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

A new essay by Sennalen on the FRINGE guideline is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Essay on fringe guidelines. Thanks to her for inviting feedback. This corner of the community should of course also be invited to weigh in. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't bring it here myself yet because it might seem a confrontational choice of venue, and its a draft, but feedback is welcome. Sennalen ( talk) 03:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• People write essays all the time and they have zero WP:PAG force, so I'm not sure why this needs to be discussed (unless the essay is disruptive; this one isn't - it's a mix of the rehashed, the garbled and the dubious, but is mostly harmless). The trouble with writing anything about FRINGE is it tends to attract WP:PROFRINGE/disruptive editors looking for something to interpret and use as an attack vector on NPOV or as a justification for their WP:BATTLE. We already see that in the Village Pump discussion: the first "+1" editor is now blocked, the EMDR problems get re-litigated, and some canards resurface. In my experience, the most common thing missed about FRINGE is that it's a fairly discursive guideline built squarely on top of NPOV, where the real teeth and essence of how we must treat FRINGE stuff is set out, Bon courage ( talk) 03:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  It will unfortunately always be the case that someone will read policy in light of whatever content dispute is at hand. I'm not immune to that, or you, or anyone. You hit the nail on the head that FRINGE should lead in the same directions as NPOV, which is the gist of my first essay section. Sometimes fringe views should get a due weight that's not zero. The FR/N crowd especially is prone to having an allergic reaction to that, but actually respecting NPOV is not a slippery slope to anywhere. Sennalen ( talk) 13:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  By the "FR/N crowd" I assume you mean the excellent editors of this noticeboard, working hard in their free time to keep Wikipedia's fringe topic coverage neutral. That there's some kind of tension between NPOV and FRINGE is a common myth (we hear the same about RS and MEDRS). Views in articles are accorded due weight and yes, for fringe views that is "zero" except as is admitted through coverage in non-fringe sources. Good content that is NPOV is in line with WP:FRINGE; good content that complies with WP:FRINGE is NPOV. They are the same thing in effect (just that FRINGE gives more guidance to help understand the policy). Bon courage ( talk) 13:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The FR/N crowd especially is prone to having an allergic reaction That blanket aspersion against multiple, experienced editors in good standing helps, I think, to clarify the motivation behind that essay. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not an aspersion at all. Some of the incredulous reactions and eye-rolling are fun to read. I'm sure everyone here means well, but the bias is clear. Biased editing is the background hum everywhere on Wikipedia, not an exceptional circumstance. I include myself in that, too. Sennalen ( talk) 15:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly by "incredulous reactions and eye-rolling"? In your essay and here you've simply made some fundamental mistakes about NPOV and FRINGE (thinking fringe theories get some kind of 'free hit' exposition, it seems). Maybe you are seeking retrospective vindication from some previous dispute? If editors correct these mistakes is that not useful? Beginning to get a bit of a WP:NOTHERE vibe from all this. Bon courage ( talk) 15:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean mockery. Sometimes fringe ideas deserve a bit of mockery, but lets not pretend this noticeboard is the jedi council floating above it all. You're trying to read some acrimony into this that was not intended.

Anyway, I'm interested in any fundamental mistakes you see. I don't know what you mean by "free hit". Sennalen ( talk) 15:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I already said about your "not zero" idea above. Often fringe notions must get "zero" (when there's no mainstream context with which to contextualize them). Bon courage ( talk) 16:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Often they should get zero, but that's when the source support is zero. Sometimes editors want to give zero when the source support is 10% or even 40%. It should be proportional, not all-or-nothing. Sennalen ( talk) 16:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Examples of this problem? Bon courage ( talk) 19:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It would bring more heat than light to drag actual disputes into this. I think that's demonstrated by how many responses are along the lines of "Looks insightful, but what if it gets applied to insert topic area here?" Sennalen ( talk) 13:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of an important point. Many a topic-focused editor discusses policy without being aware of the breadth of application across the Project. If this is just cultural marxism conspiracism in disguise then it would be good to know how the argument affect (say) cancer quackery or pseudoarcheology. Bon courage ( talk) 14:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I suspect a lack of examples will actually push the heat/light ratio of the discussion in the worse direction, but hey, it's not my essay. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

When the second draft moves into project space, it will be open for the community to add examples. Sennalen ( talk) 16:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Why wait? Isn't that just pushing a bunch of vagueness into project space without a clear specification of the essay's subject matter? XOR'easter ( talk) 19:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The FR/N crowd especially is prone to having an allergic reaction sounds like an aspersion to me. Following up with Some of the incredulous reactions and eye-rolling are fun to read has, intentionally or not, a "LOL, struck a nerve!" tone that doesn't exactly help the message come across in a civil or cordial way. WP:FRINGE has all along provided advice on when and how to give fringe ideas non-zero weight, and it's good advice that has stood the test of time. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think WP:BESTSOURCES pretty much covers all of FRINGE and more, and is all anyone should ever need. But if you can't edit within that simple framework then FRINGE is for you. Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Marburg is in my opinion a good demonstration of why you should be considering the guidelines more carefully in your editing rather than challenging them. fiveby( zero) 16:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BESTSOURCES is probably the nub of everything. Well-written too. Bon courage ( talk) 16:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:STICKTOSOURCE is very good too, especially its second paragraph. Llll5032 ( talk) 06:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That thread was part of the impetus for the essay section "Criticism of fringe theories can also be fringe", which is based on guidelines and not challenging them. The crux is to always WP:YESPOV about facts, regardless of how those facts can be construed into the context of some larger debate. Sennalen ( talk) 16:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH 2601:18F:1080:48F0:3850:4DD:FC69:51A8 ( talk) 12:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Only really applies with the truth can't be found in reliable sources Sennalen ( talk) 13:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If "the truth" can't be found in reliable sources, then it has no place on wikipedia. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 04:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not contested Sennalen ( talk) 13:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically, Senn is continuing her crusade to be as disruptive and contrarian as humanly possible. Nothing of value to see here. 2601:18F:1080:48F0:25FB:1FF3:C9E4:AA65 ( talk) 22:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, Sennallen can be quite unilateral in their editing style, perhaps even WP:TEND in how they often go against, or simply don't care to generate consensus. I pointed out in that other thread how this occurred in the topic area of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (with three failed/dubious RfC's by Sennallen one, two, three). Around that time they were writing their essay; Write the Infinite Article - which can be read as a sort of endorsement of the types of mergers Sennallen was conducting in some of those RfCs, so a user's essays are some times not independent from their actions.

On Sennallen's talk page there's a brief exchange titled 'How to kill the hydra' started by a fellow traveler, the Hydras being Wikipedians who support the current consensus at Cultural Marxism that it's a fringe conspiracy theory. I think that sort of stuff is difficult to overlook when considering their essays (especially on the topic of Fringe Theories)... and of course Sennallen has multiple other content disputes mentioned on the talk page. My concern would be that the fringe theories related essay may later be used as a means to make WP:false balance arguments, sighting a lone reliable source or academic (along side the essay) as a means to claim WP:FRINGE must therefore not apply to a topic - just sort of, you know, pop that policy right off and disregard it. Sennallen is a hard worker, and I see in them someone struggling to find their role on Wikipedia. I wish them the best of luck, and hope they do direct their work towards building Wikipedia in a positive way. 220.235.243.104 ( talk) 04:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to WP:REHASH your two failed ANI character assassination attempts of me at every thread I'm involved in? Sennalen ( talk) 13:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

We both know you're in far too many threads for that. 220.240.181.176 ( talk) 11:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "as humanly possible". I'm being a gadfly to a degree, but in a constructive way. I'm trying to hold the community accountable to its own rules. Sennalen ( talk) 13:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps let others decide whether and to what extent you're being "constructive"? That's kind of the point of a collaborative project. We have no shortage of folks on vanity missions to "hold the community accountable to its own rules", and it never amounts to anything beyond mundane disruption. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Point. Picking fights and being contrarian for no reason other than to "to hold the community accountable to its own rules." is disruptive and deserving of a block.

On top of that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is literally a policy, so your entire argument is invalid. 2601:18F:1080:48F0:857D:FD1D:7C10:C99D ( talk) 03:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Though WP:IAR does not apply to NPOV (and BLP and some of the legally-informed stuff), which is explicitly non-negotiable. So far as I'm aware the community is producing content in accord with its own "rules" (wrong word). Sure, we get problems and this noticeboard is a place to get them sorted. But zero evidence of any problem has been produced in this discussion. It's all hot air so far as I can see. I'm applying Hitchen's razor and am left with nowt. Bon courage ( talk) 03:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes ignoring a rule is the best thing for the encyclopedia, but in that case there should be an awareness of what the rule is and an explicit consensus to ignore it. Sennalen ( talk) 13:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

"trying to hold the community accountable" ← Textbook WP:NOTHERE this. Bon courage ( talk) 06:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You left out "to its own rules", which makes it about as WP:NOTNOTHERE as it gets. Sennalen ( talk) 13:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not really, you're meant to be here to build an encyclopedia, not play at being judge for the "community" based (as it happens) on a false reading of its rules. Bon courage ( talk) 13:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

A good effort in the right direction. I expect the development of this essay to be productive. SmolBrane ( talk) 15:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That VP is only for discussion of policies and guidelines. Enlarging it to cover essays would probably be a bad idea. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with SmolBrane, except I would sort of prefer an expansion of WP:FRINGE/QS and WP:FRINGE/ALT over a separate essay. I don't think the FRINGE guideline is problematic for topics that are unambiguously fringe. The practical issues only arise when the topic has some strong sources saying it's fringe and other strong sources saying it's not, or few/no sources saying directly that it's fringe but many sources contradicting it indirectly. Loki ( talk) 23:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"contradicting it indirectly." ← what does that mean? Sound like an invitation to engage in WP:OR. This is the nub of the problems at EMDR caused by your repeated harping on this. As a reminder, WP:V is core policy and requires ontent to be directly supported by sources. Bon courage ( talk) 04:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

To be crystal clear, that line is not about EMDR, that line is about Blanchard's typology. There are relatively few sources explicitly saying it's fringe, but plenty of sources that describe the consensus in the field as something completely inconsistent with it.

To put it in simpler terms, it's as if there were a small handful of otherwise serious researchers trying to work on perpetual motion machines, while the rest of the field basically never commented on them either way, and yet clearly described the laws of thermodynamics as they currently are and perpetual motion as impossible. Loki ( talk) 05:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Then there'd be no independent sources for the "small handful". They get no coverage. Bon courage ( talk) 14:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, that depends. Is James Cantor an independent source on Ray Blanchard's work? By current WP:INDY guidelines, he is, because merely being part of the same research clique doesn't mean he has a conflict of interest or any actual tangible affiliation with him (other than coauthoring a few papers). Loki ( talk) 17:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Content from people in a fringe "research clique" would not be WP:FRIND. You need stuff from outwith the intellectual milieu. Bon courage ( talk) 04:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

But from where are we getting the label "fringe"? Nobody's calling them fringe, is the point. They're just not citing their research or otherwise taking them seriously.

And these are all otherwise respected experts outside of this particular marginal theory. It's closer to a WP:FRINGE/ALT situation, except maybe for the detail that this theory has been around for over 50 years and has if anything lost support over that time. Loki ( talk) 17:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That is the purpose of WP:PARITY, I believe (especially the final paragraph.) Fringe topics, by their very nature, often attract a lot of attention from their devoted believers and very limited attention from outside of that bubble; so it's important that the prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field rather than just the small bubble of researchers who embraces (and therefore publishes a lot about) a theory that has extremely limited acceptance anywhere else. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this generally, but WP:PARITY only seems to be relevant for that very short section at the end. Blanchard, Bailey and Cantor publish mostly in completely ordinary journals. They're often small or sexologist-oriented or both, but they're not quack journals.

As far as I can tell, the policy that's most relevant here is not in WP:FRINGE at all, it's WP:UNDUE in the overall NPOV guideline. WP:FRINGE/ALT and WP:FRINGE/QS both approach what I'm talking about but neither quite gets at it. Loki ( talk) 17:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Just something I've observed over the years, but usually if someone complains about WP:PARITY being mentioned in a BLP, it's usually an indication WP:BLP isn't being followed and scraping the bottom of the barrel with WP:BLPSELFPUB sources. I've seen a quite a few cases where something about a quack BLP is self-sourced, only for someone to say parity level sources can't be used. One of the requirements (#4) of BLPSELFPUB is there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Instead of having dueling tit-for-tat sources, it's usually better to just outright remove the self-sourced equivalent of "a dog at my homework" comment by the BLP that was originally in the article. Often times what a fringe-BLP says about themselves is not authentic or grounded in reality.

That really gets into the spirit of PARITY though. Even if a policy like BLP doesn't technically disallow something about the fringe-BLP, if it's a case where parity-level sources indicate an issue, it's very likely mentioning the fringe idea in the BLP violates WP:DUE without even having to have a follow-up parity source in the article. KoA ( talk) 22:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't only or mainly a BLP issue that I'm talking about and so I'm confused by this response. Loki ( talk) 02:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Just want to endorse Shibbolethink's reply to me at the closed VPP discussion. What I said was not meant to contradict either WP:PSCI or WP:FRINGE, and it's important to be just as careful not to promote false science, as we are to preserving a neutral tone (and funnily enough, our real article at Acupuncture is a great example of what I meant). DFlhb ( talk) 10:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll go further: I've noticed a few of our fringe articles are too discursive ("proponents say blah" followed by "XYZ reputable org says not-blah"), when they'd benefit from being purely empirical, with the first section contrasting the practices and the scientific evidence, and later sections describing the practices/movement surrounding that fringe belief, in an almost clinical/sociological way, i.e. focusing more on analytical depth than on proportion (which is how I interpret WP:GEVAL). Intelligent design does that very well, but this would carry over well to even relatively less-fringe topics (for example, in our politics articles, why do utterances by politicians, journalists, and Tucker Carlson often come before actual expert commentary?)

We sometimes lack a strong enough "pro-expert bias", and I think that's what causes the occasional overcompensation with an unencyclopedic tone. DFlhb ( talk) 12:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

See a proposal to nerf the current policy here:

• WT:NPOV#Recent addition of WP:FRINGESUBJECTS shortcut to Fringe theories and pseudoscience Bon courage ( talk) 14:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That definitely took out some pretty key parts of policy, though I have to admit Sennalen in that thread is pretty blatantly working to disrupt it with some pretty strong sniping and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that might warrant a look by admins or sanctions if that continues (or if it's been going on awhile already). KoA ( talk) 21:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

An editor want to remove all mentions of pseudoscience from the article and believes that WP:FRINGE does not apply. The pseudoscience aspect is discussed by two older review articles and more recently WP:SBM. More eyes/thoughts useful. (Note this topic has been raised here several times over the years). Bon courage ( talk) 02:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Above editor is not mentioning that essentially every other source on the page is scientific evidence for the effectiveness of EMDR, up to and including a Cochrane review that found it to be effective. In contrast the sources for "pseudoscience" are two twenty year old articles published before much of the research in the article, and a professional opinion that is not a study or any kind of research. Loki ( talk) 17:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Has anything changed in the last 20 years? PMID:33638952 says that as of 2021 it remains controversial, even among psychologists. One source we don't cite (but maybe should) is PMID:15943644, which is MEDRS. According to this EMDR is basically good old Exposure therapy to which some gimmicks were added - initially eye movement. As research showed each gimmick to be useless the therapy evolved to add new gimmicks (e.g. finger tapping), and increase its session lengths and training requirements to generate revenue. This reliance on promotion and hype is why sources describe it as pseudoscience, including the influential Herbert review. As PMID:15943644 says, EMDR is not ineffective (in comparison to orthodox therapies without gimmicks, or no therapy). But for us, that is beside the point. We should just follow the sources, rather than engaging in OR which says "it sorta kinda works therefore cannot be pseudoscience!". Bon courage ( talk) 18:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

up to and including a Cochrane review that found it to be effective. In addition to the concerns with placing too much weight into RCTs into techniques without a fundamental principle of action identified, and the risk of bias between different studies assessing bias differently, the study itself urged caution in their results: Many of the studies were rated as being at 'high' or 'unclear' risk of bias in multiple domains, and there was considerable unexplained heterogeneity; in addition, we assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison as very low. As such, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

We're sort of in acupuncture territory. But *shrug* what can we do but follow the sources. Bon courage ( talk) 18:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with being careful with how we describe the evidence, in fact we mention that in the article already. All I'm saying is that the evidence does not justify the term "pseudoscience". EMDR is extremely well evidenced, and the fact that it has so much research into it at all is by definition proof it's not pseudoscience. Loki ( talk) 19:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:FRINGE/QS, it doesn't seem to meet the definition of "obviously bogus" of pseudoscience, and seems more along the lines of note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, with the caveat that we already do that elsewhere in the article. The article is already clear that the evidence for the eye movement parts of EMDR is much less strong than for EMDR as a whole.

