Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 83

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

Ann Coulter

This thread has long stopped producing anything useful to improve the article. —Paleo Neonate – 22:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ann Coulter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion about how to handle articles about intelligent design fans. Should it be called a pseudoscience or not? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems more like a MOS type question. I don't think anyone in that discussion is questioning that ID is supported by any type of science. I think all would agree that it's often an attempt to rectify religion to the evidence of evolution. Part of the dispute at that article can be generalized as should we point out as much every time the topic is mentioned in any article where it is even briefly mentioned. That seems to the be crux of the dispute. For example, if Mr Smith's article says, "Smith is a believer in astrology[source]" should we instead say "Smith is a believer in astrology, a pseudoscience [source]" or "Smith is a believer in astrology, a pseudoscience that claims X [source]". Would the answer change depending on the [source]? For example, if the source specifically says astrology is a psuedoscience vs if it only says he believes in it? Springee (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The Nancy Reagan page has about a dozen references to astrology and how it ran the US White House, but none of them contain any additional word like "pseudoscience". Nancy is dead and there is no political value in trashing her, but Coulter is involved in contentious current politics so she gets the shaft at multiple points in her article. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Springee, it is not about the FRINGE or pseudoscience status of intelligent design, which everyone currently involved in that discussion seems to agree on. Other than some stuff that is specific to Coulter, the discussion is about whether references to FRINGE material require mandatory warning labels --- as the initiator of the discussion I argued that this practice is gratuitous, patronizing to the reader, and in Coulter's case, politicized. These are MOS or NPOV issues, FRINGE does not come into play since the particulars of the fringe viewpoint are not being presented, only the fact of Coulter having some connection to it. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The people here know how to handle articles that are related to fringe subjects. Now they already know about the subject, so it is pointless to try to keep it from them by claiming it is not related to FRINGE.

Whether the particulars of the fringe viewpoint are not being presented is one of the questions here, not a fact. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

What does try to keep it from them mean? Keep what from whom??

Does writing the words "X advocates intelligent design", with the link, as the sole description of X's connection to ID, constitute a presentation of the fringe viewpoint? Nobody at the Coulter talk discussion has claimed that, but if that's part of what you think is being debated, please say so. In the generality that you have framed this ("intelligent design fans"), we aren't just talking about the Coulter article specifically, where there is some (unrebutted) presentation of her closely related views on evolution, and what is said about ID immediately after could be seen as part of that. The more general framing seems to be (the ID special case of) the same question I raised, about negative labels on references to fringe material. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE covers all treatments of fringe topics on Wikipedia, not just those that go into detail. Indeed, a significant part of that guideline is advice on when and how to go into detail. So, it doesn't matter if particulars of the fringe viewpoint are not being presented. XOR'easter (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Which passage of FRINGE applies to this case? I share TFD's concern that the disparaging tone isn't helpful. It also, importantly, isn't encyclopedic. If simply calling it ID isn't sufficient perhaps calling it the creationist belief of intelligent design. That description makes it clear this is a subset of creationism while avoiding beating the reader over the head with the fact that it doesn't pass the scientific sniff test.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

You've assumed the conclusion, that merely mentioning Mr X subscribes to fringe thingy Y requires an attached denunciation of Y (or X, which is often what it amounts to either way). As pointed out at the Coulter article talk page, this is not the case for Y = astrology, Nazism, John Birch Society (re conspiracy theories). Other examples are anti-Semitism and scientific racism; generally when they appear as part of someone's bio we do not attach descriptors like "the discredited 19th century ideology". Maybe some of these things are considered well known enough to be out-of-mainstream that it's de minimis but this "denounce on sight" rule seems not even to be applied for cold fusion. Like Springee, I did not see any such principle in the FRINGE guideline, which I have read many times by now. Can you point to some particular part of the text?Sesquivalent (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I would leave it out. It sounds overly disparaging and as jargon we would have to explain it. Disparaging writing actually creates doubt in readers' minds. They say, "This article is obviously intended to disparage Coulter, so why should I believe anything it says?" TFD (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I rather suspect that people who are eager to leap to that conclusion will do so regardless of whether we include a few particular words or not. XOR'easter (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

+1 to this. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We should not be tiptoeing around the subject of fringe in order to cater to the potential pearl clutching of partisan readers. If they don't like what reliable sources say about the subject, they have safe spaces on the internet they can go to such as Conservapedia. Generalrelative (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

While that may be what you suspect, lecturing and patronizing people often turns them off. People don't like to be told what to think. That's one of the reasons the COVID-19 vaccination rate in the U.S. is so low. Of course it's easier to blame listeners for not being persuaded. TFD (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

No one is blaming listeners for not being persuaded. And yes, lecturing and patronizing people often turns them off. Generalrelative (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, few people like the feeling of being lectured at. But Coulter's fans will regard Wikipedia as a hotbed of cultural Marxism, critical race theory, and general leftist moral degeneracy no matter what adjectives we insert or remove. (Which is pretty funny, because our gold standard for news sourcing is The New York Times, a publication whose editorial practices please roughly zero leftists. But I digress.) There's no pleasing the mentality that regards the tamest, purely factional description as a slanderous subversion of real American values. There's such a thing as spending too much time trying to satisfy the unsatisfiable. I think Generalrelative's suggested phrasing below does a good job of being clear and direct without coming across as overly forceful. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Presumably at least some readers come to the article because they want to know about the topic and aren't confirmed fans. Consider a reasonable person who has seen her once or twice on a couple of topics. If it is clear to them that the authors of her Wikipedia article dislike her then they will question the accuracy of the article. Ironically, the article reads like something Ann Coulter would write. TFD (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb in these scenarios is, does it help to explain the prose? Good to look at what we're actually considering here. As of this timestamp, prose reads as follows:

“

In Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Coulter characterized the theory of evolution as bogus science, and contrasted her beliefs to what she called the left's "obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death". Coulter advocates intelligent design, a pseudoscientific antievolution ideology.

”

So, does the word "pseudoscientific" add to the prose here? I think it does, but I can see why others might think it is brow-beating. I find it a bit weirder that the text avoids the obvious reference to creationist here which is the umbrella term that, granted, a lot of ID proponents balk at due to believing in their own sophistication but was identified in the most famous court case on the subject to be just that. Well, that's maybe beside the point. The fact that Coulter advocates for intelligent design means that she positions herself in opposition to mainstream science. That is pretty remarkable for any pundit. How we indicate this is a good question, but I do think it reasonable to say we should try to do more than just assume that the reader will click on the relevant wikilink and that we should shrinkwrap our sentence to something like "Coulter advocates intelligent design. End paragraph."

jps (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Other pages use phrasings like "the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design" (here) or "the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design" (here) or "a pseudoscientific creationist argument" (here). The phrasing in the Ann Coulter article is in line with community practice in this regard, though doubtless it could be tweaked. XOR'easter (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I prefer "the pseudoscience called intelligent design". Use of adjectives (like "pseudoscientific") give the impression of being inherently POV. It's a noun: pseudoscience. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with you both. The current language needs tweaking. How about: "Coulter advocates for creationism, the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is bogus science. In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, contrasted her beliefs to what she described as the left's "obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death."? Generalrelative (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Not bad. XOR'easter (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually about to go back and change out creationism for intelligent design since the latter is actually what Coulter seems to be arguing for and is more unambiguously associated with pseudoscience. So my suggested text would now be: Coulter advocates for intelligent design, the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is bogus science. In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, she contrasted her beliefs with what she described as the left's "obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death." Generalrelative (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The word "bogus" sounds a little informal. Maybe just "bad science"? I'd be happy enough with your suggested sentences, though. XOR'easter (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point. We could even go so far as to say the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is unsupported by or at variance with existing evidence. Generalrelative (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I like that a little more. But perhaps "unsupported by or at variance with" is a more elaborate construction than we need. What about just "disproved by"? XOR'easter (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That phrasing is much better in terms of using impartial language but wouldn't it be better to say a bit more about what it is vs isn't? To be honest I confused Theistic Evolution with ID. I guess as someone who has spent most of my life avoiding religion it's easy to confuse various religious based beliefs. Still, based on these descriptions I'm not sure how I would see ID as different from Theistic Evolution or simply creationism. I guess creationism is meant to be accepted purely on faith while ID tries to rationalize. Would "a rationalized version of creationism" be just as informative. I would hope any reader who sees "creationism" would understand that is a religious based explanation vs one based on science. Springee (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: I agree, it's a bit tricky to unpack. I wasn't at all clear on the distinction until reading the articles Creationism and Intelligent design in response to this discussion. This board in particular is such a great place to come to be challenged to learn more. Generalrelative (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: That would work. Or perhaps just "incompatible with"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalrelative (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"Disproven" and derivatives of the word "proof" are words to avoid, in my book, when talking about science just from the epistemology of the subject. If this were pseudomathematics instead of pseudoscince, then maybe "disproven" is okay, but the formal term for proof confuses people into not understanding the way in which pseudoscience is at odds with science in the proper context. Better to get across the idea of "lacks empirical evidence" or "at variance with known scientific facts" and simple, clear alternatives to that.

In terms of the confusion of ID with evolutionary creationism, theistic evolution, and so forth, this is (excuse the pun) by design. The group of people in the mid-nineties who put their heads together to think about what could be done about Edwards v. Aguillard thought that because there is difficulty in solving the demarcation problem as it pertains to anti-evolutionism and people's personal beliefs, they could come up with a vaguely named concept like "intelligent design" which would capture the confusion and predilections of many religious believers with respect to the subject while maintaining some sort of plausible deniability as to the identity of any "designer". The problem, of course, was that the arguments themselves were all just repackaged from the creation science of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s with, perhaps, a few of the more ludicrous proposals quietly abandoned (ID proponents rarely argue that the Kelvin-Helmholtz time scale for the Sun is evidence of a "young Earth", for example). The fact that you confused ID with TE is exactly what this Center for Science and Culture group was hoping would happen, so this explains a bit why being a little clearer about what Coulter is specifically aligning herself with is so important. The task is not easy, so it's good to think carefully about the best wording granting that there actually may not be a "best wording" owing to this political and rhetorical mess created, again, by design.

jps (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

For those arguing that calling pseudoscience what it is disparages or patronizes, the WP:PSCI policy says that it must clearly be described as such. The reason why ID is pseudoscientific, while also creationism and religious apologetics, is that it attempts to pass as science. A history of it is outside the scope of this discussion, but in brief, it's an adaptation of Creation Science with the name of denomiations and deities gradually removed with more pseudoscientific arguments added that attempt to discredit important findings of science including discoveries and conclusions in geology and biology supported by overwhelming evidence. A main goal was to insert it in classrooms in the US as an alternative to standard biology curricula with the excuse that "students need to be informed and make their own decision". It's textbook pseudoscience and described as such by most reliable independent sources that discuss it. A valid policy-based argument in this case could be WP:SYNTH if the sources that talk about Coulter don't mention that it's not science but attempts to pass as such (or is pseudoscientific). Some current sources appear to be close and a minimum of synthesis may be acceptable for facts like that the sky is blue (and that ID is pseudoscientific)... Pseudoscience is not just a label but an accurate and useful description. —Paleo Neonate – 20:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Are there objections to my proposed language? Coulter advocates for intelligent design, the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is incompatible with existing evidence. In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, she contrasted her beliefs with what she described as the left's "obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death." Generalrelative (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, that really is an improvement. One of my original concerns was the article simply said ID is pseudoscience but really nothing more. I suspect that is why a number of us felt it was a dismissive label rather than actually telling the reader what we are dealing with. Your revised sentence is both more informative and impartial. It doesn't read as if we are applying a dismissive label but are afraid to explain the details. Instead it say, it hits a critical point, these people think the theory of evolution doesn't fit the evidence. They might be wrong but it's hardly the same thing as claiming the whole thing came from an Arkleseizure. It also provides some context for why she brings this up and why it's relevant to the article by putting the ID before the mention of evolution etc, vs after where it seems like it was mentioned as an after thought. Springee (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been following the discussion but haven't weighed in. This wording looks good to me as well. –dlthewave ☎ 04:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I do have some comments (or objections if you must).

