted in pseudoscience/fringe theories about homosexuality and sexual orientation, and that's the way they're currently treated in the article text. If we assume they are rooted in fringe theories (which is something that's up for debate on the talk page), and if the sources covering those statements don't provide the scientific context, what is the proper way to apply WP:PSCI?

Put another way, is my understanding of PSCI, as explained here, accurate? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Your understanding matches mine. But when it comes to that article, I have to side with Iamreallygoodatcheckers. If fringeness is something that's up for debate on the talk page, then PSCI hardly justifies SYNTH. And the Don't Say Gay bill receives extraordinarily thorough media coverage, so we shouldn't need SYNTH; if we do, we're likely doing something wrong.

The solution is staring us in the face: don't quote proponents at length, simply summarize these claims in accordance with secondary sources. That's what we do for fringe claims, and it's what we do for non-fringe claims if doing otherwise would require SYNTH. DFlhb ( talk) 22:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

^ Precisely this. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. My question was more hypothetical, taking for granted that we're talking about a fringe claim. I don't mean to say that those claims are absolutely all qualify, but I'd still be wary of a PSCI problem if we simply remove all context while leaving all those claims to stand by themselves. Putting aside the hypotheticals, I entirely agree it would be better to just avoid the issue with better summaries and descriptions. I've started to rewrite that section a couple times over the past week, but it's tricky and more fun articles keep beckoning. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• A LOT depends on the specific article in question and the context in which it is being discussed. Quoting a politician‘s fringe statements might be appropriate in the article on the politician, but totally inappropriate in some other article. In a third article, it might be appropriate to summarize but not quote. And in all cases where we do mention it, we use in-text attribution to make it clear that this is the view of the politician, and not accepted fact. Blueboar ( talk) 17:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't synthesize a claim about the politican if there isn't a single source that forges every link from a politican's statement to an academic consensus it conflicts with. If all else fails, the article can simply follow up a quote by saying what the accepted science is. Sennalen ( talk) 19:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this article and it doesn't seem to pass the smell test. It seems to present multiplicity as a real "psychological phenomenon" in which "a body" can have multiple "distinct consciousnesses". This is an article which purports to be a discussion of psychology, but cites mostly newspaper articles. And the scientific sources it does cite don't seem to really support the central claim of the article? E.g. the first source is a study of internet forums dedicated to people who identify themselves as multiple. But to quote from the discussion/conclusion of that paper:

Extended content

People who identify with this group believe that, instead of having one self with altering mood states and behaviors, there are several distinct selves, each having their own unique behavioral pattern... Our findings support the notion that multiplicity is a social construct where identities are established and maintained through social interaction and follow rules supporting the concept of multiple personality disorder by Spanos. From this perspective, multiplicity or plural self is the “modern” manifestation of a minority of people who tend to develop several selves (i.e., in the form of spirit possession or by being highly susceptible to social cues of “having” more than one personality); thus, multiplicity is a social creation... Systems generally like to give a narrative and describe their resident persons, their preferences, interests and dislikes in great detail. Defining themselves in the search of stable identities appears to be an ongoing process for many systems. It is remarkable how the common identity of “being multiple” aids in the process of coping with the alterations of the personality. Clearly, because of the online community and frequent interactions, people who consider themselves multiple begin to use common terminology and construct their own reality in ways similar to one another. Multiplicity is a relatively new concept that encompasses people who consider themselves multiple by nature; that is, they have a group of individual selves who share the same body. It can be concluded that multiplicity is a label and a self-organized support group for people with severe identity disturbances, in some cases with symptoms of dissociative disorders...

Sorry for the wall of text (I've collapsed it). For sure a community of people who describe themselves as multiple exists. But it doesn't seem like the existence of such a psychological phenomenon in which "a body" can have multiple "distinct consciousnesses", is really supported by the scientific research. The conclusion of that first source seems more like how we should be describing it: multiplicity is a label and a self-organized support group for people with severe identity disturbances, in some cases with symptoms of dissociative disorders. Endwise ( talk) 12:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a long list of sources at the top of the talk page that could definitely be better integrated into the article.

That being said, I don't think this really deserves to be here, because I don't really think the topic of the article overall is WP:FRINGE. There are more sources about this topic than I expected and some of them are decent, especially considering this doesn't really appear to be a WP:MEDRS topic per se.