In my opinion, this is no difference than (for example) noting that EMDR has much weaker evidence for anxiety disorders than for PTSD, or noting those studies that argue that SSRIs don't have clinically significant impacts for mild depression. An ineffective treatment, or a potentially ineffective treatment, is not the same thing as pseudoscience. Loki ( talk) 20:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the existing EMDR has been characterized as a pseudoscience because of its weak underlying evidence and reliance on marketing for promotion seems like the appropriate caveat, versus describing is a "EMDR is a pseudoscientific..." in the first sentence. Bakkster Man ( talk) 20:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The "reliance on marketing for promotion" is completely irrelevant. If that's the true measurement of pseudoscience, then most prescription drugs are pseudoscientific, because the pharma industry spends something like US$7 billion on advertisements. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the evidence does not justify the term "pseudoscience" ← interesting thought. Get it published in a reputable source, bring it back here, and it might be relevant! Bon courage ( talk) 19:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Also as far as I can tell, the last discussion on this page had a clear consensus that EMDR is not fringe. And that was over a decade ago, and there's been even more evidence for its effectiveness since. Like, the APA recommends it! Loki ( talk) 18:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, we have SBM since then. And that is reliable for fringe science. Also, see above, Bon courage ( talk) 18:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have an idea that something which is effective cannot also be pseudoscience - that is not true. There is a lot of this in psychology - for example Emotional Freedom Techniques combines distraction therapy with acupuncture points - just because distraction therapy is known to work does not mean that claiming that tapping on meridians is better than other sorts of distractions cannot be pseudoscience. MrOllie ( talk) 18:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly: imagine "gold leaf therapy" (ibuprofen wrapped in gold leaf and 10x the price). Might be "effective" for pain relief. Doesn't make it anything other than a scam. Bon courage ( talk) 18:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The APA would not recommend something like that, nor would the WHO, nor would the many professional organizations that recommend EMDR.

I'm not saying here that there's good evidence for the eye movement part of EMDR: we already document on the page that the evidence for that is shaky. However, the fact that there are many scientific studies about that definitionally means that it is potentially falsifiable and so not "pseudoscience". Loki ( talk) 18:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Bodies like that promote pseudoscience often: APA example WHO example. - MrOllie ( talk) 19:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

So then what evidence could there possibly be that something isn't pseudoscience?

Like, "pseudoscience" doesn't mean "there is no evidence for this treatment" but "no evidence could possibly falsify this treatment". But there's plenty of evidence that:

a) The eye movement part of EMDR is most likely not particularly useful

b) Despite that, EMDR as a whole is one of the most effective therapies for PTSD. Loki ( talk) 19:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Also wait a minute: your sources are less reliable than the APA! You can't cite an interest group like the Center for Inquiry alone to discredit the APA, that's not how Wikipedia sourcing works. Loki ( talk) 19:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sourcing it in an article, am I? You claimed that the APA wouldn't promote pseudoscience in a noticeboard discussion, something which is widely known to be untrue. I just gave an example of that. MrOllie ( talk) 19:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

But I don't know that's untrue. Your source claims that the APA accepts credits from a dubious institution, but I don't trust your source: their links to the crucial evidence that the APA ever even endorsed this institution are broken, for one. And for two, the idea that this makes the APA unreliable in general is IMO obviously BS. The NYT has ran false articles before but that doesn't make it an unreliable source. Loki ( talk) 19:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No one said that the APA is unreliable in general. You made a claim about the APA - that they wouldn't promote pseudoscience - without backing it up. The only evidence available says the contrary. MrOllie ( talk) 19:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You may want to learn the distinction between "proof" and "evidence". I don't think there's ever going to be proof that the APA would never promote pseudoscience, but their long record of support for evidence-based medicine (which even your own source mentions) means that their endorsement is strong evidence that EMDR is not pseudoscience. Loki ( talk) 19:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

They endorse CBT. They 'Conditionally Recommended' EMDR, which is what they do when the evidence isn't all that great. But it doesn't matter much, because we have sources which are directly on-point about the pseudo-scientific aspects, and we don't need to play OR games with APA recommendations. MrOllie ( talk) 19:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This is called WP:OR. You're reasoning that because of your interpretation of X, Y and Z we can put excellent source A,B and C in the memory hole. Sorry, doesn't work like that. In fact WP:PSCI requires us to record the pseudoscience aspect prominently. Bon courage ( talk) 19:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

But the sources aren't excellent. Two of them are older than most of the dis-confirming evidence, which leaves you with one opinion source. Loki ( talk) 19:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Old does not mean bad. Still cited, settled knowledge more like. And WP:SBM is a top-tier source for fringe science. We're not even asserting on Wikipedia that EMDR is pseudoscience, but recording the scholarly views on this. Sorry, you're not going to bury that. Suggest we're done here. Bon courage ( talk) 19:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been open for less than 24 hours so we are absolutely not "done here". Wait at least a week for people to trickle in. Loki ( talk) 19:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I've notified WikiProject Psychology about this discussion, as it seems like we're not getting enough bites here to form a proper consensus. Loki ( talk) 04:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

We have proper consensus, and WP:NPOV is non-negotiable in any case. Your proposal (to ignore all the RS discussing the pseudoscience in play) is a direct contravention of the requirement of WP:PSCI. Bon courage ( talk) 06:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The fact that WP:NPOV is non-negotiable is the whole reason I object to what you're doing. You're inserting a clear POV that EMDR is pseudoscience, where that isn't supported by the majority of the sources.

• The scientific consensus on EMDR just in general is that it's effective.
• The scientific consensus on whether the eye movements specifically are a factor in why it's effective is "probably not? but maybe?"
• The scientific consensus on whether that means it's a purple hat therapy over CBT or exposure therapy, or whether there's some other difference in therapeutic practice, is that there isn't any consensus and this is still an area of active debate. I would honestly go further and say that it seems to be settling towards "no it's not a purple hat" based on the recommendations from big medical organizations.

Loki ( talk) 17:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

What you seem not to grasp in that effectiveness and pseudoscience are orthogonal concepts. Homeopathy can treat dehydration, but that does not make in not pseudoscience, Anyway, we follow the sources to achieve NPOV - and we're getting there. Bon courage ( talk) 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you understand very well that if homeopathy was scientifically proven to be effective for the treatment of any real illness that would make it definitionally not pseudoscientific. Activated charcoal is used as a pseudoscientific treatment in some cases but is also actually used as a treatment and in that instance is not pseudoscientific. Same for chelation therapy, and same for frankly a lot of real medical procedures that have been repurposed by quacks. This doesn't make the real uses of any of these therapies pseudoscientific.

Also this isn't the case we have here, where it's the actual core use of the treatment that's being accused of pseudoscience, even though it's clearly scientifically validated as effective.

And I agree that we follow the sources for NPOV, which is why I am incensed that you don't understand we have tons and tons of sources proving the scientific validity of EMDR. Loki ( talk) 17:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's really pointless to continue. You have some funny ideas but the sources are clear. As they observe, if charlatans take an established intervention, mix in some woo, and then say the woo is the secret sauce that makes it work, then that's pseudoscience baby! Bon courage ( talk) 17:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I've made an RFC on the talk page about this issue. Loki ( talk) 19:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Other sources

This book is pertinent:

• Thyer BA, Pignotti MG (2015). "Chapter 4: Pseudoscience in Treating Adults Who Experienced Trauma". Science and Pseudoscience in Social Work Practice. Springer. p. 146. doi: 10.1891/9780826177698.0004. ISBN  9780826177681.

Usefully for this dscussion it explains why EMDR is considered pseudoscience, despite the RCTs:

What sets EMDR apart from most approaches considered to be pseudoscientific is that a number of RCTs have been conducted on EMDR, leading it to be listed as an empirically supported treatment for PTSD by the Division 12 of the American Psychological Association, because it meets that group's criteria of having at least two randomized controlled studies with positive results. Nevertheless, to date, given that there is no evidence that anything unique to EMDR is responsible for the positive outcomes in comparing it to no treatment (Devilly, 2002) and the florid manner in which it has been marketed (Herbert et al., 2000), we are including it in this book. Moreover, systematic reviews for some client groups, such as combat veterans (Albright & Thyer, 2010), have revealed that the evidence for EMDR falls short of labeling it as an empirically supported treatment for that specific form of PTSD.

Also

• Lohr JM, Gist R, Deacon B, Devilly GJ, Varker T (2015). "Chapter 10: Science- and Non-Science-Based Treatments for Trauma-Related Stress Disorders". In Lilienfeld SO, Lynn SJ, Lohr JM (eds.). Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology (2nd ed.). Routledge. p. 292. ISBN  9781462517893.

EMDR offers few, if any, demonstrable advantages over competing evidence-based psychological treatments. Moreover, its theoretical model and purported primary active therapeutic ingredient are not scientifically supported. Accordingly, the scientific status of EMDR characterized by McNally's (1999) maxim, "What is effective in EMDR is not new, and what is new is not effective" (p. 619), still holds today.

If anything, it seems our current article seems a bit coy compared to how sceptically this product is regarded in RS. Bon courage ( talk) 07:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I think today's changes take the article in a better direction. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

And yikes, to my surprise this article gets ~1,000 views/day. Thanks is due to LokiTheLiar for bringing the issues there to the community's attention. Bon courage ( talk) 14:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

While I am glad you found better sources for the original claim, I strongly object to your changes to the article as I believe that they violate WP:NPOV. Again, this is something that a Cochrane review and the APA both found to be effective. Even your sources say it's effective. I understand that there are problems with the evidence for the eye movement parts of it, but we already mentioned that. And even there, there is one meta-analysis that says the eye movement parts actually are helpful. This is a dispute over effectiveness, not over whether EMDR is pseudoscience. Loki ( talk) 15:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the whole point is it's effective, if at all, only because of the old-fashioned underlying therapy, not because of the gimmicky/expensive add-ons (the " purple hat"). Looking at the sourcing there is an absolute crapload of how this is a pseudoscience. Bon courage ( talk) 15:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

But there's significant dispute in the literature over whether it's a purple hat therapy or not, though. See for instance this paper from 2008 defending EMDR against purple-hat style skepticism, also this (admittedly old) paper from 2003. And this is just what I can find quickly on Google Scholar. Loki ( talk) 17:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

So far as I can see neither of those sources even mentions purple hats. Meanwhile, red hot off the Cambridge University Presses from 3 days ago we have this [1] which reaffirms the purple hat status and the dodgy nature of EMDR generally. Seems like case closed. Bon courage ( talk) 17:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

And now the RfC

Okay so following a premature WP:DRN and discussion at two noticeboards, the editor has now launched a RfC at Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing#RFC: Is EMDR pseudoscience. Note the editor is now also mass reverting the article to keep the reliable sources out. [2] Bon courage ( talk) 19:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

1) I already notified this noticeboard about the RFC above actually. It's above "Other sources", because it's not about other sources. I'm not sure which other noticeboard you're talking about, though I did also notify WP:NPOVN about the RFC.

2) I reverted the article to restore the status quo before the RFC, as is conventional for RFCs. If you'd like to go with me to whatever place you feel is appropriate to get a third opinion from an admin rather than edit war against me here, I'm happy to do so, but as far as I can tell policy is clearly behind me on this. Loki ( talk) 22:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It is common that people don't make radical edits during the RFC, but I do not believe it is a common practice to start a RFC and then use it as a reason to revert. It is certainly not a good reason to start edit warring. MrOllie ( talk) 22:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It is generally accepted practice to keep controversial changes out of an article until the RFC about them has concluded. Wouldn't make much sense to include the changes before there's consensus to do so. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 22:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

What we have here is a WP:1AM situation - so far, anyway. One person shouldn't be able to paralyze an article by starting an RFC. MrOllie ( talk) 23:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not only me against these changes. Bakkster Man above appeared to be for the status quo before either of us started editing, and the previous consensus from previous discussions was also that EMDR was not pseudoscientific. Loki ( talk) 23:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any BLP or other concern that trumps WP:NODEADLINE in this situation, where it actually matters which WP:WRONGVERSION the article sits at for the 30 days the RFC runs? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell? It's definitely not a BLP and I don't know what other concerns there could be. I am concerned that having a version that has all sorts of NPOV tags on it (and which I view as having a pretty clear POV) could prejudice the discussion, which is why I want to revert it. But it's ultimately not a huge deal either way. Loki ( talk) 00:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think: blanking the relevant solid RS in the article, and starting a RfC and including a comment "Here's a description of the relevant sourcing about EMDR" without mentioning that RS (or this discussion here) looks an awful lot like WP:GAMING when combined with the belief this can lock the article in your preferred state (it won't). Bon courage ( talk) 00:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I do not have (easy) access to that source, and assumed that you were going to introduce it. Because you are the only one who has access to it. Loki ( talk) 00:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Which source? "Trauma" in Pseudoscience in Therapy you should have through WP:Library which is looking very WP:BESTSOURCESy. Here's "Novel can Controversial Treatments for Trauma-Related Stress Disorders" in Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology which you can borrow from archive with a free account. fiveby( zero) 01:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you, I didn't realize how the Wikipedia Library worked. Loki ( talk) 01:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Updated reply to ScottishFinnishRadish: actually there really might be such a concern, as already two different editors have voted for "the status quo" and meant two different things. Loki ( talk) 03:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar You should probably read the Scott Lilienfeld article, then ask yourself if it is productive to continue making arguments here. fiveby( zero) 05:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, while I believe the best description is to not unambiguously refer to EMDR as a pseudoscience, the edit/revert here makes a significant number of other changes that I haven't considered. I don't think either version is ideal and will need additional work.