1. I wish that edit suggestions for this one article would go in that article's Talk page, and more general FRINGE matters here, so we don't have two edit discussions in two places at once and double the size of this here thread.

2. I obtained a copy of Coulter's book and read the last three chapters, which are the part about evolution. (I think many things in this book would interest you, given your interests in articles on scientific racism and fascism -- she provides some information and references not currently in Wikipedia). Although she cribs anti-evolution arguments from IDers, and a few of her every-fourth-sentence snarky comments are about evolution comparing unfavorably to intelligent design in some way, it turns out that she is not arguing for ID in the book, or even that evolution must be wrong (though she vituperates it at great length). The first sentence about this in the current article, that she argues against evolution, is a better summary than the above, and having read the thing I would leave out any claim that the book argues for ID.

3. If there is to be any use of "pseudo" it should not be implied that Coulter herself is engaging in pseudoscience, i.e., non-science presented as science. She does not claim to be a scientist, to be publishing a work of science, and nearly all her sources are from popular books and articles, not scientific papers (even ones from intelligent design journals). She does not cite most of these things as works of science, but as case studies in how evolution is presented, used politically and so on. The criticisms of evolution are ammunition in the overall argument of the book (which is not about evolution) and her thesis does not stand or fall on whether Darwinian evolution is totally wrong, totally correct, or anything in between. Sesquivalent (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Problem: ID is not the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is incompatible with existing evidence. Creationists of all stripes believe that, not only ID proponents. We don't even know if those people really believe that, we only know that they write that it is so. And I am not sure a belief can be pseudoscientific: it is just the motivation behind pseudoscience and its result.

Why do we have to reinvent the wheel for this one article? Our Intelligent design article says it is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God. We can use that, and the reader who wants to know more can look up the details in the ID article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sesquivalent, do you think your review of the primary source aligns with this source [1]? If so it would suggest that RSs disagree if coulter actually supports/advocates ID. As such we shouldn't claim she believes/advocates for it in the wiki article. That of course is independent of how we describe ID in the article. If sources disagree then I would suggest just removing the single mention of ID since it's a minor part of the whole article even if all sources agreed. Springee (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Springee on this. For all that she is a controversial figure, Coulter is not primarily known as a proponent of ID. The entire mention strikes me as UNDUE. I would just omit the entire thing. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, she's written 12 books and the text about ID is relevant to one in particular. Now, if all her books should be weighted the same in her bio (not sure that's true, but let's start there), I guess I would say no one book should take up more than ~10% of the text on her literary career. I count prose about Godless: The Church of Liberalism as taking up about 20% of the discussion (of which about 1/3 is devoted to anti-evolution arguments), so, maybe you could argue it's overweighted. (It's not particularly surprising because the book was well-timed to poke the bear of New Atheists who were somewhat ascendent back in 2006 and fairly active at this website trying to fix coverage of ID. Maybe that's the holdover, I'm not sure.) But I don't think excising discussion of her attachment to this ideology and tutelage by DI mucky-mucks entirely is necessarily justified. Perhaps someone can think more carefully about how to summarize the text about the book and see if ID makes the cut that way. jps (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Exact proportionality by word count seems a not-so-illuminating standard, in my view. She's also written other things attacking evolution (I linked a few below that turned up in an easy search), so it wasn't just a tirade confined to one book. I'd say that given the length of the article, a line or two would be due weight, but I wouldn't spend more time on it than that. The suggestion by Generalrelative was on the upper edge of what I think would be worthwhile. XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

That source looks like a parody of the evolution sections of Coulter's book. It is saying, for example, that she is hypercritical on evolution but gullible toward ID. Which is true but beside the point she is arguing. The book is not in any direct way, an argument for belief in God, the existence of God, creationism, Christianity or ID. It is certainly saying that a Godless society with a secularized pseudo- or anti-Christianity (liberal Satanism as it were, though she doesn't use that idea) is prone to following bad paths, which is an indirect form of classical religious apologetics. But the book is exactly what it pretends to be: an analysis and indictment of American liberalism as secularized atheistic small-c christian theocracy. A Taliban without a God (or more precisely, with a number of secular not-supernatural but equally mysterious functional god-equivalents) Sesquivalent (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The LiveScience.com blog post is an obvious joke, saying that Coulter's book is satire because it's too absurd to be taken seriously. Her own writings promote creationism unambiguously and unabashedly. [2][3][4][5]. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This is obvious satire. The author is going along with the premises that Coulter is "an intelligent and well-educated person" and that the right is characterized by "normally rational standards" and reading the book through that lens, concluding that it must be a Sokal-like hoax. It's actually a pretty brilliant piece. Generalrelative (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Her own writings promote creationism unambiguously and unabashedly" is not what a reading of her words shows. She is unambiguously and unabashedly an evolution critic, who uses ID tropes and (as I wrote above) makes favorable comparisons here and there of ID to evolution -- one line from the column you linked. The other link is her praising Gelertner who likewise attacks evolution but says he cannot swallow ID. It does not appear that she has undertaken to argue for ID, creationism, or God as propositions in themselves, other than announcing constantly that she happens to hold certain Christian beliefs. Just arguments against evolution, logrolling toward IDers (Behe, Dembski, Berlinski) and other antievolutionists (Gelernter), and certainly being friendly toward the idea and conclusions. But not actually arguing for them as such. To repeat from the Coulter talk page thread, her relationship to ID is a couple of step removed from being a literal IDer, and is more like "promotes the legitimacy of ID proponents". Sesquivalent (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a distinction without a difference. Generalrelative (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Since various comments above, including yours, are premised on their being some difference between anti-evolution, creationism, and intelligent design, it makes sense to actually be specific about it. If one form puts words in her mouth and the other accurately describes her position why not use the correct one? Since you take the distinction of ID, promoting ID, and promoting ID's proponents to be inconsequential, why would it matter to you which such phrase is used? We can easily please everyone by doing it right. Sesquivalent (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

We can easily please everyone by doing it right. Lol, I see. If only I'd realized that the solution was to do it right. Sarcasm aside, the reason we don't fill our encyclopedia with meaningless distinctions is that it gets in the way of parsimony and ultimately serves to obscure what could easily be stated clearly. Generalrelative (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Some of us think "not putting words in subject's mouth" is distinctly more important than "use marginally shorter description". The difference between saying that Coulter (e.g.) writes approvingly of intelligent design and the same with ID proponents is one word, 10 letters, 3 syllables, and it also allows the possibility of listing some of those people by name, which could be useful.

Most long BLP's, this one included, can be edited to be substantially shorter with no loss of encyclopedia value. Sentences about FRINGE in BLPs are probably the last place one would want to economize on words at the expense of accuracy, since that can effectively imply that someone is a kook, or more of a kook than the record warrants. Sesquivalent (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing about a distinction without a difference: one does not sacrifice accuracy by leaving it out. And nobody here has suggested putting words in anyone's mouth. So at least we agree on that. Generalrelative (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

There are at least two big differences involved. One is that we have no direct objective way, by reading her words, to conclude that she argues for an Intelligent Designer, which would seem to be the sine qua non of promoting the "fringe theory of ID" (note the word theory, i.e., the ideas, not the enterprise, movement, people, and institutions). The other is that in the absence of decisive evidence, everyone here who insists on tying her to ID is doing it by SYNTH that combines other facts about her, speculations about her degree of connection to institutional IDers, interpretation of her jokes, and general patterns about other people (creationists). Sources, including Coulter herself, are unanimous that she opposes evolution, but only some associate her arguments with ID at all. I haven't attempted an enumeration to judge whether it's a large or small proportion of sources, but given the other problems with this inference, it is probably best to either call her an evolution opponent only, or someone who attacks evolution using arguments much the same as intelligent design (but no explicit argument for a Designer, creation, or God)". Sesquivalent (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Arguing for an "intelligent designer" is not the sine qua non of ID advocacy. It is often the unspoken insinuation and with intentionally prevaricating winks and nods about religions beliefs (or lack thereof). But what makes intelligent design fringe theory an argument is a (re)packaging of neocreationism along the lines of Paley's watchmaker argument (without necessarily reproducing the entire claim). Coulter aligns herself with that rhetoric completely. jps (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of parsimony and readability, the clunkiness of multi-word denunciations about ID being pseudoscientific, rather than just saying "intelligent design" (resp. anti-evolution), was one of the reasons this now incredibly long discussion came up in the first place. Is there any passage in FRINGE that actually requires this kind of language whenever any reference to such topic appears, e.g., "Mr X has been known to rely on astrologers"? This has been asked repeatedly above. Sesquivalent (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

My understanding was that there is rough consensus on the need to provide some kind of explanatory gloss after stating that Coulter is a proponent of intelligent design. My proposed language and that of others above are attempts to work out the most accurate and parsimonious way to provide that. There is apparently a longstanding consensus to describe intelligent design as pseudoscience (see Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ if you haven't already). Whether it is best to include that term in this instance is up for debate, which is precisely the point of this noticeboard and the conversation we are currently having. But I'm unaware of any definitive, policy-based rationale either for including or excluding it here. That said, I really don't see why we wouldn't. Generalrelative (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Before we discuss “the need to provide an explanatory gloss after stating that Coulter is a proponent of Intelligent Design”, we need to discuss whether Coulter actually IS a proponent - and whether there is a need to mention it. After all, If you don’t mention ID in the first place then there is no need to explain what it is. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

She adopts ID arguments and was tutored by ID proponents whom she defends at length while attacking those scientists who spend their time carefully laying out the empirical evidence for evolution. She unapologetically uses the term "Intelligent Designer" in arguing that there is evidence for such while also adopting the argument that such evidence (specifically, the arguments of famed IDer Behe) is being ignored by scientists: [6] I have a hard time accepting that after all this she really isn't a proponent of ID. jps (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no other way to slice it: she is a proponent of ID. She said over and over again that ID arguments are good and evolution is bad. There's not even a hair to split here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

No. ID is (1) anti-evolution arguments + (2) a plausibility argument that, if evolution doesn't work, some Designer must have done it. Behe and IDers use "irreducible complexity" for both purposes, Coulter only endorses it as (together with all the other anti-evolution arguments) a disproof of evolution. The whole point of the "irreducible complex" blahblah is to suggest that something must have been designed, as it's a complex watch- or eye-like mechanism, etc. Other than ambiguous and plausibly-deniable snark and jokes here and there, Coulter sidesteps this, the defining feature of ID, entirely. What she does directly say is how great the ID people are and so forth -- approval of the proponents rather than the theory.

So one could say that Coulter "uses arguments from" intelligent design to attack evolution but it is a misrepresentation, or at best SYNTH, to say that she is a proponent of ID-as-a-theory when she fails to endorse or seriously comment on its central argument. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Whaaaat? This is an interpretation that requires mental gymnastics of which I am not capable. How can someone support the people, the arguments, and oppose the opponents but not support "the theory"? I think this is bending over backwards for no good reason except for editorial reticence. jps (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No gymnastics needed. Once she is, for whatever reasons and based on whatever arguments, positioned against evolution, IDers are her allies and ID opponents her enemies, whether or not she goes as far as ID does in her public statements. She does not "support ... the arguments" in toto, at least not in print; that is precisely the point.