We really should go through and remove the references to tulpamancy and ghosts and stuff (except maybe when directly referring to beliefs of community members), because that's absolutely WP:FRINGE. I also wouldn't object to reframing the article in terms of describing a community rather than a phenomenon, because I think to the extent we have evidence for the phenomenon we don't really have evidence it's distinct from DID. Loki ( talk) 23:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sourcing summaries of non-fiction texts (in articles on those texts). tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a shame that the first WP:FRIND source has been introduced only in 2023. That is, the article The Philosophy of Freedom waited more than 17 years for a WP:FRIND source. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

An unhappy camper posted what I would consider to be an uncivil, unhelpful, and unconstructive rant to the Talk:Ancient Apocalypse page. I have seen similar diatribes simply removed from the talk page. Is this an accepted manner of dealing with such editors given that the comments of others on talk pages are not to be altered? What is the appropriate way that such uncivil and angry comments should handled on talk pages? Paul H. ( talk) 02:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The comment at Ancient Apocalypse goes against WP:NOTFORUM as no suggestions are made to improve the article, valid or otherwise. It will be removed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Right. It is just the usual "Wikipedia and I have different views on a subject, therefore Wikipedia is wrong, and the reason why they are wrong is blah blah, and therefore I will not blah blah" bad logic. We revert that several times a day on some Talk page or other. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Sonofmankind ( talk · contribs)

A user is repeatedly pushing a novel explanation, which was described by latest reverting user Parejkoj ( talk · contribs) as "nonsense", for the mysterious force that drives the expansion of the universe, without a reliable source to back up their addition and illustrated by this label-free image. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you choose to call that musing, it definitely does not belong in Wikipedia. — Quondum 20:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No RS, end of story. Sennalen ( talk) 03:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

How can it be considered nonsense, when it is logically and mathematically coherent and fits within the context? Sonofmankind ( talk) 19:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Calling it logically and mathematically coherent is in the eye of the beholder. In this case, the eye of the author.

Go publish it in a reliable source. Until you do that, you have not even met the minimum condition for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Patently unsuitable for Wikipedia. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Link to interview https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5E6QyAhTB3o Part 2, with Stephon Alexander https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PE4C7OI7Frg 2A02:3038:206:3F84:CFE:2152:6D2B:B18E ( talk) 06:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

For those unaware, this was discussed at the Physics WikiProject recently; see here. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• John Ioannidis ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
• [77]

Is it cherrypicking to omit someone's argumentum ad verecundiam? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 19:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It is cherrypicking to use a source contrary contrary to its own intention without appropriately balancing it. The article doesn't have to use this source at all, but if it does use it, it should include some conciliatory gesture from the same source alongside the criticism. Sennalen ( talk) 20:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

How would we know the "intention" of a source?

The full paragraph reads: On the other hand, Ioannidis’ track record is such that it may not be wise to dismiss his claims too quickly. There really aren’t any solid studies out there that can help settle the question of Covid-19 fatality rates, and what data we do have remains all over the place. Yes, Ioannidis’ results look to be an outlier—but they may be an outlier in the right direction, suggesting a need to revise the infection fatality rate downwards, even if not all the way to 0.1 percent. So, the actual point of the paragraph is the lack of data at the time and not some person's "track record". That one was just an aside. The following paragraphs describe the reaction of the mainstream, which was devastating. Why should Wikipedia articles cherrypick the argumentum ad verecundiam and omit everything else, just because some editor thinks that the a-a-v is the "intention"? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The source is not MEDRS, while it's fine for describing how people have reacted to JI, it's not fine to excursions in speculation about epidemiology. Bon courage ( talk) 06:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You know the intention by reading it. WIRED should not be used for epidemiology, but if you take that out, you're left with "fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory" which is text that's in the source, but not really a faithful representation of the source's full assessment of Ioannidis' legacy.

I might go for the paragraph before it, If Ioannidis’ claims even slightly alter the conversation toward a more balanced, thoughtful view of what we really gain, and what we might lose, from the lockdown, then maybe it’s mission accomplished. If he’s even partly right that we’re too biased toward staying at home, and the disease isn’t as deadly as we thought, the resulting shift could ultimately save tens of thousands of lives.

Or the conclusion, Ioannidis’ claims about Covid-19 may be pulled by the gravity of his commitment to being the one who sees where everyone else went wrong. There’s a meta-meta-science lesson in there, too, and one we’ve sometimes seen before: Bias is so powerful a force in scientific research that even a grandmaster of research into bias can eventually trip over it. Sennalen ( talk) 03:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

In other words, you want to see pro-Ioannidis text in the article and no contra-Ioannidis text. You "know" the intention by reading your own intention into it. I agree with Bon courage: use it for reactions only (by colleagues, not by journalists). -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Sennalen I don't think anyone is using that text for a "full assessment of Ioannidis' legacy". Obviously the controversy around his comments on Covid-19 in no way diminish what he has achieved in his career. And as far as his Covid-19 comments are concerned that article is far from being a glowing endorsement. It looks more like a desperate attempt at finding something -- anything positive to say about a friend who didn't know when to concede that he was wrong. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 08:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