But I am in favor of editors who open RfCs avoiding these kinds of direct edits/reverts during the RfC. If it's a good RfC, then someone else will typically make these edits. And the edits being reverted in bulk are by no means close to the exceptions they should be reserved for. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

More than anything, the RFC itself was very poorly designed. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 14:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

And an RfC which is effectively "I haven't read the pertinent sources discussed elsewhere, but here's what I reckon the article should say anyway" is kind of WTF ... Bon courage ( talk) 14:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a very good example of why RfCs should come after significant discussion that hasn't resolved the underlying concern. Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed; while at the source discovery stage, trying to do a process end-run to pre-empt what the article is going to say anyway, stands NPOV on its head. Bon courage ( talk) 16:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I have closed the problematic RfC as an uninvolved editor. Please feel free to reverse that closure if you think it, as opposed to continuing the discussion here, has any reasonable chance of generating anything productive or helpful. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 18:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last too long. Good luck folks. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 18:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. Will likely end up at WP:AE or WP:ANI so see you there ... Bon courage ( talk) 19:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

And now another RfC

Having re-opened their closed RfC LokiTheLiar has now re-closed it and started a second RfC apparently attempting to lock the entire EMDR article to a fixed state, keeping new sources out; it has already been modified in response to the initial responses. (And: now at WP:ANI#Aspersions by Bon_courage.) Bon courage ( talk) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not trying to lock the article to a fixed state. Please add the new sources, if you want. But what you have been doing is not just adding new sources but also a lot of Wikivoice descriptions of EMDR as ineffective or pseudoscience, which are not supported by the full weight of all the sources. Remember, this is a therapy endorsed by: the APA, the other APA, the WHO, the NHS, and on and on and on and on. Loki ( talk) 20:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As others have said your 'wikivoice' description is false. Basically, we've reached the point I think where WP:CIR problems are just burning too much editors' time. Let's see what happens at WP:ANI. Bon courage ( talk) 20:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Not to you but just for the record, here are all changes BC has made recently describing EMDR as pseudoscientific or ineffective in Wikivoice:

• Adding it to Category:Psuedoscience
• It has been characterized as a pseudoscience and is only as effective as its underlying therapeutic methods without EMDR's distinctive add-ons., in the lead.
• Unusually for interventions that are considered pseudoscientific, EMDR has been subject to a number of randomized controlled trials.
• It has been called a purple hat therapy because its effectiveness stems from the underlying therapy, not from is distinctive features [sic]

Loki ( talk) 20:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm. I've already explained this once. Somebody else can try if they have the patience. Bon courage ( talk) 20:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

where we are

the reader of the current EMDR article will conclude EMDR is a wacko, and move on.

whereas major national medical organisations recommend it for PTSD.

you are damaging wiki credibility and value with this article in its current form. it would be better to delete it.

jcjc777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCJC777 ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not given medical advice. The current as-is article covers what medical organizations say. If you want to delete the article use WP:AfD, but it won't be successful. Bon courage ( talk) 02:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Astronomycal term was replaced by astrologycal term [3]. El-chupanebrej ( talk) 14:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Sennalen has created a disambiguation link to Equatorial coordinates for the astronomical term. I think that is fine solution since the exposition of the concept of primary direction there is better than the separate article was. Nevertheless the behaviour of @ Alexey Borealis in replacing the article with completely different content is of course not at all acceptable. I'll leave them a note on their talk page. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 19:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

We still have the problem of wikilinks in articles now connecting to an astrology article. I will move the quietly hijacked astrology article, and make Primary direction a redirect to the section in Equitorial coordinates. StarryGrandma ( talk) 01:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Good solution. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know the right approach to the modification/creation of the articles. So now, Google is indexing the "Primary direction (astrology)" wiki article in response to the "Primary direction" search request. It is likely because this response better satisfies the user's search intent (according to Google algorithm). It may be better to left redirect to the astrology-related page. What do you think? Alexey Borealis ( talk) 16:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The term is used in science (astronomy) and in pseudoscience (astrology) and you want to destroy all mention of the use in science? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. I want to help Google to show relevant results for the search query. If you type the "primary direction" in Google, you'll notice that the first SERP page is dedicated to the primary direction in astrology. Google shows these results by reason as a response to search intent - this intelligent search engine understands what users want and delivers relevant content. That is why the astrology-related article appeared at the top of the "Primary directions" search results. The astrology-related article has a link to the astronomy-related article, so anyone who searches astronomy term will find it. Currently, most Google users are redirected to the article, which they didn't mean while searching the primary direction.

So my whole point is to support Google's to show relevant responses to the search query "Primary Direction". Alexey Borealis ( talk) 17:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

P.S. If the Wikipedia user searches for the primary direction, the astronomy-related article also appears in search results, so this page will not disappear with the redirect I suggest. The new redirect will primarily help Google search.

P.P.S. Funny, the scientific term  "Primary Direction" originated from the pseudoscience term "Primary Direction," to which astrologers and mathematicians from European Universities like Copernicus, Regiomintanus, Giovanni Bianchini, Jean Moren, and others devoted their time. Alexey Borealis ( talk) 17:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Google searches are individualized. They remember what sort of pages you looked at before. My first hit is the Wikipedia page this is about.

Independent of that, the goal of Wikipedia is not to pander to the way Google handles popular pseudosciences. When you google "2012", you find pages about a movie inspired by stupid wacky ideas. Wikipedia's page 2012 is still about the year. (For 2011, Google and Wikipedia agree.) That is because Wikipedia is reality-based and not popularity-based. And that is how it is intended to be. Wikipedia has rules, and one of them is WP:FRINGE.

And bragging about how people still believed in something a few hundred years ago does not change its status today. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Google searches are individualized. They remember what sort of pages you looked at before.

When you google "2012", you find pages about a movie inspired by stupid wacky ideas.

Honi soit qui mal y pense ^Humor Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 07:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Ireland's Vanishing Triangle ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Has existed since 2012, but just popped up on my radar by being added to Category:Paranormal triangles. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That does not seem to be a paranormal topic to begin with - serial killers are a very mundane thing and the article is entirely focused on that mundane explanation. I can't speak of the quality of the article otherwise, but this seems plainly incorrect as a categorization. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have removed the categorisation as Paranormal triangle. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 07:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

My mistake. I should have had a look at the article before coming here. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Assembly theory ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Dubious stuff? Serious stuff with dubious connections added to the article? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular that looks dubious to you? As far as I understand it it is a measure of molecule complexity (I don't know whether or not it is a good one). The application to detecting signs of life depends on the assumption that complex molecules are an indicator of life. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 13:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

By "dubious stuff" you mean Beyond Center "The algorithmic origins of life" such as [4]? fiveby( zero) 14:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I fear I have already removed the links to Rupert Sheldrake in the meantime. Maybe there is nothing dubious there anymore. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes. The stuff you removed was -- to quote what Searle said about Derrida -- the kind of stuff that gives bullshit a bad name. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 15:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to report this (I was hoping for a relevant wikiproject and didn't find it). The article on the book American Conspiracies lists the content of the book, but doesn't offer explanation about what the generally accepted explanations are vs what is the "conspiracy theory". I just wanted to get some eyes on it - do let me know if I should have posted this somewhere else. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the entire second part that presented conspiracy theories as fact. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 20:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The article has four sources, including one which is an interview with Jesse Ventura and the other which is Ventura's book itself. The content in the other two sources says very little about the book. Can someone take a look at those, too, to see if this meets WP:NBOOK? - Location ( talk) 20:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The first reference spends two sentences on his book. The second is an excerpt from the book. So none of the references is worth much. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 21:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it misses WP:NBOOK. It was a best-seller for several weeks, but I couldn't find any reputable book reviews. (I did find a newspaper article in which Ventura complained that the "mainstream" refused to review his book.) I'd recommend a brief summary of the book and its best-seller status on Jesse Ventura and redirect the book article there. Schazjmd  (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The MSN source consists of a single, long, verbatim excerpt from the book. No review or analysis. The Star Tribune does mention the book and repeats a few of the more sensational claims in it without comment. Again, no analysis or review. Agree, it's probably best as a redirect to Jesse Ventura. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW: I'm OK with, too. - Location ( talk) 23:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The article creator isn't active (hasn't edited in nearly a year) so WP:BOLD is probably best. I'll take care of it tomorrow, unless someone else does so first. Schazjmd  (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did this. Thanks everyone! -- asilvering ( talk) 23:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Aaaaaand undone. By me! Dio! Silver seren ^C 01:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You found several reviews that I didn't come across, @ Silver seren, thanks. Schazjmd  (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Jeffrey Steinberg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are currently only four sources for this article: #1 is laroucheplanet.info, #2 is a primary source from the CIA published by MuckRock, #3 is larouchepub.com, and #4 is a reliable secondary source, but only a footnote. More problematic is that this article appears to be WP:COATRACK for LaRouche movement in that it seems to exist only to showcase the subject's "Selected publications" on a variety of fringe topics in Executive Intelligence Review. Should this one be passed along to Afd? (FWIW: There has been a lot discussion regarding LaRouche-related topics in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests.) - Location ( talk) 06:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

And the laroucheplanet.info link is dead. Oh, and I have two FBI reports totalling over 200 pages with my name in them, but that does not make me notable. Donald Albury 14:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't see this coming within 100 miles of WP:GNG, especially with the more stringent sourcing requirements for a WP:BLP article. Yes, sent it to AFD. -- Jayron 32 14:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have taken this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Steinberg. - Location ( talk) 19:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion at RSN that relates to fringe theories; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Can sources that state that religious miracles actually occurred be reliable sources? BilledMammal ( talk) 13:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory§ RfC: How should we describe DRASTIC?. Thanks! —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Brand new article, still tagged as under construction, maybe not FTN material precisely, but I think there's a good bit of overlap in interests with the folks here at least. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a valid topic, but it's in pretty rough shape, despite still being under construction (needs a move to the singular as well, but that's minor). Might be worth keeping an eye on. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 01:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It is definitely like, a thing, but yeah the article is definitely in rough shape and could use some CE. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 14:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• COVID-19 lab leak theory ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

This latest whackiness from certain US politicians being uncritically relayed. [5] Usual WP:PROFRINGE impetus. More eyes could help ... Bon courage ( talk) 17:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It's amazing to see the United States Congress being lauded as trustworthy.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." — Mark Twain

XOR'easter ( talk) 01:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This is about [6]. My own take is that Proveallthings is watering down the article. Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Please note that tgeorgescu has repeatedly accused me of pseudohistory and POV-pushing for this particular edit, and has not substantiated the accusation. Proveallthings ( talk) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It is incontestable that you removed the fact that it was written in the 2nd century BCE. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Because it's not a fact. It's the mainstream opinion. I didn't remove it, either. I rephrased it as "Ostensibly written in the 6th century, modern academic scholarship usually places its final redaction shortly after the Maccabean Revolt, the main phase of which lasted from 167–160 BC." Which is the 2nd century BC, and is perfectly acceptable and accurate.

Ostensibly means purportedly. Redaction means a final editing and compilation. There's literally nothing wrong with the sentence, nothing inaccurate, nothing "fringe" and nothing that has anything to do with pseudohistory.

Since the Aramaic elements, comprising roughly half the work, predate the second century, it should be stated accurately, which the word "redaction" allows us to do. Mainstream consensus is that the Aramaic sections belong to Imperial Aramaic and were not composed in the second century. Proveallthings ( talk) 17:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There are i think some issues to consider here, and was going to raise them with tgeorgescu last time: divisions in Daniel not being clear throughout the article, and i like reading about the history of the scholarship. But that is a great deal of work and this is completely unacceptable. fiveby( zero) 18:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a team player, but honestly I'm not getting anything in the way of anything constructive here. If there is a suggestion about an alternative wording, I'm all for it. And I'm not trying to frame the book in the way you have said it. What do you feel is unacceptable about it?

I was trying to draw a distinction between the elements of the work itself and the final redaction, which even you yourself say is not clear in the article. I actually had all the sources prepared to lay it out. But I think simply reverting everything we don't immediately agree with doesn't allow anything to develop. Proveallthings ( talk) 18:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you edits in the article were hours apart from each other, so it did not look like you were in any haste of editing the article. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I was many hours into the edit. I had to add all the bibliographical references for the sfn footnotes, which I'm slow at, and the core of everything was already written. I couldn't post the update because it would have overwritten you. Proveallthings ( talk) 18:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a mind reader. There was no way to know that you were editing that article. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I only see you ever to revert. I rarely see you contributing. Reverting is easy. Research is laborious. Simply reverting turns off editors and promotes stagnation in the articles. They may have spent five hours but you spent two minutes and undid all their work. You could have proposed an alternative wording or compromise. Instead, you reverted and went straight into attack mode. After spending that much time, then being at zero progress, do you think it's now worth it for me to go back in and try to contribute? It isn't. I have better things to do with my time. Proveallthings ( talk) 18:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have strict conditions for reverting someone's edits, these conditions are explained at my own talk page.

If you would not revert some edits, fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals would maim all historical articles they find inconvenient to their own religion. But, surely, I am not alone in doing this. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I've seen your talk page. Even though I don't edit much at all in the last fifteen or so years on WP, I've seen you in talk, too when I pop in. You simply hurl whatever rules you can at various editors and it just stymies discussion. Someone could provide 20 sources, and it's still not good enough. So as I say, I don't see you contribute. I see you revert. A lot.

In my opinion you've missed the spirit of the rules, and just use them for the letter in many instances where your personal opinion is clear. To be clear, I agree with some of your reversions. But you can also realize that, with history, there are very often two sides and they can both be presented. Traditional proponents hold this. Modern scholars say that. The consensus is this. You'll spend far less time trying to control everything that way because at least it's treated fairly. And why revert 200 characters when you disagree with a word? You can edit after the fact. Someone spent fifteen, twenty, thirty minutes. Two hours. Five hours. You could have worked with me on a compromise. Instead, you generated animosity. Proveallthings ( talk) 18:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am a wiki-conservative. I believe in Conservata veritate. But these being said, the wikipedic truth is the WP:CHOPSY truth, i.e. the Ivy League truth, for everything else use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

CHOPSY is an essay you wrote. It's very self-serving to cite it. Just what bias are you talking about?

If mainstream academia says Daniel was most likely compiled in the 2nd century, and I actually state that in writing, there's no opposite view being presented.

This is literally absurd. Proveallthings ( talk) 20:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You were watering down the article. Dumuzid agrees with me hereupon. fiveby told you to be attentive when editing something looking like WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

He may agree with you, but at least he addressed it constructively and in a way that it could be talked out and come up with a solution. You went straight conspiracy and accusations, and that's what I find so bizarre.

Maybe I didn't realize it would be interpreted in a way I didn't intend. Hearing constructive feedback helps me think about how to say things better and more clearly.

I'm saying it again, that this is getting ridiculous. Normal human discourse and collaberation doesn't rely on WP:THISRULE and WP:THATRULE every other sentence in constructive conversation. Proveallthings ( talk) 21:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Again? IIRC the last time editors bringing in 6th century were confused over the tales vs. the prophecies? Using the legitimate uncertainty of the one to imply uncertainty in the other? fiveby( zero) 17:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The article starts with "Daniel is a 2nd century BC apocalypse." The consensus of mainstream opinion is that the final redaction of the work occurred during that period but it is comprised substantially of older works written prior to the 2nd century. My understanding is that depsite it being the consensus of mainstream opinion, it still should not be stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Particularly in that there are a substantial number of scholars that disagree with it. But I didn't want to get into that debate. All I did was soften the wording from presenting it as a fact to presenting it as the consensus of mainstream scholarship, so that the proper distinction could be made by the reader.

I didn't push any alternative view, nor did I propose any other POV. So the accusations immediately hurled at me took me by surprise, and I believe were unwarranted. Proveallthings ( talk) 18:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You are seeking to re-frame "Daniel is a 2nd century BC apocalypse" into "everything contained therein was originally created in the 2nd century BC". Anyway, seen what Fiveby and Dumuzid wrote, this is looking more and more like you are in a case of WP:1AM. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No. I was trying to lay out an accurate picture of the books composition. A casual reader will enter the article and think precisely what you wrote above is the case: "everything contained therein was originally created in the 2nd century BC" Proveallthings ( talk) 18:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's your reading, not our reading. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

When you write, you assume what the audience will take out of it. I'm pretty sure if I asked anyone uninitiated to read that synopsis, they would come away with the idea that the book is wholly written in the 2nd century. My problem is that is not an accurate presentation. I don't care if it conforms to my opinion or not. I think you do. Proveallthings ( talk) 18:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

In other words, lay out the facts and sides correctly and let the reader make up their own mind. How many sources are on that page that have qualifying information that is not presented in the article? I know, because I've been through them. Proveallthings ( talk) 18:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:YESPOV, we do not twist facts belonging to mainstream history. If one denies that the book was written in the 2nd century BCE, they are not a mainstream Bible scholar. There is a definition by Shaye J. D. Cohen at my user page of what "mainstream Bible scholars" mean. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't twist any facts. You're not giving examples of me doing that. You can state a mainstream opinion as fact. It's still an opinion. You're basically saying that I'm twisting a fact by not allowing an opinion to be stated as a fact. Proveallthings ( talk) 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

A legitimate point that 'apocalypse' might not be clear to some readers, but the talk page archives are full of editors taking a similar approach as you seem to be with the same arguments. The text in the article will not imply any doubt in the dating of the prophesies. The sources are very clear here, and anyone changing the text needs to know where it belongs on the fringe spectrum and be prepared for a lot of work and consultation with other editors. Please, at least slow down a little bit. fiveby( zero) 18:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm being misunderstood here. It had nothing to do with dating the prophecies, just distinguishing the various elements of the book. I think I'm being viewed through a lens of past disagreements I wasn't even involved with. I don't have a lot of time to keep trying to explain. I'll leave the article alone.