The gymnastics I don't understand are how to define someone who does not argue for an intelligent designer as a purveyor of ID. Again, merely making moves that are favorable to ID in the political battle-space can make one an ally of the IDers, but being a warm friend and ally of something does not necessarily mean espousing that thing. Speculative SYNTH on this is both forbidden in the article and somewhat pointless, as the evidence is ambiguous. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I cannot even begin to understand the hairs you are splitting here. She does not "support ... the arguments" in toto, at least not in print I have yet to see any evidence of that. What, do you need some sort of banner waving statement of the sort, "I SUPPORT IN TOTO THE ARGUMENTS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN". I feel a bit like I'm arguing with someone who has a complete inability to concede the point. She has argued in favor of intelligent design. I cannot see how any other conclusion is possible on the basis of our sources including her own writing. jps (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. What do you need (to classify an antievolutionist as also an IDer) is precisely the question. Assuming it is done on the basis of clear statements and not parsing their jokes, the bare minimum would seem to be an assertion that if Bayesian confidence in evolution goes down, confidence in design or a designer must go up. What else could it possibly mean to argue ID? Since this discussion has gone fractal, and this is no longer a question of Coulter but about how to draw the boundary, it could make sense as a new and more focused thread. Sesquivalent (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If you wish for no parsing of "jokes", Coulter is impenetrable. That's the only way she engages. jps (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, if the jokes are clear then parse away. Hers are strategically ambiguous, as we saw above. I think that the high IQ, high status, cosmopolitan friends of ID like Coulter and Gelertner know that logically proving a God exists is not only impossible but so well known to be impossible as to be declasse in their social circles, thus a morass they make a point of avoiding. Sniping at evolution (or particular presentations of evolution) is safer. Sesquivalent (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The point really is that it is the very same kind of strategic ambiguity that is a hallmark of ID arguments. jps (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"Strategic" is mindreading, on my part and yours; that it's ID related strategery is additional mindreading, and "hallmark of ID" is (as previously stated) replacing consideration of what the subject herself says and does with pattern matching to conduct by others, to impute the missing data. But those others are already identified by additional unambiguous signals, so it's begging the question to invoke them as the pattern! Categorization by contagion, where clear cases infect the adjacent who (by mindreading and inference) infect the indirectly adjacent is no longer an application of fringe to theories, it is half baked social network analysis even if the conclusions feel right to people on high alert for such signals. Imagine doing this analysis in a BLP to deduce that a lawyer who works gay rights cases, lobbies for the cause in newspaper articles, lives with a longtime same sex roomate (etc), is closeted based on the signals being a "hallmark of homosexuality". Declaring someone a stage 2 kook rather than stage 1 should have the same sort of precautions. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not mind-reading, it's duck-identifying. On the basis of looking, walking, and quacking checks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Giving folksy names to mindreading (however plausible) does not remove it from the category of mindreading. Stage 1 vs 2 kook identification in BLP needs a bright line standard or the nearest equivalent, which is the opposite of a ducktest, the latter being an abbreviation for "it's personally obvious to me". I proposed a clear definition above of what it means to argue ID. Sesquivalent (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how application of the experience of discussing ID proponents is any worse than your WP:SYNTH clear definition above. Usually, we say that someone is an ID proponent if we have secondary source saying exactly that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I too read a claim of synthesis and editorializing above, but that's not even the case, since independent sources stress the link. I suggest to drop the stick... —Paleo Neonate – 22:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Any talk page analysis of DUE weight (in this case the weight of the subset of sources tying her to ID versus the 100 percent calling her antievolution) involves SYNTHesis, but that is not WP:SYNTH (forbidden synthesis of article contents). My proposal is to apply a clear definition of ID to what the BLP subject observably says or does. Yours is not definable or algorithmic but based on personal "I know it when I see it" feelz, mindreading and pattern matching to third parties. This is fringe by iterated association (and feelz) but to state some specific level of fringe achievement in Wikivoice would seem to require direct evidence. Sesquivalent (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Not at all, have you read Godless: The Church of Liberalism and its sources? —Paleo Neonate – 23:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Reading the evolution chapters of Godless was what changed my mind about (my) article edit calling her an ID advocate. I have mentioned that a few times here. She is even further from the usual religious context of ID if you also consider the role of those chapters in the overall argument of the book, which does not depend on evolution being correct or not, or there being a God/creator. Her book is a secular political polemic (by an avowed Christian, which makes it easily confused with a religious polemic) whose point is that liberal leftism is warmed over theocratic Christianity denuded of a God, with specific analogies in the rituals, saints, origin stories (evolution) etc. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I missed this comment from a while back, but I think that it is a tortured claim. If I understand it correctly you are saying that because Coulter is arguing that leftism is a reactionary anti-Christian religion that her argument is a null-hypothesis upon leftism which ostensibly exalts evolutionary thinking to a kind of deity in her vision. But this argument is very much part-and-parcel to ID as well. That is, in fact, the Wedge document's primary conceit. ID is weird. It is intentionally a polemic against the hegemonic academic authority in biological science. If you adopt this line, and Coulter does, that makes you a proponent of ID. At least, that's how I've seen it identified in all the sources I've seen. jps (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

To complement Jps's comment, Christian fundamentalism was a reactionary response to, among other things, the discovery of facts about the natural world (the creed called to limit education and discoveries, including replacing scientific disciplines by pseudoscientific narrative-based ones and the affirmation of dogmas, a tradition that continued with Creation Science, Intelligent Design and the current political activism to bias or limit education in certain states). WP is not in the business of Russian-style uncertainty or divisive propaganda or to promote apologetics of the style teach the controversy... —Paleo Neonate – 10:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

FRINGE applies to theories, ideas. Accordingly we judge Coulter's position on the science/pseudoscience spectrum based on what she says rather than how she is situated in the creation/evolution political battle-space. With what she says (and in this case, does not say) about the science carrying more weight than what she says in relation to the battle-space. That her book must have made IDers happy, a battle-space outcome, does not mean her book is a work of ID, i.e., argues for an intelligent designer.

"Tutored" makes her sound like a protege, for which there is no evidence, rather than the more mundane relationship of a writer who picked up the phone to get advice from someone with a massive incentive to give it. She "unapologetically uses the term Intelligent Designer" ... as part of a joke. If there are un-ironic uses of Designer, God etc that would be more to the point. Sesquivalent (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Ann Coulter herself says she was tutored by Behe, Berlinski, and Dembski: [7]. The substance of the joke requires that you accept that "Intelligent Designer" is the thing that must exist. Coulter's style is dripping sarcasm and snark, but the joke is not to pretend that *wink, wink* this idea is not one I endorse. Quite the opposite.

If I stretch my WP:AGF chops as far as I can here, I would say you just haven't researched this closely enough.

jps (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I am well aware that Coulter was in frequent contact with the IDers when writing her book --- I had specifically checked the Acknowledgements section of the book, which is where that quotation comes from, in order to confirm the presumption that this was the case. I did not remember that she used the word "tutored" for this, which explains your phrasing, but I also don't see how that contradicts or responds to my point. In saying she was tutored, Coulter did not apparently imply that she was a protege or puppet of the IDers, or anything beyond my description of how a professor would react when a famous author consults them about having their work appear in an upcoming bestseller (hint: it would involve tutoring to whatever extent needed). People are describing her as a stalking horse for them, based on all kinds of assumptions about her religious position, the meaning of her ambiguous jokes and the general sociology of the anti-evolution space. My understanding of FRINGE is that we give primacy to what people actually say and do without too much reading of other stuff into it, even if the Bayesian likelihood seems high, especially in a BLP. Her actions are simply "used ID's arguments to argue against evolution (but not for an intelligent designer)". The latter part seems to in and of itself disqualify her from being called an IDer even if, e.g., she would be totally happy to see ID replace evolution in schools. Sesquivalent (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, if we are parsing her word choices, notice that she describes the tutoring as being about evolution, not intelligent design. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think she doesn't argue for an intelligent designer? Is there some sort of quote that indicates that? jps (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A few nights ago I searched for sources and various about the Godless book mention Dembski and Irreducible Complexity arguments, which is part of ID, at least... The DI website also has a rant about "Coulterian Contempt". —Paleo Neonate – 04:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The lack of clear statements saying that a designer must exist (given the arguments against evolution) or that if you don't believe evolution could have done it, design is the only alternative. The sources people are citing don't contain that and are a mixed bag as to whether they claim she is ID or only (what they all assert) antievolution. In the absence of consensus in the source, to classify her as an IDer we would need to find things she does say, not infer it from pattern matching a resemblance to some things that other people who are undoubtably creationist also say in this arena. Who her friends and enemies are on the political battlefield does not substitute for what she herself says and does (or doesn't). Sesquivalent (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

How is this kind of circumlocution different than any other intelligent design proponent? They all quibble whenever asked directly about the identity of an intelligent designer or whether one exists at all. That's the entire point. We have plenty of sources which identify her as adopting ID as an ideology. That's more than enough for our purposes. jps (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sesquivalent: I note a comment you made on the talkpge: Whether she was making the stronger assertion, that these are winning arguments against evolution or a proof that an intelligent creator must exist --- or something weaker like "evolution is far from proven scientifically but is nonetheless used as a religious dogma by the Left" --- isn't clear without looking at the book again more closely. which to me indicates that you think it is possible to adhere to a position that "evolution is far from proven scientifically" independent of adherence to/advocacy of creationism in these contexts. This was an argument that Ben Stein made on his tour junket for the "documentary" he produced as was all the rage when ID was having its moment in the sun right before it all came crashing down in the Dover trial. I just want to clarify that this is actually your contention. Because, if so, I think you definitely need to do some research about this subject more broadly. Briefly, there are absolutely no critiques of evolutionary synthesis in this fashion which are not ideologically creationist and pseudoscientific. jps (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

With a good starting point evidence of common descent and its sources, —Paleo Neonate – 14:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

If Stein, Gelertner and Coulter all use ID arguments to dispute evolution but decline to use it to argue ID (or a Creator, God, etc) itself, that would suggest that this position is not an impossibility; that there exists a slightly different, more modest and less assailable species of argument than ID, that recurs in this arena. If you mean that there are no known atheists who make this ID-adjacent argument, that may well be true, but I could certainly imagine that the wide circulation of these polemics has convinced some people who have no particular interest in religion and a resistance to supernatural explanations, that there are gaps in the standard evolutionary account, which could presumably be filled by some means other than God (new discoveries or whatever).

In fact, there are gaps in the usual account, i.e., the narrative typically told in schools, and the God-less way to fill them in is to give a better account of the same material. The evidence of common descent page doesn't quite do this --- even the lede has cringe-worthy material touting the supposed predictive triumphs of evolution, that is susceptible to the (largely correct) argument, which Coulter gives at length, that "prediction" has been redefined so that the house always wins. This gap in explanation can be overcome, the problem is expository not scientific, but it does not serve the Cause of Science to paper over that by tossing around the word pseudoscience like candy and dismissing the critics as deluded fundie idiots.

To avoid some likely misunderstandings about this: all I'm saying here about the science is that this is one of many cases of "theory and evidence correct, exposition flawed". IDers are kept in business by this discrepancy, as they can (basically correctly) attack flaws in the exposition and then (incorrectly) claim to have demolished the theory. It doesn't help that the expositions retain misleading phrases like "the theory of" evolution that enable this confusion. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Nothing much wrong with "exposition" either. "Theory of evolution" is fine, and Stephen Jay Gould explained why in his essay Evolution as fact and theory. Science is difficult, and creationists of all stripes will always find ways to misunderstand it no matter how it presented. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This is getting off topic, but the typical exposition is wrong to use "prediction" to mean "unfalsifiable, house-always-wins prediction" (while using vocabulary like "testable" implying the ordinary falsifiable sort of prediction), and evolution is not a theory. It is a constraint on the allowed theories, just as Lorentz invariance and locality are constraints on what we consider as usable theories in fundamental physics. The "theory" in evolution is whatever the current account is of how the tree of life is connected and came to be, and the principle of evolution plays a big role in that but isn't the "theory" that is the thing supportable or refutable by evidence. We simply choose, based on thought experiments and observation, to make it basic to the narrative; it is not the theory itself. So the creationists have it backwards when they insist evolution is "just a theory". Sesquivalent (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The "typical exposition" does not do that. Creationists just claim that it does. Maybe you should have a look at the talk.origins archive and its list of hundreds of creationist arguments with refutations. Been there, done that for about thirty years now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The claim that lack of evidence is what keeps creationist apologetics in business is misleading (vs motivated reasoning, ignorance and confusion because of misleading literature, etc). Predictive power is also indeed important for scientific theories, in the case of evolution an example is evaluating where more transitional fossils would be found despite their rarity, etc. Eventually DNA was discovered and this has confirmed and corrected what was already known, at the same time opening more related fields of knowledge and investigation (then there is consilience, the evidence is supported by a number of scientific disciplines). While this noticeboard is more open to discussion than article talk pages, I think that all this argumentation is excessive... I also see arguments that we should present the material as directly interpreted by the author, when by policy we should instead present the evaluation and conclusions of independent sources. —Paleo Neonate – 21:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