A fair way to summarize the source might be something like "Ioannidis' career has been built on questioning established science. He's often been correct in the past, but in the case of Covid-19, Ioannidis' bias towards contrarianism has aligned him more with right-wing conspiracy theories than with the evidence." Sennalen ( talk) 13:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The point in question is not how the article evaluates Ioannidis' career, but about how it evaluates a particular study. Of course if it was used to evaluate his career more of the article would have to be mentioned. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 13:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I have agreed that the source is not suitable for an epidemiological claim. Regardless of anything else, that should go. You can't just call it a day, though, if that leaves an NPOV problem, especially in a BLP. Sennalen ( talk) 13:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what exactly your position is.

This is the version Hob Gadling reverted to:

"Writing for Wired, David H. Freedman said that the Santa Clara study compromised Ioannidis's previously excellent reputation and meant that future generations of scientists may remember him as 'the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis'

And this is what Saintfevrier wanted to attach immediately after:

"but also acknowledged that 'Ioannidis’s track record is such that it may not be wise to dismiss his claims too quickly' and admitted 'a need to revise the infection fatality rate downwards'."

Would you remove both, keep both, rewrite? Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 14:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

For my part, i would say remove both. Im not sure why David H. Freedman's opinion of Ioannidis is relevant in his BLP. Bonewah ( talk) 14:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the point is to show the profound effect the controversy had on his reputation. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 15:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I would cut it down to "Writing for Wired, David H. Freedman said that the Santa Clara study compromised Ioannidis's previously excellent reputation." Sennalen ( talk) 15:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable. (Although I still believe that the current version is fine, too.) Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 15:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a NPOV issue here. Since the view being discussed (about COVID prevalence and fatality) is a fringe one, WP:PSCI applies and it states fringe views should be clearly described as such. Furthermore NPOV requires us to include prominently an explanation of how scientists have reacted. The direct quotation from the source serves this purpose admirably. Bon courage ( talk) 17:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The original rationale here is that WIRED is not suitable for the science. Furthermore, it's a crystal ball statement from a journalist about how students will remember him in the future. There has to be a better source to establish the science. Sennalen ( talk) 17:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved as far as this article, but I'm cynical about the usual suspects zeroing in on the phrase "fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory", a definite outlier as far as tone within the article, and fighting against any or everything else in the source. You wanted to know if it's cherrypicking, and it is. Sennalen ( talk) 12:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Speaking about usual subjects ... Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 12:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sennalen. Also this seems a Neutrality issue, not a Fringe one, in my opinion. Bonewah ( talk) 13:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Same thing. This is a fringe issue because the position being taken fits the definition of WP:FRINGE 'theories' (and it's why it's at this noticeboard). Bon courage ( talk) 14:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue with that user's edits are that they create a WP:FALSEBALANCE between fringe views and mainstream views, and legitimize Ioannidis' claims despite their repeated dismissal by experts. It frankly has nothing to do with cherrypicking. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 17:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I dont think David H. Freedman is authoritative as to Ioanidis's reputation. Further, i would argue that it really isnt Wikipedia's place to speculate as to this person's legacy. Bonewah ( talk) 13:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I entirely fail to see the point of the sentence. Ioannidis's claims were against all scientific evidence, which we should state clearly and not water down with journalistic speculation (later proven false). But his legacy is not for a journalist to speculate about either, and Freedman's fuzzy-thinking gossip is not due, nor required by WP:PSCI (obviously). The scientific evidence suffices and speaks for itself. DFlhb ( talk) 13:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thoughts on whether and how to state in the lead that Lewis's view of the Armenian genocide is rejected by mainstream historiography? And whether the section discussing this controversy in Lewis' work unduly privileges his own perspective by including a long quote? More input would be helpful, I think, before I go ahead and make BOLD changes myself. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

At a glance, it is concerning to see "Lewis denied the Armenian genocide. He argued that the deaths of the mass killings resulted from a struggle between two nationalistic movements, claiming that there is no proof of intent by the Ottoman government to exterminate the Armenian nation." in the lead with no contextualizing mainstream view. I wonder if buidhe has any interest or thoughts on this? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it relates to WP:FRINGE, but at the time Lewis got publicity for the view, it was not, in my opinion, a fringe one. It became so around 2000 I would say. That said, you could go to Armenian genocide denial and copy over sources that state what the current academic consensus is. ( t · c) buidhe 04:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 04:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Generalrelative ( talk) 04:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay check it. Generalrelative ( talk) 05:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)