I'm not convinced a lot of editors have actually read the source material they cite. Proveallthings ( talk) 19:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ostensibly means apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually. Proveallthings ( talk) 19:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no indisputable evidence that any part of Isaiah was written after the prophets lifetime—I mean: how would such evidence conceivably look like? There can be no such empirical text disclosing it for a fact. It is all a matter of epistemology, not one of finding a magical manuscript which would prove the claim.

Mainstream historians do not accept real predictive prophecy, so the view I have reverted is WP:PROFRINGE. The historical method razes predictive prophecies with Occam's razor. The existence of predictive prophecies is a matter of metaphysics or theology, not one of epistemology (there are no such things as supernatural prophecies in epistemology).

There is no proof that the book of Daniel was re-written to align with times of the Maccabees—quite correct: in ancient history and archaeology there are no proofs like in mathematics and physics. But the unanimous verdict of historians and Bible scholars from the Ivy League is that the Book of Daniel was written in the 160s BCE.

Stated otherwise: proof is for math and whisky. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you just regurgitating prefabricated responses like a bot? Like I said above, you both are looking at me through the lens of past agreements with others and not listening to what I'm saying.

I have no idea where all this is going, and it's getting weird. I'm talking, but you're not listening.

I didn't edit the article to show anything to the contrary concerning the authorship or date of composition to what was written according to mainstream academia. If I had, we could have this discussion. But to me, you sound ridiculous, and this is all going way over the top and is a complete waste of time.

"Ostensibly written in the 6th century" means "Though it has the appearance of being written in the sixth century." It doesn't mean, "though written in the sixth century." Again, had I said that, we could have this discussion and we could hash it out. Because all I see here is someone arguing with me over semantics. Proveallthings ( talk) 20:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to teach me English. It is now clear that you are in a WP:1AM situation. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not one man against many. It's really just you here right now. I simply don't understand where all the nonsense you're spitting out is coming from, because it's not actually addressing the position I took up at all. It's addressing a position someone else took up that you conversed with sometime here or there.

Normally, you respond to what people write for what they write. You seem to be writing against someone else entirely. Proveallthings ( talk) 20:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, you misconstrue the article that all that book was written in the 2nd century BCE (i.e. the older tales). And you seem to lack WP:CIR to understand that you misconstrue the article.

Every mainstream Bible scholar agrees that the book includes older tales. But citing that as an argument for your POV is a non sequitur. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm finding this logic fuzzy.

All this is a lot of saying, "What you said is technically correct, but I don't like how you said it." Then suggest something better and we can talk about it. What didn't you like? "Ostensibly"? Do you not like stating opinions as opinions and facts as facts?

WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." I made an edit based upon a literal understanding of this simple rule. Proveallthings ( talk) 21:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you ignore the extent to which the 2nd century BCE dating is for mainstream historians the only option on the table, or the only game in town, simply because the historical method does not allow for any alternative to it. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

What about the historical method doesn't allow it? We look for the earliest attestation and testimony and form a picture from there.

By the first century, the Jews had already identified prophecies of Daniel with Rome and were anticipating an prophetic conflict with the Romans based upon them. When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, they wrote about it as fulfillment of Daniel 9 and 12 after the fact. See for example Josephus, Antiquities, 10.11.7, "And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel’s vision; and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government; and that our countrey should be made desolate by them." This is a fact you can find this in their extant literature. So should we now try and date the whole book to AD 70? We can't, since we have copies older than that, and it is attested before that. Some trace the prophecies all the way up to the fall of the Western Empire and its dissolution by the barbarians. Should we put it at 476?

I'm being absurd to make a point. Interpretation is only one element. A document written in an eastern dialect of Imperial Aramaic would not be expected to be found written in a region where the spoken language is a western dialect of post-Achaemenid (Biblical) Aramaic. In the historic method, we call that an anachronism.

The book was canonical in Qumran, canonical among Jews and Christians, and still canonical until it was removed to the writings in about the 4th century by the Masorites. That requires a process of rapid canonization.

So no, it isn't the only interpretation in town, and it isn't the only game in town. They can date it based on their view of the prophecies, but that interpretation is not infallible. Scholars say the prophecies failed at Antiochus, the ancient Jews and Christians said the prophecies continued to be fulfilled under the Romans. Proveallthings ( talk) 22:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, you make the mistake of thinking that for us there is in this matter any other authority than mainstream, present-day historians. They judge the arguments, they evaluate the evidence, not us (Wikipedians). And you make the mistake of thinking that WP:CHOPSY makes partisan demands, instead of merely describing what is reality of Wikipedia almost since its inception. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am a historian, so I'll speak to you as a historian rather than an editor. Having read the broad scope of literature I am aware of many counterarguments and differences of opinions over the authorship in this case. It's certainly not as wholesale and unanimous as you express. The Maccabean Thesis took a huge blow from the redating of the Aramaic, and now there's a new paradigm of opinions emerging that is trending toward distinguishing the sections of the book. There are a LOT of different views.

The methodology used to connect the dots to the Maccabean era is very thin. Very little is devoted to the actual circumstances of 2nd century Judea in the book and many of the associations are forced and unconvincing. Most importantly, Antiochus IV is consistently addressed in Daniel 11 as "the king of the north," i.e., Seleucia. The prophecy that supposedly foretells his death, which scholars say failed, is not written about him. In Daniel, it's actually a different king: "And the king shall do according to his will . . . And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and *the king of the north* shall come against him like a whirlwind" (Daniel 11:36, 40). He doesn't fight against himself. Historically, it's the Romans who stepped onto the scene. It means the terminus ad quem is based upon a flawed reading of the text.

This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. Historically also, we have a problem. The reconstruction holds that the Jews wrote the work against Seleucus. But the earliest evidence from Jewish and Christian sources contradicts this reconstruction. The Jews and early Christians saw it as the Romans. However, this leaves us with a dating problem that we are entering an era where we have extant copies and extant historic quotations. So we can't date it any later. We have to look at other means. A huge part of that is the language in which it was written, of which we know more for more than we did a hundred years ago. Josephus also remarks on its existence going back at least as far as Alexander the Great. So according to the historical method, there are legitimate objections and we are not confined to one view. We rarely are, since history is messy.

Am I going to put my opinion on WP? No. To be clear, I'm specifically addressing *your* objection, as distinguished with how things are presented in Wikipedia, since you brought up the Historical Method. FYI, we can't follow the Historical Method in WP, because that method requires the presence and usage of primary sources. We deal in secondary and tertiary sources, meaning we are wholly reliant on the opinions of others. So I am not in disagreement with you over how WP should be approached.

As I recall, you're the one who devised the CHOPSY test from the essay and again it's a self-serving reference here. As it relies purely on what you feel would be accepted by them, it has no real value in the discussion. It's subjective. If you want to discuss things, we can do it without the WP:KITCHENSINK. Proveallthings ( talk) 16:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Arguments such as this will not influence editors or lead to changes in the text. A Wikipedia argument goes something like this: Collins, John J. (2002). The book of Daniel : composition and reception. pp. 1–2. fiveby( zero) 17:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here is the deal: WP:CITE any book published in the past 25 years by Cambridge University Press, Harvard University Press, Oxford University Press, or Yale University Press which contradicts that there is a solid WP:RS/AC upon the 2nd century BCE dating.

And, yup, interpreting the Book of Daniel or the Revelation of John as meaning "our own time" is a cottage industry, since thousands of years ago. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You're again reverting back to your own essay, which is highly self serving. There is no standard of WP:RS/AC that demands all our sources be published within the last quarter of a century by Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, or Yale. And yet I don't exactly see you clearing out 25+ year old "stale" books from Yale, Cambridge, Oxford and Harvard. Nor do I see you clearing out non-Yale, non-Cambridge, non-Oxford and non-Harvard sources. By your standards, you can say goodbye to Collins' two works on Daniel and a number of other sources. But you're not going after them. I DO see you using your CHOPSY test to stifle communication throughout a wide spectrum of Bible related pages, demanding that editors you disagree with conform to WP:CHOPSY. It's a very disingenuous approach.

I recall some time ago I produced about twenty some sources regarding various issues in Daniel in another place. I never touched the actual article itself at that time. They're still there, you can go back and look. Among them I quoted Assyriologist Beaulieu, who wrote the current standard on Nabonidus and Belshazzar, from Yale, and who is used in rather extensively in Nabonidus and Belshazzar related pages, and you treated it as though the book had gone stale by age. And Kutscher holds consensus on the Aramaic of Daniel, which again to you is too old (it's still consensus). Collins, who dissents, even notes that. I even quoted him to you. After some length, and summarily dismissing everything, you resorted to this attempt: "You have never pledged to obey our WP:RULES. The moment to do it is now. Anyway, all your edits are performed under the legal obligation to comply with WP:RULES." [7]. I hadn't broken any rules, you just kept trying to frame it up that way. Just like you did recently on my talk page making accusations and then not making them up.

As for sources, if you're really so concerned about getting things correct you should check these article sources sometime and address how misleadingly they are utilized on the pages related to Daniel. I think a lot of them are simply quote mined, because I know all the qualifying information that's omitted. Especially Seow. He's cited on Belshazzar for a historical inaccuracy regarding Belshazzar's father, which he goes on in the work to demonstrate really isn't a problem, see pp. 76,77: "one should keep in mind that in the Semitic languages, 'father' is not limited to that of a biological or even adoptive parent . . . by the same token, the term 'son' is used of a descendant, a successor, or simply a member of the group or class." The Assyrian and Babylonian kings always referred to their royal predecessors as their ex-officio father, "kings my fathers," and their biological father as "the father my begetter" (as with Nebuchadnezzar). It wasn't even an uncommon convention overall in Aramaic or Hebrew, thus "sons of the prophets" simply referred to their successors, not their kids. Seow notes this also. I could go on at length about it from the cuneiform literature, or the Hebrew Old Testament, or inscriptions, and cite examples from Dougherty, Na'aman, Brinkman, Gadd, Grayson, Harper but by WP guidelines I can't quote sources that aren't speaking directly on the matter of the article.

You made a comment to me about "fundamentalists," and seem to be coming at me as a "fundamentalist" with pre-rehearsed rhetoric, which makes me think you have an axe to grind. Your talk page is public, and so are your footnotes, and so is your Romanian page. At one point you had a meme posted showing a Bible with a warning, "Warning . . . exposure to contents for extended periods of time or during formative years in children may cause delusions, hallucinations, decreased cognitive and objective reasoning abilities, and, in extreme cases, pathological disorders." [8] And currently, recommending a program Kurzweil 3000, an assistant learning technology for people with learning disabilities, for Christians in your footnotes (#14). And then on your Romanian page: A nu putea pricepe ca teologia creștină este o credință subiectivă este un handicap mental grav, "To not understand that Christian theology is a subjective belief is a serious mental disability." [9] Did I translate that correctly? And again, Nu vreau să fiu asociat cu absurditățile din Biblie, "I don't want to be associated with the absurdities of the Bible." But you sure spend a lot of time on Bible related pages, when you appear to have an axe to grind.

I don't know where the book of Revelation is coming from since it's not part of the discussion. You're undermining your own point with the "cottage industry" comment. My point is exactly that the historical method has far more tools in it's arsenal than just, "I think this refers to this or that at this time or that, therefore it must have been written after." A captious university scholar might find that criteria enough, but it's not. It's the wrong dialect from the wrong geographical region and the wrong time period compared to the Aramaic of 2nd century Judea. Somebody didn't just concoct it in the Maccabean era. Josephus records that the book was much older, and gives an account of it dating back at least as far as the time of Alexander the great. None of the writers of the first or second centuries AD give any hint that it was a recent work, nor do they produce interpretations that support the Maccabean Theses. The Hebrew itself isn't even Mishnaic Hebrew, which circulated beginning around AD 200. At that time there's a marked shift from verb-subject-object to subject-verb-object, etc. Proveallthings ( talk) 04:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think either you or tgeorgescu are likely to be swayed, so I would respectfully suggest perhaps trying to build consensus elsewhere. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 05:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks fiveby and Dumuzid. I'm just addressing what tgeorgescu is saying. I'm not a terribly huge fan of the sort of methodology behind writing an essay and demanding everyone follow it. If he wants to mention the historic method, which we technically can't employ on Wikipedia articles (since we can only cite the opinions of others), I can address it in talk. If I want to build a consensus around an article, I have a bibliography of about 179 articles and books so it wouldn't be difficult to cite. But with tgeorgescu, I think it's a fruitless endeavor. I believe I went through about 26 reliable sources for on issue and all that resulted was a bunch of wikilawyering--sometimes as many as 9 rules cited in a single paragraph and most of them either violating the spirit of the rule or just simply scraping the bottom of the barrel. Proveallthings ( talk) 05:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

tgeorgescu would an article FAQ help, or maybe even a contentious topics consensus required from WP:AE for the page if that's possible? fiveby( zero) 18:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Fiveby: I asked the arbitrators if pseudohistory falls under the remit of WP:ARBPS, and the answer was that generally speaking it doesn't (unless specific pseudoscientific methods are employed for it). tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, because I don't want to keep getting inundated by tgeorgescu here, and on my talk page, and in the Book of Daniel talk page, with a lot of nonsense, I'll state it one more time: I didn't dispute the academic consensus of the book in my edit. At all. And I didn't present an alternative viewpoint. And I didn't advocate for (as tgeorgescu seems to be hinting at) a "fundamentalist" position.

The word "ostensibly" has a very specific meaning that something looks one way but may not be so. Daniel, on its face, is written as though it occurred in the sixth century. But scholars dispute that and believe it was written in the mid-2nd century. It's all I said. If I wanted to dispute the actual date, I would have started that topic in talk. As it is, all I basically do on WP is correct occasional inaccuracies and misrepresentations of sources. In fourteen years, I've never witnessed this same level of nonsense over an edit made earlier in the day. I've never had an issue at all, in fact. Proveallthings ( talk) 20:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Proveallthings - I do apologize if the discussion has been more vituperative than you expected, but all topics regarding religion have a tendency to trend toward tendentiousness, and it can wear on those of us who regularly contribute. Suffice it to say that I don't see a current consensus for your changes, but if you'd like to try other changes (preferably one at a time or suggesting them on talk), that is of course always welcome. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid ( talk) 22:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

About So as I say, I don't see you contribute. I see you revert. A lot.: while I do revert vandalism and fundamentalist POV-pushing, I have positive contributions to Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, Grail Movement, Abd-ru-shin, Sun Myung Moon, Ellen G. White, Gregorian Bivolaru, Judith Reisman, Onan, Abraham, and other religious WP:FRINGE subjects, including the intersection between religious propaganda and sexuality, such as Blessing ceremony of the Unification Church, NoFap, religious views on masturbation, effects of pornography, pornography, God and Sex, sexual addiction, effects of pornography on young people, and pornography addiction. I think I am the most important contributor to masturbation (I wrote over 22% of the article, including many footnotes which are not even counted to that extent). And articles about some Romanian extreme right people. Some years ago, I was deeply into citing Bart Ehrman for his views upon the academic consensus in Bible scholarship.

So, your claim that I only revert other people, but I do not contribute myself anything is an incorrect claim. And the reason why you don't see me contributing is that I believe in many little incremental changes rather than major edits, e.g. while editing the Romanian Constitutional Bar in Romanian Wikipedia: there are no big edits by me, but I've slowly grown the article to what it is. I do not regard editing Wikipedia as a sprint (running), but as a long marathon, running for many years. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And even if you did nothing else but revert and voice reasoned opinions, that would not be a valid reason to reject your reasoning. It's simply ad hominem. Different users have different editing styles, and someone who regularly reverts vandalism or corrects typos deserves to be heard as much as someone who writes several articles every week. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

[10] Doug Weller talk 20:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It might be worth some people watchlisting Mauro Biglino (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as the next day IP swept in to make a coatrack. I reverted today. This is a biography that my be worth a WP:CLEANUP beyond its stubby non-information approach right now. Or, alternatively, a merge to some other article that can handle this sort of thing? jps ( talk) 18:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

could use a few more eyes as it seems to be a target. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Please, let's avoid constructions like, "most scientists agree" when talking about things that are so implausible as the misapprehension of this myth as some sort of fact of natural history. jps ( talk) 18:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Bringing this here because I think his approach makes him fringe, ie he uses statistics to prove that Islam is really a political ideology. I seem to be the only editor involved in this article who isn't promoting him, and as some of you know I won't be around much longer. His organisation claims that “Statistics show that Islamic politics is what brought Islam success, not religion”.