To say I'm gobsmacked here would be an understatement. Others have done justice to this, but apologias for creationism like this are things I haven't seen on Wikipedia for nearly a decade. Suffice to say, we don't suffer this kind of circumlocutions of rhetoric kindly here. This is all reminiscent of old timey Evolution is just a theory-type arguments. Here endeth the lesson. jps (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I've humored your postings above (stretching the AGF chops, as you put it) and this is not the place to debate the science, but apologias for creationism got my attention. I suggest you run my statement about Lorentz invariance by a theoretical physicist or two, and then figure out that it's exactly the same with evolution, i.e., neither one is (in effect) "the theory" within the scientific framework where it appears, even if textbooks happen to lazily use that term. That does not imply any denial of relativity or evolution. If your position is that not only the science of evolution is correct (we agree on that) but that the exposition is incontestible and logically gapless, you must not have seen a textbook in the past few decades. Certainly a number of Wikipedia pages on this have the problems I described. If you have further complaints please post them at a more relevant talk page. Sesquivalent (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Your problem is that you sound like a creationist sometimes, even if you aren't one. For example, dismissing the critics as deluded fundie idiots is not a real thing. There are no such "critics". The ones who are dismissed in that way are either really deluded fundie idiots or they just repeat what they heard somewhere without checking it. A real critic, someone who knows what he is talking about, someone who points at flawed reasoning, like Stephen Jay Gould has always done, will be taken seriously. (Most of the time. Scientists are humans.) Yes, displaying the horse ancestors in a straight line and omitting the side branches gives a false picture, for instance. But when something like that happens, the thing to do is replacing the picture by a better one, not making a lot of noise pointing out scientists are DOING IT RONG. The creationist clowns have taken that horse picture thing, rolled it around in brain rot and half-truths until the fact that it is a minor correction gets lost, and presented it as an example of how evolutionists are faking it all.

Those who have fought that off for decades, which included most of the people you are talking to in this section, are familiar with lots of red flags. "Lack of transitional fossils" is one of them, "redefining prediction" is another, "just a theory" is a third. Each of them is just another hoof in the Gish gallop. Each of them is a false rumor spread by creationists, and echoing them is indeed an "apologia for creationism".

Do Not Believe Anything Creationists Write. It Is Tainted. It Is Based On Out-Of-Context Quotes, Bad Logic And Cherry Picking. Always. If May Sound Plausible To You, But That Is Because It Was Manufactured To Sound Plausible To People Who Do Not Check The Original Source.

Do not repeat creationist propaganda here. We already know it. And the refutations to it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hob here. Whether you intend to or not, your rhetoric is plainly falling in the universe of a Teach the controversy style of argument. I understand that the toxic nature of the subject causes problems for discourse at the level of philosophy, for example, but we aren't here to fix that. What you have essentially done here is moved to accommodate creationism in a way that has been carefully and exhaustively identified as a problematic conceit in sources published by groups such as NCSE. And whether you intended it or not, your suggestion that I should "run my statement about Lorentz invariance by a theoretical physicist or two" is borderline insulting. jps (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I also see the standard "there are unresolved details so maybe alternative explanations are right" kind of narrative above, however this is ridiculous considering how other models fail to provide better explanations or to correspond to what was discovered about the natural world. As I previously noted, if the goal is to get lost in extreme relativism with metaphysical philosophical arguments, it's not productive to improve the encyclopedia, since its contents must take in consideration the descriptions of the real world as reported by reputable sources (admitedly a type of appeal to authority, but there's no other method to get somewhere efficiently in a collaborative encyclopedia)... —Paleo Neonate – 22:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a last word from me: if the argument is exclusion of the fact from the BLP, I think it's DUE, considering that a book from Coulter that was apparently a best-seller was mostly on this topic. As for belief vs promotion, it's always difficult to know what someone really believes, but I've seen at least one source where she was asked if she really believed it, and claimed to.^[1] It may not be that relevant.^[2]^[3] —Paleo Neonate – 23:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

References

QAnon expecting JFK to be resurrected, won't leave Dallas

"Why hundreds of QAnon supporters showed up in Dallas, expecting JFK Jr.’s return""QAnon followers who went to Dallas to look for JFK Jr are refusing to leave". Lots of other sources. And how about this Protzman guy mentioned in the Independent article and elsewhere?[8] We don't seem to have anything on this weird fringe stuff. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Why Dealey Plaza in Dallas? He did not even die there, his father did. Don't they know the first thing about how ghosts operate? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

They aren't interested in the first thing, since it is clearly faked by the people behind the thirty-seventh thing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You may have something there Hob Gadling. Where should they have gone? Has that been faked yet? Ϣere SpielChequers 12:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm wrong anyway, it is in the QAnon article. But Protzman isn't. And it belongs at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories I'd think as it's arguing for a conspiracy that he's still alive. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

They think that JFK (b. 1917) is still alive as well as JFK Jr? jps (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure they think either are still alive. From your second source: "Others believed that John F Kennedy would also return along with his son..." I think that means that they believe there will be a resurrection, but that they really did die. jps (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s Elvis that’s still alive, surely? Brunton (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's JFK Jr some think is still alive "Will Sommer, author of the upcoming book Trust the Plan: The Rise of QAnon and the Conspiracy That Reshaped America and a longtime observer of the conspiracy theory, estimates that about 20 per cent of Q followers believe in JFK Jr’s re-emergence, but that those who do, “100 per cent believe”."[9] See John F. Kennedy Jr.#Conspiracy theories. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Should we have a section in John F. Kennedy Jr.'s article on conspiracy theories? That seems... inappropriate. jps (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be. If this lunacy belongs anywhere, it belongs in the QAnon article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, definitely the best place for any of that... It's quite incredible, I can imagine a type of opportunist variety show (by them or by third parties, to parody or exploit them) with a bunch of lookalikes... —Paleo Neonate – 22:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, others have disagreed and now I have removed the section twice. [10] I wonder if it will return. Seems pretty obvious to me that it doesn't belong on that page, but what do I know? jps (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ජපස, While discussion here is fine, the consensus you need for wholesale removal is at Talk:John F. Kennedy Jr.. It's inappropriate to forum shop if you don't get a consensus where you want it. Yes, discuss here, but get the consensus where you need it. Anyone commenting here is welcome to comment on the JFK Jr. talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Gerard Rennick

Gerard Rennick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[11] Is this OK? The source does not explicitly say "misinformation", but those things clearly are misnformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The source seems to say that he "posted about" ivermectin, and "questioned why Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration had not yet recommended use of ivermectin", not that he himself recommended its use. I'm not sure that constitutes misinformating, since we are both ourselves "posting about ivermectin" right now.jp×g 10:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

But that also means that the article misrepresents the source now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely not optimal. I'll take a crack at it. jp×g 20:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Health benefits of vegan diets

Veganism (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Some disagreement about whether the knowledge from a recent review article can be included. More eyes from fringe-savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on what I am seeing in the "Positions of dietetic and government associations" section there is inaccurate material. Whilst it is true that some dietetic associations do support a vegan diet for all stages of life (all ages), others have not offered a professional opinion on this or do not support for all ages. Health organizations do list benefits of a vegan or vegetarian diet but they also list nutrients of concern. But such associations and organizations also support plant-based diets and the Mediterranean diet but this is ignored by those with an exclusive vegan agenda. The section is using failed citations because most of the sourcing is on vegetarian diets, not vegan. A familiar banned user was saying I am anti-vegan on the talk-page [12], its funny because a different banned user shows up every few months and calls me a paid vegan activist.

I am not anti-vegan. I have been involved with vegan/vegetarianism for over 12 years now, I am just honest 1. To admit there is a lot of quackery involved with it. 2. Be critical and not accept biased or unsupported claims without good evidence. For example, the ADA paper that mentioned vegan diets was very biased and not all dietetic or health organizations support vegan diets for all stages of life but of course some do, I am not denying that some do, maybe this will change in the future when more research is done but for now evidence is not clear for all stages of life and this must be admitted. From what I can see all the health organizations now support plant-based diets but this is not the same as a strict vegan diet. There is a lot of misrepresentation on this topic. My personal opinion is that a vegan diet is not suitable for babies or pets. There is lack of research in this area, in 10-20 years things might be different. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Fruitarianism

Repeated removal of "fad diet" from the lead and the fad diet category removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, there should be a better term than "fad diet". There is no solid definition and fad implies it has a limited time, and that's something we can't conjecture about. I suppose we can say it's been "labeled as a fad diet". Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Depends what the sources say. If something's a fad diet according to RS, Wikipedia should say so up-front, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

But what if it's called just a "diet" in the majority of RS? If that were the case, it doesn't seem neutral to cherry pick the lesser of the RS. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

If you're interpreting just the word "diet" as meaning "NOT A FAD DIET" that's original research. Wikipedia content proceeds according to WP:V and is some RS bothers to provide additional information, than can be valuable. We can't guess what silence means: this is a similar argument to "most sources mentioning our planet don't say it's round, therefore Wikipedia cannot be sure". Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm interpreting "diet" to mean diet, and "fad diet" to mean a label applied upon hindsight. Hence why there really is no (or very little) RS describing that way. There might be one day, though. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

What's important is if there are sources which consider the question (fad or not). If they decide the diet is a fad diet than that's knowledge, which Wikipedia likes to relay. And since it's knowledge about fringeiness Wikipedia likes to relay it prominently. Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It is listed as a fad diet, see Ashraf, Hea-Ran L. Diets, Fad. In Andrew F. Smith. (2013). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America, Volume 1. Oxford University Press. p. 264. this is a good source so I added it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Well there you go then: sorted. Isn't this one of the most stupid and dangerous fad diets (esp. if forced on children)? Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah its one of the most dangerous fad diets and people including children have died on it. Most of its historical advocates gave up on it, it is not sustainable at all. Even its modern advocates have admitted to taking 30-40 supplements a day [13] and have to take pea protein isolate for protein intake which is not even fruitarian. In the fruitarian literature they often claim one can live 110-120 years on a fruit only diet but nobody has ever done this, not even come close. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Astrology AfD's

Possibly of interest to the community here:

Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not nominate this one, but on reflection I think it suffers from the same problem: Midheaven. Salimfadhley (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That one's at least fleshed out. IMO the issue is acting like it's a standard term that astrologers also use, rather than a wholly astrological terminology. I made some quick edits to clarify that. But really, most of these articles could just be redirected to Horoscope#Angles, with any notable details placed there. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Does anybody else feel creeped out by all this interconnected nonsense. We cover worthless stuff in this project, lots and lots of it, but this stuff ranks up there with Merkian Professional Wrestling in its absurdity, and frankly, meaninglessness. Aargh. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Compared to COVID origins and treatment, or race and intelligence, this is refreshingly straightforward. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that proponents seem to be suggesting that fringe sources should be permitted in order to show that these subjects are notable. Salimfadhley (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:NFRINGE may be pertinent, in that case. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I see only one user making the "astrologers exist, therefor notable" argument, and each place they made it another user brought up WP:NFRINGE. Then there's this comment on the Angle (astrology) AfD that gives multiple independent sources (some stronger than others) in their suggestion to keep.