A new editor added this [11] with a misleading edit summary. The edit is based on Linkedin, an article in Junge Freiheit and a book by Moorthy Muthuswamy, the latter two right-wing anti-Muslim sources, also changing his being against Islam to him being against political Islam although his critics state that he is against Islam as a religion.

An editor who has been involved for a long time added [12], which is an interview by an editor of JungeFreiheit and purely self-serving. Warner/French was involved in another attempt to hold an anti-Islam protest in 2018. [13]

The article also discusses his organisation, and see this news article discussing a claim by a member of his organisation [14] I found something debunking this but it's from an anonymous author (clearly not the real August Landmesser in an unreliable source, still interesting at least to me). [15] In any case, I think the article needs more eyes and hopefully someone new editors. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I would edit but it is full protected for some strange reason. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 18:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:October Surprise conspiracy theory#RfC about the article title. - Location ( talk) 19:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• The Tunnel Thru the Air; Or, Looking Back from 1940 ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Suggestion on Talk page: Delete everything after the Plot section. Sounds reasonable, but maybe people want to watch the article from now on... -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah whoa, that's nuts. Honestly, I'd vote for it to be deleted on AFD. Loki ( talk) 06:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Ooof! Watching. Donald Albury 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Reads a bit like a fan wiki. A quick scan of the article left me wondering if the many paragraphs of analysis, commentary, lists, etc. are WP:DUE and can be cited to independent reliable sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

AfD it. No evidence of notability through significant coverage in non-lunatic sources. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That was bad. I went ahead and deleted everything after the Plot section. It desperately needs some solid sourcing. I will note that the author's article is not much better. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 15:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Gotta love that graph of rhye prices plotted against the heliocentric longitude of pluto -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 16:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I've nuked most of the author's article, leaving only the section that had its own article, the part on his writing style, the biography, and the bibliography. I've salvaged the image to my userpage because it made me laugh. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 12:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

And I deleted a source, an unpublished lecture. Looks like all his books are self-published. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

His article is dreadful. Full of self-published stuff or articles from self-publishing houses, eg [16] Created by a user call GANNMAN and then highly edited [17] who seems to have never found a self-publisher he didn't like. Eg [18] This editor created Neville Lancelot Goddard. I nuked a bit with virtually no sources but one self-published book. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Crosthwaite, P.; Knight, P.; Marsh, N. (Winter 2019). "The Economic Humanities and the History of Financial Advice". American Literary History. 31 (4): 661–686. WP Library link
• Elder, Alexander (1993). Trading for a living. p. 23. cited by above for wealth, and saw cited elsewhere, but maybe not too useful
• maybe Wansleben, Leon (2012). "Financial Analysts". In Karin Knorr Cetina; Alex Preda (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Finance. but WP Library Oxford Academic link not working right now
• Crosthwaite P.; Knight P.; Marsh N.; Paul H. J.; Taylor J. (2022). "Chartists and Fundamentalists (1910–1950)". Invested : how three centuries of stock market advice reshaped our money, markets, and minds.

Just following citations and going by the title "Finance Fiction" in The Routledge Handbook of Critical Finance Studies might be useful, but can't find access anywhere. fiveby( zero) 15:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Anneliese Michel ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Traditional meetingplace of IPs believing in exorcism and demons. Higher activity than usual at the moment. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

added to my watchlist -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 15:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The most recent IP person seems to have access to a wide range, so I've semiprotected for a few months. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC).

• Varginha UFO incident‎ ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Brian Dunning good or bad? Edit-warring IP says bad. Well, it is a blog, so I am not sure. But the reasons the IP is giving are sure crap. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• 73.88.147.250 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Werkentagen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are branching out. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The targeted anti-Dunning edits from both of these users raise WP:BLP concerns and the edits themselves, plus the edit-warring behavior, seem too similar to be a coincidence. In the meantime, Dunning is an established authority on scientific skepticism, and their published comments on the Varginha incident are IMO valid for inclusion. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 21:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Werkentagen appears to be on a campaign against Dunning, inserting the same attacks in Ariel School UFO incident and Westall UFO. I have given them a CT alert for BLPs, and also warned them, which was not well received. Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC).

Gee, if we're all so corrupt I do hope I'll be getting my check in the mail soon. It appears to be a tad delayed. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 09:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Just give User:Bishzilla your banking details and passwords and she'll take care of it. Bishonen | tålk 12:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC).

Thanks! I will do so forthwith! -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 15:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

But why quote and attribute in the content? Does WP:PARITY's WP:ITA really require that? Quoting seems to be the least useful thing for the reader here. If WP:OR and WP:ITA force the content to always be along the lines of "according to skeptic X ..." then it seems to me the reader would be better served by just telling them to go elsewhere for something more informative than WP. Something in External Links along the lines of: "Brazil's Roswell: The Varginha UFO" a Skeptoid post and podcast which discusses how a completely normal event has been embellished over the years by UFOlogists"; seems would be more prominent and useful than burying the link in a citation. fiveby( zero) 16:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

External link is a good idea, but I don't think it's "either/or"; the WP:ITA seems useful to preserve NPOV. DFlhb ( talk) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Since we are on the subject of painting Dunning as unreliable: Joseph Mercola has an external link to Skeptoid which is marked as a "generally unreliable source". I experimented a bit, and the reason seems to be that the link contains the string "Mercola.com". Any ideas on how to prevent the marking? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing you have Headbomb's reliability script installed, it's a known issue see User:Headbomb/unreliable#False positives -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 10:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah! I checked my preferences and could not find the add-in. Yes, that's it. Thanks! -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Badge Man (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FWIW: Badge Man, an article related to JFK conspiracy theories, is today's featured article. I noted on the talk page something I think should be altered about the lead sentence, but the article is built upon reliable secondary sources and does not appear to run afoul of WP:FRINGE. - Location ( talk) 02:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Aquatic ape hypothesis ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Recent edits could benefit from more views/eyes. Bon courage ( talk) 14:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Took a look at the article and noticed that, while it's definitely WP:FRINGE science in the sense that almost no scientists endorse it, the two citations listed in the lead as saying that it's pseudoscience did not in fact say that, or even mention the word "pseudoscience". In fact, one of them implied it was an important step in the advancement of the actual mainstream science, even though it's widely considered to be false. Loki ( talk) 09:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It's such an obvious and "classic" pseudoscience it could probably be called that without a source, but for belt and braces I've added a recent academic book chapter that goes into this in detail. [19] Wikipedia can't be sweeping this under the carpet. Bon courage ( talk) 10:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't really object to the description per se, especially since it's definitely WP:FRINGE whether or not it's pseudoscience. It's just that "pseudoscience" is a WP:LABEL that we need pretty strong sourcing for. Loki ( talk) 19:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Eh, looking at your edits I am not a fan of them. The article as a whole with its current sourcing pretty clearly positions the AAH as WP:FRINGE/QS, not as an unambiguous pseudoscience. We should therefore be attributing the pseudoscience label here unless we can find a lot more and better sources that say it's pseudoscience. Loki ( talk) 19:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Rubbish. We have a super strong source saying it's pseudoscience, and none saying it's not. So WP:YESPOV, WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGESUBJECTS all apply: NPOV in other words. I hope this is not going to be a reprise of the EMDR fiasco. Bon courage ( talk) 19:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with loki here. You have a propensity to grab for the heavy artillery quite rapidly when in many cases and I don't think that's necessarily the best solution. Particularly this sentence, which I just removed, was a bit too flippant to my liking. Saying definitively that the adherents are in an echo chamber in wiki-voice is something I would prefer to reserve for the rare occasions where it is actually verifiably true. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 19:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It is verifiable per the (excellent) source which details this at length. And there's more to add right, about the nature of the adherents and their attacks on scientists?. BTW, your edit summary was wrong so I reverted is. WP:PSCI is policy, and not up for negotation. Bon courage ( talk) 20:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

you do not have consensus for that change, so trying to edit war with me is not going to be very productive. I also don't see where in WP:PSCI it says that your version of calling a spade a spade is superior to mine. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 20:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It says pseudoscience has to be prominently identified as such. You have just removed that very identification from the body of the article and emboldened a WP:PROFRINGE editor into the bargain, based on an incorrect statement in your edit summary. How can you possibly think this is not justified by the extensive wording in the source? Bon courage ( talk) 20:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

First of all, please don't call editors who disagree with you on policy details pro-fringe. That's not what is going on here. Secondly, I do not particularly care what my actions do and do not embolden in the moment. I care about performing the correct actions. And right now, that was removing the sentence that stated in wiki-voice that people who believe in a pseudoscientific theory live in an echo-chamber based on a single source. And thirdly, as I explained in my edit summary, there are other solutions that I am willing to discuss for the problem you raise, which you appear to be entirely ignoring in favour of claiming that I am violating policy and emboldening pro-fringe editors. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summary was wrong (which you have not acknowledged). So you have removed the only designation of this as pseudoscience from the article body. We are bound to follow the WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:YESPOV is policy. What doubts (from the sources) can you possibly have that the source completely supports this pseudoscience designation and the echo-chamber nature of its followers' work?

Research into the hypothesis takes place in isolation, "hermetically sealed", with researchers avoiding engagement with their critics. This results in an echo chamber, where the common misapprehensions of the group amplify each other and make proponents more convinced of their ideas even in the face of a lack of corroborating data. Research cited by aquatic ape proponents is typically dated and obsolete, presumably because current research would not support their beliefs. Moore has noted a tendency to "incestuous citing" where a group of like-minded (but wrong) researchers all cite each other, giving a false impression of widespread support for ideas that are widely rejected. When contradictory evidence is acknowledged, it tends to be misrepresented as if it actually confirms the hypothesis, further rendering the aquatic argument immune to refutation.

Bon courage ( talk) 20:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

So, this says something completely different than "...enjoying only an echo chamber of support among its fervent adherents.", It seems to me like this is saying that all the (pseudo-)scholarly work on the topic is done in an echo chamber. Which I would not disagree with. But I think this belongs in the critique section along with the remainder of the sentence I pointed to as a possible replacement for the one I removed in my edit summary. And with a proper explanation for what is actually being characterised as an echo chamber, as well as attribution. So that would be its own full sentence. I think the "debunked" part I left standing is enough for the introduction of the reaction section, as it already covers the load (I.E. something that is debunked obviously isn't true) but I'm willing to negotiate on that. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 21:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It was a fair summary what I put, but there's plenty more to add. You also removed the pseudoscience designation and now you've added the fiction that it's not considered pseudoscience. [20] Which looks suspiciously like trolling by mucking up mainspace. You are aware this is a WP:CTOP. Any admins following this? Bon courage ( talk) 21:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If you look for literally a microsecond to the left on your screen there at your apparent reading speed you'll realise I simply forgot to remove the word "not" when I changed that sentence for the second time. I just warned you on your talk page about assuming good faith. I am not doing so again. Striking the above comment. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 21:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I'll say here is that WP:FRINGE/QS does not require there to be sources saying explicitly that a position is not pseudoscience. Admittedly, it does require there to be academic supporters of it, which is also not really true in the relevant field. So we're kinda in limbo between several policies that this situation doesn't quite fit cleanly. Loki ( talk) 20:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The policy is to reflect reliable sources, not add weaselly editorial like this [21]. Bon courage ( talk) 20:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure is, and if you look at all the reliable sources in the article we have a lot of sources that say it's "false" or "dubious" or "not seriously considered by anthropologists", but not a lot of sources that say it's "pseudoscience". If you think that's wrong, please go ahead and find better sourcing for "pseudoscience". But as the article stands right now, I don't really see it. Loki ( talk) 20:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

How's it possible to get better than a recent (2022) academic book specifically devoting an entire chapter to the AAH and its scientific status? It says this is a "famous example" of pseudoscience. We are bound to follow such sources, not the reckonings of editors. Bon courage ( talk) 20:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with FRINGE/QS; the AAH does not have "a substantial following", as sources make clear; so why use FRINGE/QS to justify softening "pseudoscience"? — DFlhb ( talk) 20:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

So, you're right at least in the relevant field, but that means we're sort of between two policies here, because while FRINGE/QS only really applies to hypotheses that have substantial academic support, there's also not substantial support for the "pseudoscience" label in the sources either. The mainstream position on the AAH from the sources we have appears to be that it's false (and therefore, by our policies, it's necessarily also WP:FRINGE) but not that it's pseudoscience per se.

Again, I'm open to being proven wrong on this, but so far we have an article that was updated to remove the assertion that the AH is pseudoscience, one chapter in an academic book, and a very brief mention of a panel on pseudoscience at a conference. Conversely, we have tons and tons of sourcing about the fact that it's false and why it's false, and then on the other side a handful of academic support from scientists who are not anthropologists (and therefore significantly less credible here, but they're still academics).

This says to me per WP:WEIGHT that we also should go into great detail about the fact it's false and why it's false, and probably reduce the prominence of some of the supporters from other fields, but also that we should at least attribute the pseudoscience label to some experts instead of making it seem like the consensus of the field. Loki ( talk) 21:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. This is just repeating the fallacy that has caused so much disruption already. If something is pseudoscience as described in RS which considers that aspect, Wikipedia asserts it. Bon courage ( talk) 21:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You removed this sentence, but it was properly supported by the source as written when it was added: Is the Aquatic Ape Theory fairly described as pseudoscience?... I think that the Aquatic Ape Theory in 2009 fits the description. He also tagged his post with "pseudoscience".

The current version also doesn't describe AAH as an "important step in the advancement of the actual mainstream science" at all. Rather, that's how it describes a certain "feminist strain of anthropology", specifically one that re-theorized women's social roles and mating strategies (which the AAH has nothing to do with). The current version also says that by the time she jumped on the AAH, the evidence was already pretty clearly against it. DFlhb ( talk) 12:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that if an author has updated their article to remove a claim, we should not deliberately use an out of date version of their article just to include that claim.

I also still read how that article portrays the history differently than you do, in that I feel it positions the AAH as a part of this tradition, but that's not really relevant. Loki ( talk) 19:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a world's difference between "updated to remove a claim" (i.e. a retraction, which we couldn't use), versus what happened here: a brand new blog post was written on a new blog in 2022, and just weeks ago (2023), the old blog died and was redirected to the new one. It wasn't a correction or retraction, and the old post is still a valuable and valid source — DFlhb ( talk) 21:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The post itself refers to itself as an update of the 2005 blog post. So it's not just a brand new blog post on the same subject. While it's not the same as an explicit retraction, I believe it definitely does obsolete the old version of the post. Loki ( talk) 21:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Here, Loki says that Wired is not reliable on scientific subjects; but Wired's not the source, Riley Black is; Wired's is just the (reliable) publisher. DFlhb ( talk) 23:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

So at the time I hadn't realized that Brian Switek was a pen name for Riley Black, and that Riley Black was a relevant academic. I thought it was just an article by an ordinary science journalist. Now that that misconception has been corrected, I agree that source is sufficiently reliable to be included. Loki ( talk) 23:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

PROFRINGE

And now the watering-down has started. [22] Bon courage ( talk) 20:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like you to politely ask you to stop accusing people who don't think that your very harsh reading of WP:PSCI is accurate of being WP:PROFRINGE. Nobody here thinks the aquatic ape hypothesis is true or even that it's not WP:FRINGE. But the sources in the article so far don't really support "pseudoscience", and WP:FRINGE/QS says explicitly that just a handful of sources saying something is pseudoscientific is not enough to describe that thing as pseudoscience. Loki ( talk) 20:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You can't just make stuff up. We have a super-strength source (by far the strongest in the article) saying it's pseudoscience and none saying it isn't (though some being even less charitable). You are just replaying the same fallacy that wasted so much time with EMDR. Bon courage ( talk) 20:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The source you added certainly is strong but I wouldn't call it by far the strongest in the article by any means. We have plenty of expert sources in the article already explaining that the theory is false and why it's false, and the source you added is the only one that explicitly calls it pseudoscience.