I think it's completely reasonable to say that the topic of astrology (and its major concepts, like the signs and angles) should be covered as a notable topic. It's just making sure it's coverage of pseudoscience as a pseudoscience, rather than a credulous WP:NOTHOWTO guide or with entire unmaintained articles about the minutiae. Of note: WP:WikiProject Astrology has over 200 low importance start/stub articles, which I expect will include a number of other articles with similar issues (no citations, stub length, could be rolled into a larger existing article), such as Diurnal sign. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's another one for y'all Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malefic planet Salimfadhley (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

In general, these are better as merge/redirect than delete. The terms are likely link targets or search terms, and while they cannot support a stand alone target, an article on astrology (or one of the sub-articles thereof) would likely touch on these concepts, therefore we don't need to remove the content or delete the article. There are many ways to deal with non-notable sub-sub-topics like this, and AFD isn't always the best tool for the job. Not every problem is a nail, and you don't always need to use the biggest hammer. --Jayron 32 17:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Slightly different subject, but related. Profringe editors teaming up on the Talk page, untoward consequences expected. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

First, you should know that notices like this must be neutral in their presentation.(see APPNOTE) Second, calling Apaugasma and Aingotno "profringe" is a personal attack (see NPA). Please stop treating editors who are acting in good faith this way. Springee (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello again gatekeeper. A little hypocritical, wouldn't you say? -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should also read NPA. I'm not editing the page in question so how am I gatekeeping. Springee (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

there's nothing constructive to be expected from them and Profringe editors teaming up have about the same quality. But apparently the second is bad and the first is not, according to one person, and there is indeeda word for that. Could you please go WP:SEALION somebody else, somewhere else? Isn't there any article about a right-wing nut needing removal of criticism? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

CIVIL is policy. The first paragraph makes it clear that it applies even in the case of content related questions. It's quite possible you are correct on the content but if so why not do it politely? Springee (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I admit I was not being polite here, and I see why it provoked the reaction it did. I apologize for that. I hope that on reflection, you will come to perceive that the other editor on that talk page and I are not WP:PROFRINGE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It certainly looked that way to me at the time. I associate you with a false-balance worldview, with rejection of scientific skepticism and with misunderstanding what NPOV means, based on User talk:Apaugasma#Reflections and response, but I guess "profringe" is not quite the right word. On top of that, profringe editors never apologize, so, definitely not the right word.

Also, Aingotno is too fresh to say anything, so you are right: that was rash of me, and I am sorry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I hope there will be an occasion for me to show you that a false-balance worldview and misunderstanding of NPOV (I fear I've misworded a few things in the talk page comments you link to) are also not among my attributes. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Who's really 'teaming up'? There is a content issue being raised there, a reliable source has been quoted, etc. Anyone who doesn't want to engage with that should not be posting to that talk page. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Why dont you take a long walk off a short pier? -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Classy and mature. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hob and Roxy, please be civil even if you don't agree with people, this is just unnecessarily rude for no reason whatsover. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I second this. Being uncivil does not help the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. Civility and understanding do. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We'll get there eventually. After all, Rome wasn't built in a day!!! -Roxy the dog. wooF 10:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That's true. People here at least care and make an effort. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Several users (and IPs) have, in the recent few weeks, been adding more in-universe and fringe-y websites to this article, along with more fringe content which puts it even farther from WP:NPOV. It's often just adding the sources themselves to acceptable already-sourced content. I think the risk is that this may legitimize these sources in an undeserved fashion, granting them legitimacy. We must be very weary of this, given the impact wikipedia has on site-reliability scores.

Some examples: [14] [15] [16] [17]

Questionable FRINGE sources added include: history-matters.org, which has this gem on its front page: "In the wake of the end of the Cold War and the passage of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, the U.S. Government has declassified an enormous number of formerly-secret documents. Among the most stunning are those pertaining to the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy and its subsequent investigations. The new records contain stark indications of conspiracy, and a great wealth of material concerning the hows and whys of the ensuing coverup."

and the conspicuously named Assassination Archives and Research Center which is itself a part of history-matters: "The JFK Assassination Archive disk and other AARC electronic document products are developed by History Matters. Visit our website: www.history-matters.com for more information and to order."

Any and all help provided is much appreciated. And criticism is, as always, welcome. Thanks — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 05:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Exact same user responsible for Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_82#John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories, I'd just take them to ANI, or try and get the article permanently semi-protected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I think if he keeps reverting I will take it to RFPP, then ANI if that doesn't work — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should the article say in the lead which fringe ideas the WSJ has supported? Should the article say how wonderfully reliable the WSJ is, completely ignoring its spreading of that misinformation? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:APPNOTE. This is not a neutral request. Also why ping this noticeboard vs NPOVN which is the nature of the question. Springee (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a fringe question if the WSJ has promulgated a significant amount fringe material (has it?) in which case this needs to be clear. Fringe is part of NPOV; the best part. Alexbrn (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

And it's been raised at NPOVN too. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted that notification after commenting above. Springee (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about editor behaviour

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please read WP:FRINGE, WP:HOUND, WP:SEALION, WP:LAWYER and everything else beginning with WP. I don't need a reason for telling you to read them. Just read them alredy. I know what you are doing. You are ordering milkshakes. Won't work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here... what is the meaning of this comment? — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The basic meaning is that Springee keeps writing nonsensical responses to my contributions, such as questions he could easily answer himself. It is obvious why the WSJ discussion is relevant for this board - Alexbrn explained it anyway - so the question why ping this noticeboard is just an attempt at occupational therapy for me, aka harassment. The strategy is the same as Andy Ngo uses: provoke people with absurd, irrational and annoying behaviour again and again until they throw milkshakes at him, then play the victim. I know that one should WP:AGF, but the thing with assumptions is, sometimes they are wrong and get refuted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't mean there's no good reason to start by assuming good faith. You should wait until the assumption is refuted, especially since saying someone is acting in bad faith can be interpreted as a personal attack. I'm wondering why you think someone asking why you used this noticeboard, a reasonable thing to ask when there's another venue this could be at, would be considered harassment. Invalid ^OS _talk 12:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You start from the wrong assumptions that everything you can see in this section is everything that happened and that one is only allowed to post to exactly one noticeboard. (Asking accusatory questions the answers to which are obvious is an unfriendly act, and unfriendly acts add up.) I am hatting this offtopic discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

John Gibbs (government official)

John Gibbs (government official) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A former Trump administration official who made "numerous ... tweets supportive of fringe concepts or people." Gibbs' claims, per the sources, included the false claim that a Hillary Clinton advisor engaged in Satanic rituals and other "inflammatory and conspiratorial tweets." There has nevertheless been a concerted effort to try to water down the description to "controversial" and to otherwise soft-peddle what the sources say. More eyes needed here. Neutrality^talk 15:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Is he notable because of these comments, were the comments themselves generally notable, or is it a case of a WP:COATRACK on a minor article? Might be a different answer for each comment. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a biographical article, and these comments (and the reaction to them) were a major episode in his life. He was nominated to a high-level government position, and the nomination failed because of these past comments. [18] [19] [20] [21]. Neutrality^talk 15:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

List of scientific misconduct incidents

List of scientific misconduct incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While tracking some paranormal activity I recently reverted an edit there (I didn't take the time to see if it was legitimate but this criticism exceeded what was at the actual BLP article and was added by an obvious sock, so removed per WP:BE). But this also made me realize how this type of article is problematic. Since it concerns a topic that's important in science I thought I'd notify FTN rather than BLPN. My impression is that we'd generally prefer a main article like scientific misconduct where the most notorious cases can be mentioned, rather than an always-growing list article (that also has potential BLP implications, other than constant issues with inclusion criteria and patrol). I didn't take the time to really check but there's no AfD template at the talk page, it possibly never was discussed yet by the community. Input welcome, —Paleo Neonate – 23:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I immediately searched for Tuskegee Syphilis Study and, on not finding it, think that the article is far from comprehensive and worryingly, perhaps some sort of WP:POVFORK at best. jps (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Which made me think of Josef Mengele, who is also not mentioned. Actually letting people die or killing them in exchange for knowledge is obviously a blind spot of the people who wrote that. Well, it is an order of magnitude worse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Probably because (rightly) its concerned with the ethics of conducting research and publishing, falsification of data etc, not the ethics of "Should this research have been done in the first place?" which would be variable given the time and place it is conducted. This does mean that Mengele slips through (although I agree it misconduct should cover obviously unhumanitarian abuses), but equally if it passed moral judgments, how much stem cell research would be labelled 'misconduct'?

I did a spot check of about 10 random people on that list. The sourcing is all sufficient to justify the *science* was misconducted, eg data falsification/manipulation or plagiarism followed by retractions or sanctions. Its probably worth someone doing the entire list to check however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The title of the list does not lead me to understand that this would be a list of academic scientists who have been accused of research misconduct since 1970, for example. jps (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree that "this research prompted new ethical rules that didn't exist when performed" would make the already arguably unmaintainable list even harder to draw the line. I feel like this is probably better as a category for existing articles, with the notable misconduct already taking up the bulk of said articles about people (ex: Cyril Burt, Joachim Boldt, John Darsee) and particular treatments (ex: High-dose chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant). But many of the incidents either don't have their own article or reference an otherwise non-notable scientist, including the very first entry, which feels like a weak case for WP:LISTCRITERIA. Sure, scientific fraud is a notable topic, but do we really need a collection of every time a kid cheats in the local science fair? If it isn't notable enough for another article, it probably isn't notable enough for an unmaintained list. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Then there's always the issue that categories in relation to BLPs are constanly challenged even when well sourced (all excuses are good), with the technical issue that when linking them there's no associated slot to tie a source to (only the article itself and its sources to verify)... —Paleo Neonate – 16:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: While I agree that would trim the list further, I'm not convinced it's necessarily a bad thing. The instances most worth putting in a category seem relatively unambiguous, including direct references to their misconduct. It's not a case like "conspiracy theorists" categories that have WP:COATRACK fights, as in most cases we can point to authoritative decisions made regarding the misconduct. And, per the sample I looked at, either they aren't notable enough for an article, shouldn't be in the category because it's a WP:COATRACK (the Richard Eastell article and his entry in the list both note he was negligent but didn't engage in actual scientific misconduct, so I removed it), the article already is primarily about the misconduct (Joachim Boldt, Steven A. Leadon), or there's even a section on the topic (John Darsee#Wider misconduct, Andrew Wakefield#Fraud and conflict of interest allegations). I'd rather see maintenance fall on the individual scientist articles themselves, than have things fall through the cracks of a massive list. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the article can meet with broader community approval by restricting inclusion to people with an existing BLP article on enWiki? That would certainly cut down its size and limit the rate of future expansion, and I am willing to begin that editing process. Lastly, although I understand where you are coming from, Bakkster Man, with the "kid cheats in the local science fair" comment, AFAIK all of the misconduct documented in that article is supported by RS, and a great majority of the listed people in that article attached their misconduct directly to research projects/grants totaling millions of dollars. That is of course nothing compared to the crimes of Mengele, but it ain't no children's science fair, either. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax: I'm of course being extreme, but being reliably sourced doesn't necessarily mean notable. And it's not unreasonable to suggest that a science fair project could produce reliable reporting about misconduct, as in this case.[22][23][24] I think we agree that inclusions should be notable enough for their own article (this instance in the list without an article didn't even get barred from grant money). But I also think changing from a list article to a category not only makes enforcing such a restriction easier, but also reduces the possibility of the list being a WP:POVFORK with limited visibility by keeping the discussion of the misconduct on the article about the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Did the Nuclear Boy Scout commit scientific misconduct to earn his Atomic Energy merit badge? What about the professor in Japan who recently published a proof of the ABC conjecture, or the machinations in the Manifold Destiny controversy? As a crimelike designation it should have a certificate, similar to being convicted of a crime, in order to assign someone to the list or category (i.e., in Wikivoice). Retractions are not enough as they frequently result from error not misconduct. Sesquivalent (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't always agree, but I concur here, that a retraction doesn't always mean misconduct, we could expect sources to mention misconduct, like we'd expect them to mention a conviction in the case of a crime. —Paleo Neonate – 16:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all that you wrote in the initial post and consider having almost any variant of this list to be inherently problematic. In addition to the already discussed reasons, misconduct and related allegations are subjective whereas retractions, dismissals, admissions of fraud, and legal proceedings are objective events. So if this type of list or category is to survive I would prefer to organize it around objective indicators, such as "academic firings in the 2010's" rather than some Index Of Wrongdoing. Even that would be hard to do without appearing to imply misconduct in cases that generated the indicators for other reasons (such as error or political pressure). Sesquivalent (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a difference between "Scientific Misconduct" and "Misconduct by Scientists"?

My understanding, and the definition in the Scientific misconduct, is that scientific misconduct is specifically misconduct with the actual handling of scientific data. (Fabrication, Plagiarism, influencing peer review, etc.)