(Also, please let's keep this policy dispute to this policy dispute. I have no intention of rehashing every disagreement I've ever had with you right now.) Loki ( talk) 21:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What source do you think is stronger? Most of it is pretty old. Bon courage ( talk) 21:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "pseudoscience" really needs to be invoked here. I think "largely rejected" or something similar is enough. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit too kind from what the sources are saying. The theory (though it isn't even a coherent set of ideas) gets practically zero traction in academe, and

Some aquatic ape proponents have compared themselves to misunderstood geniuses who proposed heterodox theories but were eventually proven correct. Aquatic ape researchers often claim their work is ignored or suppressed by "mainstream" scientists, claiming a conspiracy against them. Rather than proving their argument with evidence, they try to shift the burden of proof onto their critics, challenging them to prove the theory wrong. They shift definitions of (what is an "aquatic ape"), "moving the goalpost" rather than confronting criticism. These are all traits of pseudoscience that has led some (e.g., Gee 2013) to argue that aquatic ape researchers should simply be ignored. The problem is that pseudoscience doesn't go away if ignored, it flourishes and does more damage.

Bon courage ( talk) 22:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I assume that's a quote from the source you added?

Again, it's a good source, but it's only one source. We have lots of other sources in the article that say the AAH is false and not taken particularly seriously without using the word "pseudoscience", or even synonyms like "unscientific".

Since we reflect all the reliable sources, we should emphasize the things the sources agree on, such as that the theory is not taken seriously by experts in the relevant field, and attribute the things that they don't agree on, like the exact word "pseudoscience". Loki ( talk) 22:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The fallacy again. This is like arguing "Lots of sources say the earth has oceans, but relatively few say it has a mesosphere, therefore Wikipedia can only say it has oceans." If you're going to make the argument (really?) that AAH isn't pseudoscience because AAH is "wrong" and that being "wrong" somehow cancels the pseudoscience out, you're going to need a source saying just that otherwise it's OR. This is exactly the fallacy that caused so much disruption at the EMDR article. Bon courage ( talk) 22:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Loki, you're a good editor in GENSEX, but here, under WP:FRINGE, we need to label it as pseudoscience if it purports to be scientific and is "not taken seriously by experts in the relevant field". It doesn't matter that there are sources debunking the theory that don't use the word pseudoscience. DFlhb ( talk) 23:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Eh, we're finding enough sources calling it pseudoscience that I'm dropping my objection here. However, I very much disagree with this interpretation of WP:PSCI: the criteria for calling something pseudoscience in Wikivoice is not just if there are any sources that call it pseudoscientific but whether that's the mainstream consensus of the field.

Otherwise, any expert involved in an academic dispute could call their opponent's theory "pseudoscientific" and we'd have to believe them uncritically. That's not how Wikipedia works in any topic area: the balance of the sources is the important thing, not any individual source. Loki ( talk) 00:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I would have to be a reliable source, not just 'any source'. Bon courage ( talk) 04:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

What is it about this particular idea that causes so many problems? I think it's a great test case for how legitimate critique can end up promoting a kind of fetishized nonsense. I really encourage people to read Erika Milam's book if you can get your hands on it. I tend to agree that it is our job to fairly and clearly explain how this idea is roundly criticized as being pseudoscientific basically because of its umbrella hypothesis problems (dig through the history if you want to see some amazing tellings of all sorts of things that proponents believe point to "aquatic apes origins"!) At the same time, the Savannah hypothesis is no longer accepted in its, shall we say, romantic forms for reasons that are not unlike the reasons that Morgan argued. We have an article that does a pretty passible job of explaining that. Why does it rile up people so? jps ( talk) 23:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think over the (many) years the problem has been twofold: a procession of True Believers (now largely sanctioned out of existence), and lack of a really good slam-dunk source that puts the whole topic to bed. With the arrival of [23] that latter problem should be addressed. Bon courage ( talk) 23:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a pretty good book chapter, to be sure. Love the mermaid connection. I don't know if I'll get time to incorporate some of the more interesting points in text, but someone should (it would at the very least help to move us past the waste of time that is passing for this "disagreement"). jps ( talk) 23:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think in this particular episode the issue might be a philosophical objection to WP:FRINGE and looking for a fight rather than really caring about article content. It was just a tiny thread here, by the time i'd found and read Langdon and checked back in it had already escalated to ANI. fiveby( zero) 23:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You're not wrong. Bon courage ( talk) 23:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Bon courage: I am not quite sure what's going on here (I have arrived from AN/I as well), but I really think you ought to consider approaching this more calmly. As far as I can tell nobody here has said that this theory is true, or even credible; I don't think there is anybody with an agenda to "water down" the article, and I don't think there is any risk that we will somehow end up accidentally saying the theory is true. It is certainly not necessary to festoon the article with hyperbolic stuff like "enjoying only an echo chamber of support among its fervent adherents"; I honestly can't think of a situation where this would be an appropriate thing to write in an encyclopedia. jp× g 03:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Finding the WP:BESTSOURCES on this aspect and then WP:STICKTOSOURCE is good practice, and a way to avoid POV. 'Hyperbole' could result if Wikipedia exaggerated. So: how would you summarize such sources' material about a 'hermetically sealed', criticism-free research community, 'incestuous' citing, and 'echo chambers' of amplifying error giving a 'false impression of widespread support'? For WP:FRINGESUBJECTS we are explicitly required to be clear about how the mainstream sees the fringe stuff. Bon courage ( talk) 04:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, how about this: Pol Pot slaughtered millions of innocent people, and we describe him as a "Cambodian revolutionary, dictator, and politician who ruled Cambodia as Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea between 1976 and 1979" whose administration "converted Cambodia into a one-party communist state and perpetrated the Cambodian genocide". While he was obviously a turd, nonetheless, we are able to describe his dictatorship without calling it "murderous" (even though it was) or "evil" (even though it was), although it would certainly be very easy to find reliable sources calling it both of those things. Is this not also true of the aquatic ape hypothesis? jp× g 06:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It's "genocide", which is substantially worse than "murderous". And so far as I'm aware the WP:BESTSOURCES don't call Pol Pot 'a turd' so that is just a strawman. But what's that got to do with aquatic apes? If AAH "research" is a walled-garden/echo-chamber/circle-jerk or whatever as described by the best WP:SCHOLARSHIP examining it, Wikipedia should reflect that, no? Isn't that the core of NPOV, to reflect what quality mainstream sources say - and not what editors think? WP:FRINGESUBJECTS and all that:

The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included.

How would go you about giving prominence to this expert reaction to the nature of AAH research? Bon courage ( talk) 06:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

But we were already giving prominence to the expert reaction, though. The article was already extremely clear that anthropologists do not take the AAH seriously, and nobody was arguing for watering any of that language down.

What's at issue is the exact word "pseudoscience" and whether it's really supported by the sources or not. (I'm sort of coming around to it, personally, but at the time I saw the page it definitely wasn't sourced sufficiently.) Loki ( talk) 15:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm a big supporter of MOS:LABEL; "murderous" and "evil" are unencyclopedic, "explosive" words we should never use in wikivoice. But we absolutely should use "pseudoscientific", and "echo chamber" and "fervent" seem fine in terms of MOS:LABEL. DFlhb ( talk) 08:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the "echo chamber" hypothesis is the purview of social sciences (i.e. mass communication, media studies, etc), and seems to be mostly conjectural; it is at best a claim about the psychology of the belief's adherents, and at worst bulverism. We have better rebuttals to this belief than just calling the people who hold it dumbasses, so I think that to do so is bizarre and weakens our other claims. jp× g 02:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

What? It's a statement about the 'research' landscape of AAH: adherents working in a walled garden citing each other and amplifying their errors. I think whatever personal objection you have to this (in fact to straw men you keep raising) is irrelevant here. Wikipedia reflects the expert knowledge as found in the best sources. If editors don't like that knowledge for whatever reason, then tough. Bon courage ( talk) 05:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not object to "knowledge", I object to "writing insults in an encyclopedic voice to own the libs aquatic ape hypothesists". If the thing you're describing is that the researchers all cite each other in a circular manner, then why not just say that? jp× g 06:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Because it's more than that per the sources, no? Wikipedia reflects what is in the WP:BESTSOURCES and in this such source there's a lot about the nature of the work done on AAH, of which 'incestuous sourcing' is but one element. There's the self-deception, the distortion of some real research, the resistance to other, disconfirming, evidence, the conspiracy theories, the attacks on other scientists, the amplifying error and so on. I'll work up some longer sentences to make all this clear. Bon courage ( talk) 04:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Wha? Nobody here thinks the AAH is not WP:FRINGE. Loki ( talk) 00:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I came here from ANI. The aquatic ape is something that Wikipedia should clearly label as being far outside of mainstream science, and mainstream scientific method. Call it fringe, call it pseudoscience, or call it anything else that you prefer, so long as our content doesn't mislead our readers into thinking that it is a credible hypothesis. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Loki ( talk) 02:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Call it pseudoscience, it's the commonly understood way of describing something that still has adherents even though it has been debunked by science. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 09:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

A descriptive word isn't always a label. If a source says it was a metal box with wheels, an engine, and steering, then we can summarise that description with a commonly understood word. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 09:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

A Puffing Devil?  Tewdar  19:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If a modern source described something as "a metal box with wheels, an engine, and steering", I'd think there's probably a reason they're trying to avoid the word "car", and at least think twice about it. Loki ( talk) 19:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar I don't think AAH is WP:FRINGE. That's a guideline for controlling some problem editors or edits and probably not a good way of thinking about topics. Not overly fond of stating something is fringe or is pseudoscience either. But it's an encyclopedia article, an introduction to a topic for a general audience, and the overall direction to take for science communication is pretty clear: be explicit, direct and don't create a false balance. You identified a weak source in the article, good job there, but please do not approach topics with this goal. Of all the ways of failing the reader that should be pretty high on the list of what not to do.

Also, BC has probably what, five or six years of work on the article and looking at the sources. I'm not sure what reading you've done on the topic but in my opinion based on your approach it looks maybe somewhat superficial. fiveby( zero) 16:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say WP:FRINGE is about problem editors or edits and not topics; it's very clearly about topics. WP:PSCI is closer to being about problem edits but is still rooted in the understanding that some topics are fringe and some fringe topics are pseudoscience.

I agree we should be explicit and direct when the sources are explicit and direct. The sources are explicit and direct that anthropologists don't take the AAH seriously, and so are we. But we shouldn't be explicit or direct about things the sources don't say. And when only a small handful of sources is saying something we should be explicit that only a small handful of sources is saying that thing.

Also, I don't think "this other editor has been editing this page for a long time" is a good argument. This is not a comment on BC or this article specifically, but I've encountered plenty of situations before where an editor who's been working on an article for quite a while is just wrong about policy or even about what the sources say. (e.g. Over on Blanchard's typology a now-banned editor was working on the page for years. Currently most of the active discussions on the talk page are about how to undo all the damage he did in the topic area.) Loki ( talk) 19:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And maybe that cycle will repeat in decades to come! In reality though, AAH has been through that, and the sanctions hammer has been applied. Many editors have worked to make it better but frankly it's still not in the best shape, if not the total train-wreck it once was. Bon courage ( talk) 19:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

By the way Creatures of Cain jps mentions is available through WP:LIBRARY. fiveby( zero) 02:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Love jihad ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

It'll be helpful to have some extra pair of eyes on the article, it has been getting a wave of PROFRINGE pov pushing as of recent, some boderline, others explicit and other attempts to water down some of its content. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This deletion discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 12:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Since RFKJ announced he was running for president, the article is inundated by people who do not understand Wikipedia, NPOV, RS, medicine, conspiracy theories, and several other subjects. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention there is undisclosed paid editing going on. -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 18:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like people are making a WP:BIGMISTAKE. Seriously though, the extent to which (basically) newbie fuckwits are allowed to run riot with the expectation that clueful editors will clear up, is beginning to cause strain in my view. Especially in anything which touches US politics. Bon courage ( talk) 18:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there evidence of more paid editing than that which got reverted? XOR'easter ( talk) 17:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

None that I'm aware of. So I don't object to the decision to remove the warning template I added. But we need to keep an eye out given that we know that a firm was retained to make edits. -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 19:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that new IPs are helping to clog up Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with the same complaints, I wonder if it would be possible to request that the talk page be protected for a short time per WP:ATPROT. - Location ( talk) 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: some of the same issues have occurred at Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign, primarily with respect to whether Kennedy should be described (as is well-sourced) as an "anti-vaccine activist". BD2412 T 18:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I just deleted Draft:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (and blocked its creator, User:Ananakimble ark), which was a copy of the existing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. article plus some nonsense about how vaccines were a Nazi biological warfare experiment. BD2412 T 19:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Mirko Beljanski ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Alt-med guy, being edited into "neutral" POV. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say that Beljanski is more a product of his times than "alt-med". He has been dead since the 90s, and primarily worked from the 1950s to the 1980s. He made genuine contributions to science, which are still recognized, but later developed some incorrect theories about the effectiveness of various pharmaceutical concoctions. However, he was certainly not one of those sorts of "moon energy manifesting subsonic psychic harmonies" type of alt-med people. BD2412 T 21:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine activism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I have proposed on the talk page to split Anti-vaccine activism (currently a redirect) from Vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy often manifests as doubt and a desire for more information. The anti-vaccine activist movement is more about actively spreading disinformation, and I think that it is problematic to conflate the two. BD2412 T 20:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a really good idea - there's so much stigma associated with the anti-vax movement and not everyone who has second-thoughts about it (from my experience) are associated with it. Would certainly help to not tar everyone with the same brush, and acknowledge there's a difference between outright refusal and cautious hesitance. AtFirstLight ( talk) 21:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I have started Draft:Anti-vaccine activism. There is a wealth of good content available for such an article. BD2412 T 21:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes yes yes 100% was just looking for this exact article yesterday when adding links in RFK Jrs campaign page and was shocked to see it doesnt exist RosieBaroque ( talk) 22:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good idea. I noted my support in Talk:Vaccine hesitancy#Split Anti-vaccine activism from Vaccine hesitancy. - Location ( talk) 22:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The current Vaccine hesitancy article does not even mention RFK. BD2412 T 23:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Some proposed whitewashing happening at Hallwang Clinic. Also, generally the article could probably use some improvements. ScienceFlyer ( talk) 04:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Junkyard tornado ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

I object to the facts that the article 1. calls creationists "critics" of evolution, giving them undeserved credit, and 2. says that the junkyard tornado has been "labeled" a fallacy, calling doubt on its status as such. For those judgments, I hear I am the only one saying [the article is] overly lenient. Which tells me that not enough FTN regulars are commenting there to balance the WP:VOTE that Wikipedia Talk pages are not supposed to be. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You can just edit it, you know? I took a look and it was pretty grossly biased. Did my best to neutralize it though, take a look and see what you think. AtFirstLight ( talk) 23:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I did edit it and was reverted. Just like you were, just now. I am just following WP:BRD.

You should read WP:YWAB. Bullshit is not "philosophy". Well, not all bullshit is. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Editor continues to move the article towards "some say this, some say that". [24]. Refuses to use the Talk page for article-improvement discussion [25] [26], instead reverts the edits they refuse to argue against. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Editor continues to edit for WP:NPOV. AtFirstLight ( talk) 07:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia needs to stay neutral on the questions of

• whether evolutionary biologists really say that life as it is really sprang into being in one extremely unlikely single event, as Hoyle assumed, or not,
• whether creationists really use Hoyle's reasoning, as Musgravce documents, or not.

You urgently need to read up on the WP: links people give you. NPOV does not say what you think it does. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

i edited the introduction to the page and added several legitimate sources, because despite the fact that it is in the religious philosophy category it is just silly to pretend that this can be called a "theory" and a legit criticism of evolutionary theory RosieBaroque ( talk) 01:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I have partial-blocked one editor from the article for a month for persistent tendentious and aggressive pro-fringe editing. Bishonen | tålk 08:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC).