Nobody doubts that the Tuskegee experiments were a horrible form of misconduct, but do they fit that narrow definition of "Scientific Misconduct"? ApLundell (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a magnet for problems. As one omnibus article for all branches of science it would have to be overly long or extremely selective (currently the latter). Even if split into multiple articles there is a demarcation problem. In psychology for example it excludes ~~Cyril Burt~~, Hans Eysenck, and ~~Marc Hauser~~, all of whom were credibly accused of misconduct, but includes Philippe Rushton who was accused of many other things but not scientific misconduct in the normal use of that term. And are accusations enough? For the dead they tend to be controversial and unresolvable, for the living there are BLP restrictions. Without a clear and definite criterion for inclusion it becomes a political battleground of who is and is not included. [Correction: Burt and Hauser are in the list, but under Biomedical Science rather than social science/psychology] Sesquivalent (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(Rushton) Apart from manipulating his students into taking part in his research under the threat of additional work. Thats misconduct by any standard. But lets be fair, there is plenty of criticism specifically about his research and methodology as well as his data analysis. The problem with highly intelligent people is that you can never really credibly claim they didnt know what they were doing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Using students in a class for research is par for the course in psychology, and whether he violated any policy depends on whether the research or the use of students is viewed as illegitimate (Rushton obviously didn't think so). Scientific misconduct refers to falsification of data or fraud, as opposed to sloppiness, writing shoddy but honest papers, unprofessional conduct toward students or other failings other that are (1) relatively common, and (2) concern the quality but not the honesty of the work. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

p.s., a relatively objective indicator that whatever Rushton's sins, they were not considered (scientific) misconduct is that his university never was able to dismiss him. Research malfeasance is always sufficient for that, and in Rushton's case there was outrage and protests at all levels from students to faculty to the provincial governor denouncing him as a racist. Yet he kept his position. Sesquivalent (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with those identifying the page as a problem magnet. I also agree a good first step is to remove entries that aren't associated with a Wikipedia article. If the people aren't notable, listing misconduct or allegations thereof is a BLP vio. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have started that process. I do not believe the page has been a "magnet for problems," or if it has its H-field is quite weak, but BLP issues are certainly paramount. When that weeding process is complete I will review the remaining entries and remove any for which actual misconduct is not explicitly cited/mentioned in the sources (as opposed to, for example, retractions arising from honest errors). Having previously worked on this page I do not anticipate finding many, if any, such entries, but you never know. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Came upon this by semi-coincidence (I'm a frequent reader of the article for new-article ideas and have written articles from it in the past). I respect this is certainly a complex article from a BLP perspective. I have concerns about the height of the threshold being used for omission, and particularly its disparate impact in terms of what topics enwiki does and doesn't cover. A disproportionate number of the removals have been of subjects from non-English-speaking backgrounds/regions, which are notoriously underrepresented on the project as a whole; as this is a list where not-yet-bluelinked subjects often do have sufficient coverage to be notable, this risks having broader knock-on effects on the erasure of notable non-Anglosphere/non-Western subjects. "No enwiki article" is an understandable threshold, but it's both stricter than WP:LISTCRIT necessarily recommends for a list of this limited scope, and one that risks playing into the biases of when subjects do and don't have enwiki articles and stymying their creation. Vaticidalprophet 02:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Restricting diversity is not the goal, of course, and one could argue that adding entries in this list for people who don't yet have an article is not a service to them, considering that this is about misconduct of usually living people... I understand the concern about having a list of people to write about though, certainly an effort could produce and maintain such a list, like as part of a wikiproject (it may exist perhaps? It does for Women in Red for instance and a countering systemic bias WP also exists). —Paleo Neonate – 07:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that this list has limited scope, as it's going to be very difficult to ensure 'completeness' as suggested in the third WP:CSC. I'd also argue that we'd be making the "not enough coverage of non-English language topics" problem worse by expanding notability for "non-English speakers behaving badly". Making the limited coverage more biased is worse than having a smaller amount of balanced coverage. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, at least the well-sourced entries where sources label the incident as misconduct, such as Zhong and Liu et al. should be re-added. I see that an IP user has already restored the entry on C. David Bridges for similar reasons. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Is "quantum artificial intelligence" a real thing?

I've come across an article called Quantum artificial intelligence. Aside from some bizarre SPA edits (which other people have reverted) and weird copy-pastes of other articles into this article (which I've reverted), I find myself rather puzzled at the idea being proposed here. The sources are not very great and they seem to mostly just say the same thing as the article: adding "quantum" to "artificial intelligence" make computer work gooder go faster, ergo "quantum artificial intelligence" is a thing. This source is a simple explanation of what quantum computing is, followed by a vague handwave of "I guess we could use this for artificial intelligence". This abstract alone (perhaps fortunately, I lack journal access) makes me want to bang my intelligence against the quantum. Having previously worked with neural networks, I am aware that people really love to throw spaghetti at the wall with the phrase "artificial intelligence". It seems to me like having a separate article for "quantum artificial intelligence" is somewhat akin to forking off drag racing into a new article titled "really fucking fast drag racing" whose only content is "it's hypothesized that, if cars could go 4,000 miles per hour, and you drag raced them against each other, they would go really fucking fast". I am, however, not able to evaluate whether this article is making meaningful claims about "quantum"; pinging @XOR'easter: to see if there is anything smart going on here. jp×g 09:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Quantum algorithms for machine learning and statistics, at least as a topic in theoretical quantum computing (i.e., as mathematics) is a real thing and is normal academic science, though obviously new and not well developed. Quantum probability exists, quantum statistics (as in a noncommutative form of classical theory of statistical inference, not "statistics" as the word is used in quantum physics) barely exists in the sense that there is a small number of papers, so I would be surprised if there has been a serious attempt to quantize the ideas of something more complicated like AI or machine learning rather than studying the complexity of classical AI/ML problems on a quantum computer. Sesquivalent (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I should add, though, that outside (and sometimes within) the primary literature, quantum computing suffers from a lot of hype, so when you combine that with AI hype it can go supernova. Probably not a lot of usable secondary sources. Sesquivalent (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a colleague at my department who is working on this. She is a mainstream physicist, not a fringe scientist.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm in CS and although quantum computing may be promising, so far it's mostly so for secure key distribution; qbits also permit fast computation but there always remains the bottleneck of configuration and sampling (so theoretically we don't need post-quantum cryptography yet, but it may eventually be required for secure communications and is in the works; for instance all cryptography based on the factoring problem like RSA could suddenly become obsolete). It's not a fringe field in itself, but it has been used as an argument for all kinds of fringe claims. AI has its own problems and similarities. I don't doubt that as quantum computers become more useful it can also be useful to accelerate AI. That said, the brain itself, as far as we know does not require quantum effects for neurology to function the way it does and create the mind. This means that any quantum computing accelerated AI would still not be magic. —Paleo Neonate – 12:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I expect the promise lies in the ability to better optimize problems that are difficult for digital computing, which are likely to be the most beneficial problems for AI. The traveling salesman and wedding banquet seating arrangements being two of the standard examples, with the benefit of finding 'good enough' solutions that might not be 100% optimized being a major advantage. So I doubt the concept itself is fringe, but it might very well lack the secondary coverage indicating its maturity as a notable field (at least, yet). Definitely needs some stronger sources if we keep the article, this one was at least published, and might replace the ArXiV citation.[25] Bakkster Man (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that was formally published, just posted at SSRN. But overall, yes: it's a serious topic [26], though not yet what I'd call a mature one. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thats the general idea but not all the way to NP complete problems. Factoring yes. And things that are classically strange like searching a list in sqrt(N) time. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

QuAIL at Ames. fiveby(zero) 13:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Should probably be redirected to Quantum neural network MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The Arxiv reference in the article looks shaky. The author thinks chess would be easy to play on a quantum computer but (optimal) chess is typical of PSPACE which is beyond the class of problems supposed to be qualitatively expedited by quantum computation. There is already a developed article on quantum machine learning and the more AI specific problems like search and planning are, like chess playing, not necessarily in the class expected to benefit severely from quantum computing. Maybe merge. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The arXiv article has been published; I assume the link to arXiv is given only because it is free to view.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The article presents quantum AI (beyond only machine learning) as a subject that is new but exists. Of the three references, the arxiv paper makes sketchy claims and the other two discuss quantum machine learning as real but quantum AI as an interesting hope for the future. In this respect it looks to me like merging to the quantum ML article could make sense until the additional AI layer actually comes into existence. Sesquivalent (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected it to quantum machine learning. That page is tagged as needing work, but we're probably better off trying to fix up one page than two. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

James Reston

James Reston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One for the medical types: Is the section James Reston#Acupuncture accurate and appropriately written? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes

Editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) and review accompanying recent edits at Mass killings under communist regimes. Levivich 03:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:APPNOTE. This is not an appropriate request for this board. Volunteer Marek 06:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

[coi: nominator's comment] I also considered posting to this board when a mass notification was sent to wikiprojects, mostly eastern European states, because amongst the reasons for deletion that are being contended is the description of the title / scope as a 'fringe view'. Posting to any notice board, just one in this instance, is unlikely to run afoul of the sentiments supporting 'appropriate notification / canvassing' guidelines. ~ cygnis insignis 13:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I partially agree. I don't think the simple app of notifying any project-wide noticeboard can ever by itself be considered canvassing. At worst it might be mostly off-topic but that doesn't make it canvassing IMO, instead the problem is it may clutter up the noticeboard and annoying regular editors. However posting to a notice board can definitely run afoul of the canvassing guidelines if the notification is not neutral. Fortunately that wasn't a problem here, but we just had this problem at BLPN, and ironically the last time I remember complaining about this was also at BLPN. Posting to wikiprojects is IMO much more iffy, it can definitely seem like canvassing depending on the precise selection of wikiprojects. But even then, the good thing is that can be resolved by notifying those wikiprojects which weren't notified. This is one of the problems with non-neutral notifications. There's no real fix. Once it's done the damage is there especially if no one notices for hours or days. Even trying to fix the notification can just attract undesirable debate or attention defeating the purpose of trying to fix it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I should clarify excessive spamming of even neutral notifications to Wikiprojects is sometimes canvassing that is not resolvable by ensuring equitable notifications. For example, if someone spams 50 different Wikiprojects then even if they were biased in the selection and there is justification to notify a small number of highly relevant wikiprojects they missed, it doesn't resolve the issue. However I don't think this really applies with wiki wide noticeboards since there aren't that many and by nature they should have editors with a wide cross-section of views. I mean even if someone posts something to 10 different boards, I'd say in nearly all case this is wrong and they shouldn't do that again but it's still more of a case of irrelevant stuff cluttering up the boards and annoying the community than over any harm to the discussion. (Except perhaps with a minor risk some editors might be annoyed enough with the spam that they won't participate when they otherwise would have.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Gimbutas fringe material being added, sourced to Tank Magazine

By User:Timeismotion [27]. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

They are also adding Joseph Campbell as if he is the premier authority, which isn't a good sign either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Timeismotion's edit history seems to revolve largely around promoting Tao Lin. I suspect that the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard might be a more appropriate place to discuss this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this boils down to promotional refspamming. –Austronesier (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And I've taken Tank (magazine) to RSN. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't be necessary. Fashion magazines are never going to be RS for statements about mythology or religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, while Tank magazine is not a good source, they aren't really being used to prop anything fringe, mostly just undue content. Marija Gimbutas's ideas that of a homogenous matriarchal "Old Europe" are pretty fringe and need to be put in context. The entire first section in the Old Europe (archaeology) is a disaster and has barely any citations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, though it's worth noting that Gimbutas is still held in high regard by the archeology profession despite the problems with her methodology and the fact that much of what she proposed about "Old Europe" remains dubious. Case in point, this memorial lecture at the Oriental Institute streaming live on Dec. 1st: [28]. Even stogy old Colin Renfrew, whose Anatolian hypothesis of Indo-European origins was eventually supplanted by her Kurgan hypothesis, has very flattering things to say about her work: [29]. I was frankly surprised to see that degree of affection in his remarks. Generalrelative (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I just looked at Ruth Tringham's article. It's not very good, mainly written by one person in 2007 with quite a bit of OR and of course out of date. She and Margaret Conkey have criticised Gimbutas quite a bit. This 2016 interview with them is an example. I think they also appreciate her work (as that of an earlier generation) while being critical. It will be interesting to hear her lecture. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for that video, and for pointing out that the Ruth Tringham article needs work. I couldn't agree more with everything they had to say, especially the way they articulate how Gimbutas represents for them the principle that one generation's solutions constitute the next generation's problems, and how that relates to the project of creating a feminist approach to archaeology. Also looking forward to that lecture. Generalrelative (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Jakten på Odin

Jakten på Odin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure about recent deletions. [30]. I found both James Reston and this via Special:Contributions/Atlantisandlemuria. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Christ myth categories

See edits at Category:Christ myth theory and Category:Christ myth theory proponents by the same fringe editor. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The British Edda

AtlantisLemuria also led me to this - the lead is still the lead written by Paul Bedson:"The British Edda is a 1930 English, Sumerian and Egyptian linguistics and mythology book written by Laurence Waddell about the adventures of El, Wodan and Loki forming an "Eden Triad" in the Garden of Eden." @Silver seren: you've done a lot of work on this. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That was basically the one line that existed at all in the article before I got there during the AfD and then I added everything else. I just didn't change that one (feel free to if there's something wrong with it because of Bedson). It's definitely pseudo-history nonsense, but a notable one that influenced a lot of people and is still referred to even in the past 10-20 years, decades after its publication. Silver seren^C 17:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I should probably also note that I have no idea what the heck the thing is about. I did my best to parse the gibberish to write that content section from the reliable sources, but that did not make me any more informed. It's like bad fan fiction from someone who didn't even know any of the histories involved. Silver seren^C 17:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Two LDS articles I haven't seen before full of fringe

Joseph Smith Hypocephalus - a number of unreliable sources, including something at blogger.com and several citations to lightplanet. The first source, Rhodes, says on I think the first page "In this spirit, I have attempted to relate the current Egyptological understanding of Facsimile 2 with the revealed truths of the restored gospel."[31] It's even in the category "Egyptian papyri containing images".

Then there's Phrenology and the Latter Day Saint movement.

List of references to seer stones in the Latter Day Saint movement history is weird but maybe ok. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The Phrenology one is about a fringe topic, Phrenology. It's okay to have articles about phrenology, Bigfoot, crop circles, etc. On first glance it seems to be largely structured and based on credible modern scholarly sources, with older/primary sources used as supplementary references. The 'gallery of phrenology readings' however should probably be removed and relegated to Commons per WP:GALLERY. I don't see the article as promoting phrenology or fringe views, but fringeophobic editors may disagree. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Pointing out problems with articles is helpful. Pointing out non-problems, not so much. So, your first two sentences, waste of space.

Poisoning the well, are we? "Agree with me, or else you are suffering from a malady I just invented!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have constructive comments or opinions, please state them here or raise issues on respective Talk pages. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As usual it's technical: cleanup the article avoiding unreliable sources including primary that are not evaluated by secondary sources if controversial and material that is mostly a result of synthesis (WP:SYNTH, i.e. various sources there are about the history of the main topic and unrelated to the fringe claims of that group), verify if a valid spinoff (WP:SPINOFF or WP:NPOVVIEW), or perhaps if material considered undue at the main articles and created elsewhere (WP:DUE, WP:POVFORK, WP:MNA); alternatively, is it's only a stray article, that could perhaps be converted to a proper spinoff, or merged (if anything remains)... —Paleo Neonate – 09:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Mehmet Oz

New interest in the article because of his running for Pennsylvania’s open U.S. Senate seat. Lots of pressure to remove or minimize the fringe nature of his claims. --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Too much like US politics for me to want to touch it, but surely given the circumstances this is where ECP can help mitigate what is likely to be a drama-fest. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate DS to the talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

And semi-protection, which has to come before ECP. This isn't the first time it's been protected. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Edict of Milan

This is about [32], and about the claim of Constantine making Christianity the state religion. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Abraham

This is about Talk:Abraham#Infobox character and [33]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

They blame me because the s*** has hit the fan, but in reality I'm only drawing a logical conclusion, I have only put the finishing touch to what Abraham#Historicity claims for a long time.

A RfC is taking place at Talk:Abraham#RfC on infobox type. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Isaiah 7:14

This is about almah does not mean "virgin" at [34]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll chime in, but you won't like what I have to say (a warning). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: AFAIK, almah means virgin is academically fringe. Correct me if I am wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I would generally agree with that! The issue is that the Septuagint, an important pre-Christian source (I am assuming you're familiar, but for others), unequivocally uses the Greek "parthenos" to translate "almah." So it's a bit more nuanced than yay or nay -- at least to the Jews of Alexandria, in the first few centuries B.C., almah did indeed mean something like "virgin." I'm digging through my old scholarly sources now to see if there's something I can cite, but I am old and my sources are older. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Parthenos gets a lot of discussion in the article. This is not about the Greek word parthenos, it is about the Hebrew word almah. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Understood, but what I am saying is that a major pre-Christian version authored by Jews equates the two words. Thus, for me, something like "virgin in some translations" is probably warranted. Dumuzid (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Except almah means and almah got translated as are two different issues. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Granted, but "means" is hardly a static concept, especially when dealing with a text with many layers and thousands of years of history. I don't think almah means "virgin," as there is another perfectly good word for that, and the other uses don't really make sense (parading with David, e.g.). But the authors of the Septuagint seemed to think it meant something close to that. While it's not quite hapax legomenon, we can't say with any definitive authority what 'almah' means. So while I don't think "virgin" is a good translation, I can't rule it out, and it definitely was the understood meaning for a group of pre-Christian Jews. As such, I would vote for epistemic humility: maybe. That's just me. Dumuzid (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If DarrellWinkler wants to state almah got translated as virgin: okay, no objection, it is true and accurate. If he wants to state almah means virgin: that's fringe. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, we can't say "it means virgin." We definitely don't know that for sure (and again, I doubt it). Dumuzid (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I see your point, but then for 99% of "facts" about ancient history, we would write something like Caesar probably crossed the Rubicon. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, apologies, as you dug up an old hobby-horse of mine; but you're right. I guess I'd simply say a definitive statement either way is unwarranted. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Yup, as Bart Ehrman and Francesca Stavrakopoulou state time after time, ancient history is about what probably happened. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont know if this qualifies as a "fringe" source or not, but hes a published Greek linguistics professor: In the final analysis the word "alma", in ancient biblical Hebrew signified an "adolescent girl who had never known a man" - Christophe Rico Professor of General Linguistics; Semantics, Greek Linguistics; Greek koinè; Greek New Testament; Theory of translation and pedagogy of ancient languages, Dean of Polis Institute [35] DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have access to the full source? I can't seem to find it. I would want to see the context, especially as the author (an expert in Ancient Greek) seems to be relying on others. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Co-auhtor: Peter J. Gentry, who is a Christian fundamentalist.

@Dumuzid: just type "adolescent girl who had never known a man" (including quote marks) at the Google Books search box. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, it worked that time (before I was getting "preview unavailable"). Even he hedges it a bit, saying that sometimes "youth" was emphasized, sometimes "virginity". Given the weight of uncertainty and scholarly tsuris over this, I still don't think we can say "almah means virgin." I would go with something like the proposed "has been translated as virgin" or the like. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe the hedge you are referring to is his description of the evolution of the words usage, how after the second century Hebrew scholars emphasized "youth" and de-emphasized "virgin" in theological debates with early Christians. I think "has been translated as virgin" would be adequate to encompass all significant POV's. Oh, and thank you for taking the time to chime in. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Gentry is the translator, not a co-author .. at any rate, what does it matter if he is a fundamentalist? If we are to reject the work of fundamentalists, would we have to reject the work of Jews and secularists? DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It means that if Gentry admits that the Bible has the slightest error, he gets fired ASAP. He wouldn't be neither the first, nor the last to get fired for that. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: You can view the conclusion section of the book, but much of the other content is not available for preview. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Rico says himself he is fringe: Despite the consensus about the general meaning of the word `alma (page 6 on Google Books). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a great deal more to that snippet than what you presented. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph just above makes clear what the scholarly consensus is. Rico tells himself he acts against WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC states that "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view" .... So you are arguing Rico is a reliable all be it fringe source? DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, Rico is WP:RS for the claim that he acts against the academic consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be more than fair to include Rico as the minority position and attribute it as such. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

He is not a sizeable minority, he is outright fringe. The Mother of the Infant King, Isaiah 7:14: alma and parthenos in the World of the Bible: a Linguistic Perspective is a WP:RS for the claim that The Mother of the Infant King, Isaiah 7:14: alma and parthenos in the World of the Bible: a Linguistic Perspective is WP:FRINGE. Case closed. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

He certainly represents a sizeable minority including "fundamentalists". Since this is a sizeable minority, it must be presented in the article. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I agree: only Bible thumpers would agree with him. By our book Bible thumpers are fringe. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You really need to lay off the insults. DarrellWinkler (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Fundamentalists are not mainstream Bible scholars. Fundamentalists are WP:FRINGE, whether you like it or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You are representing Fundamentalists as biblical literalists, while there is overlap they are not the same thing. DarrellWinkler (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Whatever you say and whatever I say, fundamentalists will remain fringe as Bible scholars. The only exception I know of is Daniel B. Wallace. Why? Because he never touches in his mainstream academic works issues of biblical infallibility. Ehrman declared it a safe field at https://ehrmanblog.org/why-textual-criticism-is-safe-for-conservative-christians/

Even if I wished that sources written by fundamentalists were generally considered WP:RS, my wish is not enough to change the ways of Wikipedia. So, it is not just my person which find fault with such sources, but the whole Wikipedia Community, as manifest in policies and guidelines. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Point for the transliteration nerds: I find it slightly odd that Rico is fastidious about using the apostrophe to represent the glottal stop of the ayin in עַלְמָה but is apparently completely content to ignore the he. Different strokes, I suppose! Dumuzid (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The Hebrew Bible definitely doesn't use the word parthenos - it's in Hebrew. Almah definitely didn't mean virgin (it meant a young woman who had yet to give birth - the ancient Jews were concerned with the contribution a 12 year old female would make to the family and took her virginal status for granted). The LXX does use the word parthenos, and it does mean virgin, as the Greeks felt this was important. And Matthew, Yahweh bless him, made up his own translation. Achar Sva (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The Greeks didnt write (and translate) the LXX, the Jews did. DarrellWinkler (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Graphene hydroxide?

Firstly, apologies if this is not the correct venue for such a discussion - if it should be continued somewhere else, please let me know.

Apparently [36] the latest conspiracy theory is that the COVID vaccine contains "Graphene Hydroxide", a deadly substance which will doubtless convert everyone it doesn't kill into minions of Beelzebub, or something. Graphene hydroxide doesn't exist, neither does carbon hydroxide, but there is a theoretical substance Orthocarbonic acid with the chemical formula C(OH)₄ which might meet that description. Would creating a redirect from Carbon hydroxide to Orthocarbonic acid be a good idea to stave off any potential inquiries? Tevildo (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but note that dihydroxymethylidene also exists as a free radical :C(OH)₂. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Orthocarbonic acid is the only (inorganic) carbon compound mentioned at Hydroxide - perhaps a redirect hatnote ("For the :C(OH)₂ free radical, see dihydroxymethlidine") would be appropriate. Although, the sort of person who is going to give credence to the theory is unlikely to know that graphene is an allotrope of carbon, so the point may be moot. Tevildo (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Then I'll do it anyway. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added the hatnote. Tevildo (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Race and intelligence again at Talk:The Bell Curve

As usual, more grown-ups in the room would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm too far out of the loop nowadays, its been a decade and a half since I read Bell Curve and Mismeasure of Man. Do we have any applicable consensus (RFC, or otherwise) on the topics at hand, namely the relation of IQ to intelligence/'cognitive ability' and race to genetics? I've got my own perspective on the matter, but what matters is scientific consensus (with WP following from that).