GSHD2023 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps edit warring Chicxulub crater to add reference to a 2021 conference abstract that claims that the Chicxulub impact was not responsible for the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary layer, and that the Chicxulub impactor was an iron asteroid. I've never seen these ideas entertained or even mentioned in any actual scientific papers, and conference abstracts in my experience are a magnet for crank/fringe theories, as they are effectively self-published. In my opinion, including any reference to this abstract is completely undue and PROFRINGE. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not even clear to be that the author of the abstract, Gerhard Schmidt, is even a published scientist, as the abstract doesn't even list an institutional affiliation [27], and no research papers come up on scholar when I search his name relevant to asteroids (though there is plently of self-published stuff on researchgate). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've researched further, and he does seem to have published some papers on the topic, but they were decades ago, and all of his recent "publications" are conference abstracts or posters, which is not a good sign. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources, e.g. conference abstracts, posters, and so forth authored by a single author as used in the edits are not acceptable as Wikipedia sources. Wikipedia needs additional independent and reliable secondary / tertiary sources that document and evaluate the the notability of the ideas proposed by the posted sources.

By the way, the user name, "GSHD2023" is uncomfortably close enought to being an abbreviation of "Gerhard ScHmiDt" that there possibly might be a conflict of interest involved. Paul H. ( talk) 02:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I think there is good reason to suspect COI. They've also added some stuff to the German wiki article, though briefly looking at a Google translated version of that article it seems to have a multitude of problems. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

HD is the car licence tag of Heidelberg and that is where Schmidt works [28] (I think that is him; it is a very common name), which makes for a more plausible meaning of GSHD. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Both pages have been constantly targeted by IPs pushing for a terminological revisionism that is partly based on racializing arguments. Things like "dark skin pigmentation, "curly hair" are brought into play to redefine the well-established scope of a geographical region (see Talk:Melanesia; note that historically, the term "Melanesia" was indeed coined with racial undertones, but this has long been discarded; the term continues to be used in scholarship and geopolitics, but entirely without the racialist baggage). Austronesier ( talk) 20:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there's a policy about genetics in ethnicity articles? I've removed bunch of weird haplogroup stuff from a number of ethnicity's articles, because it almost always comes off as genetic essentialism or y-haplogroup is the same as ethnicity, but i don't know enough about human genetics to know if there is a potentially appropriate reason to include it— blindlynx 19:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Blindlynx: As far as I know, there is no policy about the inclusion of such material in general, but at least this RfC about sourcing:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_249#RfC:Genetics_references.

I'm not sure if we need a dedicated policy, but much of the mess we can see in many articles can be tackled with WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH. There are some editors who focus on group X (an ethnic group, a geographically defined population etc.), comb through all possible sources for genetic data about it and add everything that can be extracted, even it is only mentioned in passing or just one out of hundreds of data points and actually not related to actual topic of the study. Or they read one study, and again extract all data points and distribute them to dozens of articles about ethnic groups, geographical areas etc. without considering due weight, and often linking data in a WP:SYNTH manner.

Usually, genetic studies have a specific spatiotemporal scope, covering a geographical area over a certain stretch of time. E.g. in the case of Oceania, there are good studies that indeed cover the genetic history of Oceania, allowing to build an article about the Genetic history of Oceania; oddly enough, still a red link, but actually not surprising when you consider that the number of ethnochauvinist Oceanians in WP is apparently much lower when compared to the usual suspects in contentious topic areas ;)

A few genetic studies indeed specifically address single ethnic groups for various reasons. Sometimes, they just fall into the great amount of scholarship that has been triggered by identity-seeking (write about the genetic history of Hungary and you can be sure to get lots of public attention). Or there is genuine scholarly interest in an ethnic group that occupies an isolated position from a general anthropological viewpoint (not just limited to biological anthropology), e.g. in the case of this study [29].

Writing a topical guideline (as an essay first) might be a good solution (there is a comaparable project in User:Joe_Roe/Archaeology_conventions#Archaeogenetics). WT:ETHNIC is the best place to initiate something if you're interested (I defintely am, but have little time for WP right now). – Austronesier ( talk) 10:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you! I'll ask around there— blindlynx 23:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

There has been a user with about 12 IPs trying to remove references from this article going back 3 months. Basically it was discovered that Maryanne Demasi had duplicated some data based on her PhD dissertation. The paper was later retracted. According to the journal "This article has been retracted by the publisher. An investigation by the Journal determined the following. In Fig 4, the “no LPS” lanes in the GAPDH Northern blots were duplicated between normoxic and hypoxic conditions." [30]. The IP is repeatedly removing "determined" from the article and is claiming duplication is only "alleged".

The same IP is also removing references from the article claiming they are part of a conspiracy to smear Maryanne Demasi. I think some extra eyes are needed on this article because there has been repeated attempts at removing certain sources going back 4 months. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 02:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Added to Bible conspiracy theory by an IP, I suspect this is vandalism but since my wife has been researching David Barton of late, I just can't withstand exposure to that much idiocy in order to search for this. Mangoe ( talk) 00:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Already deleted. Mangoe ( talk) 01:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I always thought I knew what "Green Man" meant. Now I'm not so sure after reading this Slate article. [31] where independent scholar (who has a book published by Cambridge University Press) says "I spend a lot of my time trying to debunk the idea that the Green Man is an ancient figure from British folklore. He’s a made-up figure of 20th-century folklore." The article itself calls it "a folkloric or mythological figure" but also says " Lady Raglan coined the term "Green Man" for this type of architectural feature in her 1939 article The Green Man in Church Architecture in The Folklore Journal. "

The history section starts with discussing a book by Mike Harding, "an English singer, songwriter, comedian, author, poet, broadcaster and multi-instrumentalist. Harding has also been a photographer, traveller, filmmaker and playwright." I see it uses a recent letter to the Guardian from a Stephen Green, who published through Cambridge Scholars. [32] I don't have time to look at all the sources, but a quick glance suggests that a lot are unreliable. And am I wrong in thinking the article seems to link different concepts? Doug Weller talk 08:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say that it is more of a decorative and artistic motif used on churches than a mythological figure, and the article should reflect that. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

From Lady Raglan's article, page 47: "Sir Albert Seward, who has made a special study of the chapter-house at Southwall, where there is a number of 'Green Men,' has found a great variety of foliage there, and I have myself noticed a good deal of poison ivy, always a sacred herb." I should point out that Toxicodendron is not found in Europe, being confined to North America and a strip along the East Asian coast from Sakhalin to Taiwan. Mangoe ( talk) 01:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, one of the sources (I think the New Yorker article) described her theory as "total bunk", which I'm having a hard time disagreeing with. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

My attempt to fix the article has been reverted by @ Wuerzele:. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing at Talk:Green_Man#Article_remains_a_mess... if anyone wants to comment. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Emergence (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is the concept of "strong emergence" fringe? That's the claim in this edit, which is part of a large body of BOLD cuts to the article. On the whole I think these cuts are good, and I do not disagree with the edit in questions (because the material removed was unsourced). But a quick search did yield some other sources that do seem to support the idea that "strong emergence" sits somewhere within the mainstream, at least in the philosophical literature. The SEP, for instance, provides a helpful overview of the debate: [33]. And here is David Chalmers, one of the most respected living philosophers, arguing in its favor (it's a chapter from the Oxford UP book The Re-emergence of Emergence): [34]. Even where the concept is criticized, e.g. here: [35], it appears be treated as a more or less mainstream position, or at least as an " alternative theoretical formulation". Anyone else have insight to offer here? Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 17:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it a fringe concept at all; we have a very good example of "strong emergence" in the human brain. Roger Wolcott Sperry essentially said as much without using the precise term. There is a pretty good precis on the topic here. Then again, there are very good reasons that my livelihood depends on neither science nor mathematics, so I am of course open to the opinions of others. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 18:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

In retrospect, I may have not been as clear as I should have been - I think that philosophical debate for the concept itself is not fringe per se, and there is a robust debate on the topic, which is still in the article and I think should stay there, especially the debate with respect to the human brain. But claiming to have definitively made observations of strong emergence in physics is what I intended to characterize as fringe, which lands fairly closely to the idea of vitalism. - car chasm ( talk) 21:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the clarification. Looks like we're all basically on the same page. Generalrelative ( talk) 05:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I changed the short description from "American scuba diver (1936–2019)" to "American scuba diver (1936–2019) and writer about White gods" as that's an important aspect of his work (which wasn't even mentioned in the lead despite having its own section. User:GhostInTheMachine reverted me. In any case, "scuba diver" which GITM had added isn't adequate. Note I also made other changes. [36] Doug Weller talk 11:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What's the WP:MOS rule for whether to capitalize "white" in this context? Do most sources capitalize the word? It looks a little cringe to me. jps ( talk) 13:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)W

MOS:RACECAPS, which says to be consistent within an article. Donald Albury 14:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

In White gods, it is consistently "white", so I would argue for lower-case in the above case. Donald Albury 14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. And I see lower case in most sources, at least those I could read. My bad. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Callahan, Tim (2008). "A New Mythology". Skeptic. Vol. 13, no. 4. wplibrary. But when i see the phrase "white gods" it's this which comes to mind and not pre-Columbian contact pseudoarcheology per Shermer and Callahan.

You might find better sources for Heyerdahl in this review of Thor Heyerdahl og jakten på Atlantis from Kon-Tiki Museum, instead of using an article published in The Drama Review. fiveby( zero) 16:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

See you already had Callahan in Marx, but not in white gods. Fritze, Ronald H. (1993). "White God Legends". Legend and lore of the Americas before 1492. Davies, Nigel (1979). "White Gods with Black Faces". Voyagers to the New World. Really don't see "extensive writing on white gods", but one opportunistic Columbus Quincentenary work. Diver, treasure hunter, pseudo/amateur archeologist. fiveby( zero) 18:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Fiveby The Kon-Tiki Museum is, I believe, biassed. The authors of that review are Reidar Solsvik who is an archaeologist and Curator of the Kon-Tiki Museum andEirik Stokke is a lecturer and is studying for a MA Degree in the history (of something, I can't see the rest).I agree with your summary description of Marx. I have: Norbeck, Edward (1953). "Review of American Indians in the Pacific". American Antiquity. 19 (1): 92–94 and several other reviews. Not about white gods, but the book Hunt, Terry (2011). The Statues That Walked: Unraveling the Mystery of Easter Island. Free Press sasys "\This is the tack taken by Thor Heyerdahl, who was convinced that Incan colonists from South America were the makers of the ahu and statues. His assumption goes even further, also claiming that the Incans responsible for the cultural florescence on Rapa Nui were ultimately the descendants of colonists with European origins who taught Native Americans the secrets of “advanced culture.”2 For Heyerdahl, simply tracing the “cause” of Rapa Nui culture back to Europe solved the apparent paradox of cultural achievement. Leaving its racist assumptions aside, empirical support for this argument is entirely lacking." p110

Thor Heyerdahl's The White Gods Caucasian Elements In Pre Inca Peru can be downloaded here. [37] Doug Weller talk 16:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm just being a best sources snob. Hunt is better than a professor of theater history published in TDR: The Drama Review. But look at the "2" in your quote, he's citing Moore, Thomas (April 2, 1990). "Thor Heyerdahl: Sailing Against the Current". Us News & World Report. Reading that Kon-Tiki Museum article leads me to believe you should be citing Ralling Kon-Tiki Man which i can't find online, and/or Axel Andersson A Hero for the Atomic Age, or "Resan ut, resan in: Den unge Thor Heyerdahl och det mystiska folket". fiveby( zero) 21:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Or is it that one source uses the phrase "white gods" where Andersson only says an itinerant race of white and blue-eyed culture-bearers that had journeyed from some centre in the Old World to jump-start the world’s great civilization so it's WP:OR to use the better source? fiveby( zero)

While we're here white gods needs some serious work, it's presented almost totally uncritically in wikivoice— blindlynx 15:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

[38] - I've reverted it, the editor has brought it up at Talk:Westford Knight#Why is the new statue WP:UNDUE. There are a few sources for it, [39] Note that both Scott Wolter and Jason Calavito are mentioned in the source used [40] and see also this article by Calavito where he says that the sculptor and Wolter claimed to have discovered another Hooked X (surprise!) [41]. It might be useful for editors to reply on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this edit [42] added a lot of fringe material relying on dubious sources. I've dealt with a little bit but it needs more and I don't have time right now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, it should be the section Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories#Claims of pre-Columbian contact with Christian voyagers.

Is this a legitimate organization? I have to say I'm very confused at the mere existence of cybernetics after the 1950s, but their website seems really full of woo, such as reinventing philosophy, global brains, pantheism, explaining not just evolution, but also abiogenesis! I'm concerned about the extent to which the content on wikipedia about systems theory and cybernetics seems to mirror this site. - car chasm ( talk) 05:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Some of those pages genuinely are concerning, but websites of other small professional organizations sometimes have some woo on them, so I don't think we can go exclusively on that.

My general principle here is that we should never have a page on an organization cited entirely or primarily to its own website. So, the best thing to do is to find some reliable third-party sources to see what their reputation is overall. A quick Google doesn't really turn up much, which is concerning, and makes me suspect they wouldn't have the notability to survive AFD. Loki ( talk) 00:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in Thailand.

Sigh.

jps ( talk) 15:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Genetic history of Egypt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a recent uptick in edit warring and generalized incivility on this article and its talk page, perhaps having to do with renewed attention to the topic in response to an upcoming Netflix series on Cleopatra (see e.g. [43] and [44] for coverage). Uninvolved editors with strong working knowledge of genetics would be most helpful. Generalrelative ( talk) 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Masrialltheway Seems to have broken WP:3RR, as seen by the string of reverts he has done here.

@ 24.228.27.179 Casually called an user a White Supremacist on the talk page, this probably also warrants a warning or short block.

The discussion doesn't seem that bad to me, just put some warning templates on the new users' profiles and they will understand the message and start to behave. 🔥 22spears 🔥 00:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Article has always been pretty contentious, I gave up and took it off my watchlist. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Lancet MMR autism fraud ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
• MMR vaccine and autism ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Recent high some-say-this-some-say-that activity. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see its time for the annual anti-vax 'Wakefield totes is not a giant fraudypants' cycle. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Pathological science has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The article appears to be citing deeply unreliable literature, including this critical criminology piece that claims that attraction to minors is merely a form of sexual orientation akin to being gay or straight. I attempted to BLAR, but was reverted by the page's creator. Additional eyes to review the citations for fringe would be appreciated. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 03:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Per the result of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minor-attracted_person, I would recommend creating an AfD for the article. The creator, who only started editing in late March, seems to be a SPA, as all of their edits relate to pedophilia in some way. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

per google scholar the term definitely does have some use in Academia, mostly within the last few years, but I assume this is massively dwarfed by other studies that just use paedophilia. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Now up for deletion again. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minor-attracted_person_(2nd_nomination). Not really a good nomination rationale, and seems to be trending towards keep. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You could have tagged me here. I would not have seen this discussion if another editor had not linked it in the current AfD.

Anyway, if you have an issue with the sourcing, consider making a source eval table or something similar to prove your point. Show us HOW the sourcing is bad, instead of just saying that it is; nitpicking a single source does not count as a substantial evaluation of the article. Besides, as I told you yesterday, this Critical Criminology source was used only a single time, to make a single statement, that had nothing to do with saying that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. The the statement that this source was supporting was the idea that the term minor-attracted person had some variations. That source was so insignificant that after the discussion that we had yesterday, in which I tried to be cordial and agreed with you that Critical Criminology did not need to be included there, I removed it from the article and didn't have to change a single word of its body because there were other reliable sources that supported that same claim relating to the variations of the term "minor-attracted person". I already told you yesterday in your talk page that the idea that pedophilia is a sexual orientation is fringe and that I had never supported that idea, it was pretty dishonest of you to come here writting this topic in a way that suggests that I had made a claim that I never actually did, especially after I had already told you in your talk page that that was a position that I never held. If you want to criticise me or the article (both of which fine), please be clear in your critique and don't nitpick a just a single source from the article. And don't accuse me of having written things that I never had. 🔥 22spears 🔥 23:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You've repeatedly cited the author of that same piece multiple times in the article, including in the article's use of A Long Dark Shadow, "I Would Report It Even If They Have Not Committed Anything": Social Service Students’ Attitudes Toward Minor-Attracted People, and "I’m Not like That, So Am I Gay?" The Use of Queer-Spectrum Identity Labels Among Minor-Attracted People. This is an extremely WP:FRINGE set of sourcing in the article—it ain't limited to the most egregious one that's been noted above. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 04:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Now it's not about the journal anymore, it's about the author? Why do you keep changing you accusations each time I respond? Again, I never used any source coming from this journal or this author to promote any fringe theory, the source was to make statements regarding etymology, most of which could and often are already supported by better sources not related to that journal or author. 🔥 22spears 🔥 16:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk, thank you for bringing this up. The article has multiple SPAs involved with it lately, some of which have similar usernames, and feels like a POV fork. See also stigma of pedophilia created by 22spears and other articles in the topic area. It really needs closer eyes on it. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC) PS see also List of pedophile advocacy organizations in which I had to remove links to two different such groups, and in which an SPA described a group as "advocat[ing] for at least some age of consent reform and circulat[ing] alternative child sexual abuse testimony". Mmmkay. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Query: it's been a year or two since I've looked at any of the research surrounding this (as it's very tough reading it for obvious reasons), but isn't minor-attracted person just a euphemism for paedophilia? If that's still the case, then shouldn't this at best be a redirect to the paedophilia article or relevant subsection? Because it seems like this is maybe a WP:POVFORK . Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It definitely seems that way to me. That's what I argued at the AfD. It looks like we're dealing with a few highly motivated SPA accounts in this topic area right now, and some pretty glaring signs of socking. If anyone has tips that could be assembled into an SPI case, feel free to let me know by email. I'd be happy to put together cases. Generalrelative ( talk) 02:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Sideswipe. Roxy the dog 19:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Same. DFlhb ( talk) 13:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, something's up. Bon courage ( talk) 14:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If memory serves, Flyer22 used to keep an eye on the paedo/hebe/ephebo-philia articles to weed out the sockfarms. They are unfortunately departed now, but perhaps folks who worked with them might be able to check? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand that argument. It appears to be an article about the term itself, not an article about pedophilia. If it was discussing pedophilia it would be a povfork, but it seems to be literally just discussing the phrase "minor-attracted person", which the article on pedophilia isn't? Endwise ( talk) 02:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I've said the same at the AfD. The idea that this is a fork does not match with the actual contents of the article. small jars t c 22:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this needs to be part of a larger discussion on whether journals that specialize in critical theory and related subjects should be deprecated for not relying on empirical evidence, and instead attempting to conform to an a priori politically desired conclusion. Partofthemachine ( talk) 14:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

missed the chance to drop a comment in the AFD. Will state here: we have an article on coprophilia (sexual attraction to feces), if people wanting to normalize this as an orientation wanted a separate article at feces-attracted person, that would amount to the same thing, and would surely not fly. Hyperbolick ( talk) 02:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd appreciate third opinions on these two newly created articles and their respective DYKs:

• Giant skeletons (United States) ( Template:Did you know nominations/Giant skeletons (United States))
• Giantology ( Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Giantology)

I'm concerned they gave more credence to this fringe theory than is warranted. –  Joe ( talk) 12:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that reports of 10 foot tall giants from newpaper articles from 1885 (!) should be stated in Wikivoice.  Tewdar  12:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Please respond at Template:Did you know nominations/Giant skeletons (United States). I’ve done as much as I can tonight. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I started both of these articles. They are well sourced and accurate. I am disappointed in the rapid fire AfD !votes and the gigantic stop sign shutdown of the DYK nomination. Clearly like minded people are being called to action with this notice so I mentioned it at both the DYK nomination and the AfD. Bruxton ( talk) 20:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Glancing over it there seem to be multiple issues related to sourcing and accuracy. For instance: The first sentence states the wrong centuries. The bulk of the article cites tabloid articles. The "Background" section isn't about the background, and starts with "As early as 1859 it was reported", when the Columbus Dispatcher source you use later says "as early as 1845". Hypnôs ( talk) 21:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @ Hypnôs:, what you describe are WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues. And I think the bulk of the RS is from newspaper articles. No redlined sources. Bruxton ( talk) 21:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Tabloids are usually questionable. They are not redlined, but that's the case for most non-reliable sources. Hypnôs ( talk) 21:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Your understanding of article sourcing seems well out of whack to what would be expected per WP:RS. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There might be a very good article titled giantology, but it ain't this one. fiveby( zero) 00:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• I took a look at Giant skeletons (United States), and as others have mentioned, it seems to be mostly sourced to poor quality tabloids or newspapers. It doesn't look like it was seriously discussed in high quality sources. With that problem, it's looking like it may be an AfD candidate if not major pruning. Curious what others think here. KoA ( talk) 03:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with thinking of Giant skeletons (United States) as a possible AfD candidate. Its notability is certainly questionable in that it lacks high quality sources. Summarizing old tabloid and newspaper articles does not give the topic notability. Maybe change the title and remove all outdated material sourced to articles written between 1868 and 2020. Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree. At least two U.S. presidents believed this and it was influential for 1800s North America. The article is just missing context (that scholarly sources would provide). The significance of these giant skeletons being found in Native American burial mounds is that the white power structures embraced the narrative that a primeval race of people (white, giant, or both) built the impressive structures in the Mississippi river valley, and were then exterminated by the Native Americans (who were in reality the descendants of the mound builders). Doug Weller covered it in Archaeology and racism on Wikipedia (dope article btw). Jason Colavito released a book on it a couple years back, which looks dope but I haven't read it. I think Edwards Watts covers it in Colonizing the Past: Mythmaking and Pre-Columbian Whites in Nineteenth-Century American Writing. There are also scholarly sources that connect the white supremacist mythology of the 1800s to some of the modern conspiracies and hoaxes like Contested Indigenous Landscapes: Indian Mounds and the Political Creation of the Mythical "Mound Builder" Race. Bruxton, have you come across this stuff yet? I think the context would improve the article. Regards, Rjjiii ( talk) 03:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Rjjiii: Thank you for the comments and the ping. I appreciate your efforts and interesting comments above. At the moment KOA and Brunton have erased all the background/news articles from Giant skeletons (United States). I tried to restore the research as necessary background but at this point I have to walk away from this article so I do not get in trouble for edit warring. I have attempted to invite the editors to the talk page but was unsuccessful. FYIL Doug Weller came to my talk page and said he thought the Giant skeletons "article is a good one and a useful addition to Wikipedia". I will read the article he started which you referenced above. Have a great week! Bruxton ( talk) 04:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Rjjiii: — If someone were to use the sources you provided this might turn out to be a much better article. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 13:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Same as giantology, the good content here is description of the pre-20th erudite arguments for existence of a giant race or that humans were larger in the past. Add to giant first, then sub-article if needed. Afd this after the current runs its course? fiveby( zero) 16:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Indian psychology appears to be yet another article on transpersonal psychology. It has no apparent connection to anything of any actual scientific value, and from the citations it seems like it may just be the invention of a few isolated people. Is there anything worth salvaging or should it be AfD'd? - car chasm ( talk) 08:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This is about [45]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The scholarly consensus seems quite clear and putting a minority theory in the lede is WP:UNDUE/ WP:FALSEBALANCE. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 04:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The diff you point to is a simple misrepresentation of the source. Once an editor does that, it should be just WP:RBI instead of having to argue with them. fiveby( zero) 14:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Testing and unproven treatments (Misinformation) in the lead. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 15:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC) —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 15:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Some users have expressed a desire to remove the current mention of promoting "unproven treatments" or spreading misinformation re: treatments from the lead of Donald Trump when discussing his COVID response. Any and all outside input would be appreciated in properly determining what is WP:DUE inclusion here.

@ KoA@ Jayron32@ FormalDude@ Slatersteven @other FTN regulars who have been interested in this talk page in the past —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• A. E. Wilder-Smith (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is there a source saying that this creationist was a three-star general? I find nothing useful on the net. Only German Wikipedia, which is not RS, and obvious copies of it. IPs keep adding the general bit and deleting other stuff. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

He claims so in his autobiography. Oh that's already on the talk page. Had to be some kind of rank equivalency and not a real rank. fiveby( zero) 16:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I am finding no records for a Wilder-Smith of such a rank (or anything approaching) in British service in those years. I also doubt its a rank equivalent, in a uniformed medical service a three star equivalent would likely be the top dog and there is no indication that Wilder-Smith ever was such a top dog or even served in a uniformed medical service. There is no such thing as an "advisor" "with the rank of a three star general," not within NATO and not anywhere to the best of my knowledge. All things equal I think Wilder-Smith is telling a fib, there really isn't another logical conclusion. In general this probably means that we can't use him for WP:ABOUTSELF (there are a lot of other extraordinary achievements in that bio, all seemingly sourced to Wilder-Smith himself). Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, it's a giant stew of WP:FRINGE theories, mostly sourced to fringe sources, with very little in the way of response to most of them. I've tagged the article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitely needs a heavy overhaul. Lots and lots of obscure proFRINGE content all over the place. Will take a look when I get a chance, but cannot do it alone —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I recommend Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History for anyone looking at Kennedy conspiracy theories. It's probably the gold standard when it comes to demolishing kookery of that sort. Most well stocked library systems will have a copy. Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeesh, what a mess! Needs a major overhaul, perhaps organized roughly-chronologically through Gallup polls 1963-64, Buchanan 63, Lane 66, HSCA, Marrs & Stone, etc; Refuting each's claims as they get more elaborate. Feoffer ( talk) 22:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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

New activity by new user, "proving the truth", removing "negationism" and moving the article towards something Stalin would have liked. That is not necessarily bad, depending on whether there was really an "anti-Stalin bias", but it may need checking by historians. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

A new user with the username "TheVictoryOfTheProletariat" making blatantly pro-Stalin edits?

I think you're perfectly safe just blatantly reverting them. Remember, AGF isn't a suicide pact, and this user is not worth wasting your time on. 2601:18F:107F:E2A0:3C73:875F:3BDB:E988 ( talk) 17:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

A fringe mess, not sure what to do to fix it. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the stones, but it seems like they're either notable because of their actual historicity or, if the mainstream consensus is that they're a hoax, that's notable too. Other than that, I think it needs a good copy edit. Do you have specific concerns? voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Voorts I find the article confusing - as you say, it needs a good copyedit. Not sure about some of the sources either, eg Haaretz - unless Ruth Schuster is an expert, I don't think we should use it. Or El Nuevo Día - or any of the media sources which seem to be most of them. Not sure about the YouTube video by Reniel Rodríguez Ramos which is used 39 89 times. There's a whole section sourced to Barry Fell. Minor things such as calling someone a scholar. I wish I had more time. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps tagging the article with {{ cleanup rewrite}} and {{ POV}}, and starting a discussion on the talk page might be the way to go if you don't have the time to start fixing things up yourself. For the sources, maybe RSN can weigh in before tagging the article (or appropriate sections) with {{ unreliable sources}}. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 12:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The pieces have been studied by several PhDs in archeology and other legit scientific fields, several have been dated by C14 by legitimate institutions, this is not “fringe” by any meaning. This is not a Ron Wyatt situation. The term “lost civilization” does not refer to Atlantis or anything of the sort, but to an Amerindian group that has yet to be further documented in the Antilles. The article makes it clear that Reniel Rodríguez actually falsified the “European origin” hypotheses, but you can’t write a piece about something that was discovered in the 1800s without mentioning the backstory and the priest is not mentioned as an authority in archeology. If you want to copy edit it or remove Haaretz go ahead. That particular reference is merely there to source a specific point in time and in it he actually distanced the pieces from an European origin. But do not get rid of those that are from the Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña (government), Centro de Estudios Avanzados (academia, the “YouTube video used 39 times”) just because you are unfamiliar with them or the topic. El Nuevo Día is Puerto Rico’s main newspaper, with a longstanding editorial board, no notable political leaning and decades of distribution, its reliability should be self-evident. Old School WWC Fan ( talk) 12:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

About calling C.B.F. Walker a “scholar”, I have no issues with it being removed, but the man is a prolific author in his field and his work in the British Museum justifies using the term IMO. Barry Fell is never called a “scholar”, I specifically used the term “author” when referring to him to make it clear that he is not an authority in the subject. Old School WWC Fan ( talk) 12:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Old School WWC Fan I don't think any newspaper is reliable for archaeology, something I think we've discussed at that Wikiproject. People get misquoted, news articles get outdated but without academic sources we don't know that, etc. I don't think we should call anyone a scholar - note that even the most famous people with PhDs are not called Dr. in their article (there may be some, there shouldn't be per our MOS. I don't see the point of a large section on Fell. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems like this is really an WP:RS dispute. Maybe this should be moved to the article talk page for other editors to weigh in, and failing consensus there, RSN could be consulted. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 14:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Old School WWC Fan, other than a biography of Alice Loughran de Santiago, i can't find anything actually published by Rodríguez Ramos concerning his work on the collection. Do you know of anything? fiveby( zero) 15:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are several, “La huella femenina en el coleccionismo arqueológico de Puerto Rico” ( link) is one, the initial catalogue of the authenticated pieces ( link) is another. There are also articles in recent issues of the Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña’s magazine as well, but I don’t think they are online. Old School WWC Fan ( talk) 15:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, yes "La huella femenina..." was the biography i was referring to, which is certainly usable for the history of the collection. That is an interesting story and i think very appropriate for WP. But you do understand the concern, so much of the content dealing with an investigation that is as of yet unpublished, and relying on news accounts and a video? Revista del ICP up to 2021 is available but not searchable. Do you know any publication dates for any articles? fiveby( zero) 16:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Now at WP:RSN#Nazario Collection and use of YouTube (and the media) Doug Weller talk 14:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

2007 Alderney UFO sighting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Oh dear. This one slipped past our "radar", it seems. Full of absurd credulity and terrible sourcing.

@ JMK: who is the main author. Might be worth checking those contributions as well.

jps ( talk) 13:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you know what?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Alderney UFO sighting.

I think we should WP:TNT this. jps ( talk) 13:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This note has been accused of being WP:CANVASSing. Further machinations continue at both the article and the AfD. I have also found a small discussion in a UFO forum encouraging people to comment at the AfD to get it kept. Sigh. jps ( talk) 18:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

ජපස, did you see the Journal of Scientific Exploration article "Unusual Atmospheric Phenomena Observed Near Channel Islands, UK, 23 April 2007", a little bit more discussion than Clarke has in The UFO Files? fiveby( zero) 20:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

For sure. I'm not particularly enthused that Clarke, an expert in (check notes) folklore, is declaring that this nothing burger was "unusual atmospheric phenomena". It might be, but it also might be, I don't know, window glint. When it is only eyewitness testimony of UFOs, attempting to say anything about the situation is basically impossible. jps ( talk) 21:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You both know this, but I note for other readers that the Journal of Scientific Exploration is a mouthpiece of the unquestionably pro-woo Society for Scientific Exploration, and as such should not be considered a reliable source for anything. An examination of some 2022 issues reveals that it promotes perpetual motion machines, parapsychology, the Loch Ness monster...and I think I'll end the list right there. The only question I have is whether it is more laughable than Rudy Schild's Journal of Cosmology. You know, the journal with "scientific" articles that claim to have discovered extraterrestrial life within meteorites. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 18:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

To its credit, JSE sometimes publishes skeptical takedowns. It's pretty unusual, though. JoC is (was?) only propaganda and even published bizarre cartoonish slander against PZ Myers. Completely different league. jps ( talk) 23:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, the JoC remains is. Make way for The Ultraterrestrials and The final confirmation of the existence of multicellular life in aqueous habitats on the moons of Jupiter. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 23:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

UFO sightings in South Africa

UFO sightings in South Africa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Same author, similar issues. Sourcing is atrocious. I notice some have been active cleaning things up, but a lot of cruft remains (sourcing to obscure newspaper articles, trade journals, and even Lonely Planet). jps ( talk) 15:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• SARS-CoV-2 ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Lab-leaking going on on the Talk page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)