But yeah, comments like "The fact is that, as measured by IQ, blacks are on average less intelligent than whites" throw up a ton of red flags for me. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've kept out of this subject area by and large but haven't we reached the point where a few WP:PROFRINGE editors are causing disproportionate drama? Probably best to WP:DENY them and revert any bad edits rather than indulge their evident desire for ballooning talkpage threads that go nowhere. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Part of my comment above is determining if we have an unambiguous consensus that "IQ is an absolute measure of intelligence" or "some races are less intelligent, because that's what IQ tests say" are fringe views, rather than mainstream. The less ambiguity, the easier to address the topic as a whole. Wishful thinking, I'm sure...

Arguably, in some cases "intelligence" and "cognitive ability" are MOS:WTW, having been defined by different people in different ways. For instance, when IQ is tautologically defined as intelligence (or vice versa), or cognitive ability is used in place of intelligence to try and hide meaning ("this race isn't less intelligent, they just have reduced cognitive ability"). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue of whether IQ can be used as a valid proxy for intelligence is discussed at Intelligence quotient#Validity as a measure of intelligence. I'm not aware of any past RfCs on the matter but the section has been largely stable since I created it back in June of 2020. Two top-quality sources there make clear the mainstream view on the matter:

IQ tests are valid measures of the kind of intelligence necessary to do well in academic work. But if the purpose is to assess intelligence in a broader sense, the validity of IQ tests is questionable.[37]
and to base a concept of intelligence on test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability.[38]

The latter of these is Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, a comprehensive review published by the APA specifically in response to The Bell Curve.

If there is a need to establish a more robust consensus on the matter, I would happily engage in that here so that hopefully the pro-fringe editors over at Talk:The Bell Curve can be safely denied, and we can definitively reject the WP:RACISTBELIEFS being trotted out there. But without some kind of additional support, these very committed POV-pushers are not likely to give up their efforts to state in Wikivoice that black people are intellectually inferior to white people anytime soon. Generalrelative (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The first source is a book used in high school intro classes, written by a nonexpert.

Anyway, both quotations are about IQ measures for individuals, and are not nearly as applicable to the present discussion of group differences. Yes, IQ differences between individuals, unless large and repeatable, don't necessarily mean very much, don't encompass all that is meant by intelligence, and the SKYISBLUE. But a 10 or 15 point IQ difference on average between large groups is very meaningful -- Palo Alto versus Podunk.

Additional dimensions of intelligence are nice but don't change anything unless there is some reason to suppose they could wipe out or reverse the difference if included (with appropriate weight according to their importance or predictive power). Since the more influential factors tend to be discovered first, the natural expectation is for new dimensions to have lower weight, which would require very large differences, such as 20 or 30 points or much more, in the opposite direction to fully compensate the differences on the currently utilized dimensions that make up IQ and g. In other words, there would need to be measures that don't correlate with IQ test batteries, do contain strong predictive information, and show a gigantic reversal of the original group difference. If there is no reason to suspect such a thing, such as amazing specialized mental skills found in the lower scoring group at which they consistently dominate others (the intellectual equivalent of Kenyan marathoners or Nepalese sherpas), the uncertainties you are trying to support with the quotations are wishful thinking rather than "the mainstream view". Sesquivalent (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

At this point I highly recommend leaving a brief message at WP:ANI. This is disruptive WP:CPUSH. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestion. Pretty sure there would be a greater chance of remedy if someone less involved than myself were to take up the task (for anyone not following the ongoing drama at ArbCom, I'm currently being accused of conspiracy or something over there by members of this group). Generalrelative (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You were accused of tag team editing, which is also in the purview of ANI. Sesquivalent (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The issues there are being misrepresented here. Wikipedia RfCs decree that genetic race differences in intelligence are to be treated as fringe and that such is supposedly the scientific consensus. The point that has now come up at the Bell Curve talk page in connection with the lede of the article is a similar sounding claim that is an entirely different kettle of fish in its level of acceptance; it is the standard mainstream view, not fringe. Namely, the claim that there are differences in intelligence (irrespective of whether or not they have to do with genetics) between groups when there are large gaps in IQ and g scores between them. On that there is near unanimity among experts, i.e., that the score differences reflect real group differences, in the same way that differences in numerical concepts like total assets or years of schooling reflect, on average, real differences in fuzzier concepts like "wealth" and "education", provided the differences on the numeric indicator are large. This is not a controversial point at all in psychometrics, though it may have been one several decades ago, and it refers to observed ability at the time of testing, not innate potential or genetics which are the subject of controversy and WP:FRINGE determinations. Some of the editors who consider themselves anti fringe crusaders in this space are having a violent reaction to this information or maybe just the wording of it by some of the commenters. But as information, it is what it is. Sesquivalent (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That is not what the issue is at Talk:The Bell Curve. The issue is whether to keep the word purported in the phrase purported connections between race and intelligence. The word purported does not imply that what follows is necessarily fringe, but it implies that it's opinion rather than fact. In this case there's no clear definition of the vague terms connection (can mean either correlation, causal connection, or something else), race (a social construct, according to RS), or intelligence (also a contested term). Claims of a connection between race and intelligence, whatever the speaker means by it, are usually made for the purpose of promoting one race and disparaging another one. It all depends on what you want to look at. Racial hereditarians love IQ tests. But someone could plausibly claim that the proportion of anti-vaxx covidiots in a population group is a good measure of group intelligence (or rather lack thereof). By that measure Blacks in the US are more intelligent than whites, and especially white Republicans. NightHeron (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

We are not talking here at FTN because of the word "purported". We are here because in the course of discussing that word, a user or two discussed group IQ differences as differences in intelligence (the real thing, not IQ), another user or two became hostile, at which point the psychometric facts of life were explained to the crusaders. Those facts and whether they can be talked about are the issue here and now. Personally, as I wrote at the Talk page thread, I am against rubbing the reader's nose in this stuff in articles when it can be reasonably avoided. But I do not at all support this current posting spree (though canvassing at NONAZIS was epic) calling for crackdowns both on particular individuals and allowed content on talk pages. Sesquivalent (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Since one of the WP:CPUSH gang has arrived to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion, I'm going to WP:DENY from here on out per Alexbrn's suggestion. If anyone would like to take up FormalDude's recommendation I would of course support that. Generalrelative (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I've hatted the discussion; it seems to clearly be focused on advancing a fringe POV. This and this in particular seem unambiguous (note particularly The authors make clear they think genetics likely makes some unknown contribution—but they're exquisitely clear that they do not claim it does and no one who accepts that IQ tests have even basic validity claims that blacks don't have lower average intelligence than whites—they simply euphemize it, as do Turkenheimer, et al. in acknowledging as a "deficit in cognitive ability", followed by the response of They were anathematized for purporting something controversial. You are right that purported "likelihood" (of genetic influence on...) is the most accurate. Obviously describing the view of purported "likelihood" (of genetic influence on...[intelligence]) as being anathematized falls squarely afoul of WP:PROFRINGE - note particularly that the argument that their views on a genetic link between race and intelligence are being unfairly stigmatized and suppressed is common among people pushing that particular fringe POV. I suggest taking them to WP:ANI or WP:AE if it continues; those two comments alone are probably enough to justify a topic ban for both of them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, fully support the hat. ––FormalDude

^talk 09:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"purported likelihood of ..." is a nearly exact description of what is in the book and anathema(tized), vilified, ostracized etc are common descriptions of the fallout, by writers of all political stripes. That such vilification is unfair is not something I wrote or implied, and instigating an ANI case on personal powers of mindreading to know better what I "really" meant will not play well. All that I posted in the thread is mainstream in psychology, and what the other two editors were objecting to (i.e., saying, implying or creating ambiguity around the idea that large IQ differences might have nothing to do with real intelligence) is a FRINGE position. The reason for the current drama is that Generalrelative was unaware of how fringe it is and how mainstream the opposite assertion is about differences in realized (not innate) intelligence. It would be easy to provide additional quotations, limited to anti hereditarian sources if you like, to support this point. Sesquivalent (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Lawrence Pazder

Lawrence Pazder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Author of Michelle Remembers. I don't know what to make of today's edits by User:Autismondrugs. Looks a bit like threading into the highway on training wheels. May merit watching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Me neither, but I reverted their second wave of edits for disrupting the lead (again), including by breaking the infobox. The first edit summary after being revered by ClueBot NG (talk · contribs) doesn't look good... –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The "Among us VR edition" addition to the infobox makes me suspect that this is a troll. Also the username is a potential violation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

User has been indeffed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

And the edits were a copyvio. Wouldn't have guessed that, given how little sense they made. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Herman Cain

Herman Cain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does the Herman Cain Award "celebrate" the deaths of antivaxxers and antimaskers from COVID-19? One source says it does. Does that mean Wikipedia should use the word? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not convinced the "Herman Cain Award" should even be in his bio at all, doesn't seem to pass WP:10YT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY surely applies. Irrelevant to the biography, relevant to some other corner of the 'pedia. jps (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd think it might go the other way, the 'award' being named for him being the notable part on the bio, but not necessarily generally notable. Not sure the use of "celebrate" in wikivoice is fringe per-se, but I would agree it's going to be better to attribute it as a critique. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody said the use of word was fringe. The dead people including Cain were fringe proponents, which is why this is relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not fringe, but it is also pop-culture-cruft-y. It's a part of reddit culture and there are probably enough cites to shunt it off to some article that discusses it and the Darwin awards, for example. jps (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is not something that should be in the article at all. It violates BLP as it would be very contentious to associate him with forum posters who are gloating. It's also questionable if it has weight for inclusion in the article at all given the large public profile of Cain vs the limited sources that discuss this. Springee (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a BLP violation (specifically the 'L' part doesn't apply, which is sort of the whole point of the award), but I agree that putting this in his bio is out of WP:PROPORTION with its relative insignificance. The analog is the so-called Darwin Awards, which have become an internet meme but nonetheless not something mentioned on Charles Darwin's page, nor should it be. Agricolae (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

BLP applies to recently deceased as well. I tend to think it would apply in this case. But your point stands regardless. I think we both agree that WP:PROPORTION (like many I say WEIGHT when I should say WP:PROPORTION) is suspect even if BLP didn't apply. The fact that BLP could apply is yet another reason to remove. Springee (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it per consensus here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

While I support the removal, its probably best to establish consensus on the Talk page of the article in question, if for no other reason than easier record keeping and reducing uncertainty in future arguments. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

JFK-UFO conspiracy theories

Is JFK-UFO conspiracy theories really a thing? The article has several problematic features involving WP:OR, WP:IRI, and WP:FRIND, but more importantly it isn't clear the topic merits a stand-alone enWiki page. Comments? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Jeez. No, 'conspiracy theorists will write bollocks about anything to sell books' doesn't merit an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Are they really a thing in the world? I am sad to report they truly are. My quick read of this article, however, is that is is a giant batch of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and while it includes not terrible general comments about both the history of the UFO phenomenon and JFK conspiracy theories, I am not seeing a lot that says it should be an article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I see one [39] ~~or two~~ sources in the article re JFK/UFOs that could justify a sentence or two in UFO conspiracy theories. All the rest is WP:OR padding in an attempt to make the topic appear notable enough for a stand alone article. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The two pictures "President Kennedy" and "Purported UFO", just drily thrown on top of each other, are quite funny. All that is missing is three more pictures.

And the text is the same: Explain Kennedy assassination in one paragraph, explain UFO in another one - two subjects for the price of one article! And then "Wacko 1 made this connection between those two subjects. Wacko 2 made that one. Wacko 3 made this one." Pretty hilarious, but more parody than Wikipedia material. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

~~Any day I see Bat Boy referenced is a good day in my book. Thanks for that! Cheers.~~ Dumuzid (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The article JFK-UFO conspiracy theories has been nominated for deletion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting source for Mormon archaeology

"Archaeology, Mormonism, and the Claims of History" The author, Charles Nuckolls, is a professor at BYU now I believe, but was also at Emory.[40]. Seems an rs. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Postmodernism

Postmodernism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Skeptical Inquirer is not a reliable source for philosophy or critical theory" no, but is is a reliable source for ideas that are full of bull. Are those deletions justified? Anybody more familiar with this subject? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Homayun Sidky is an academic and wandering a bit out of his field here--which is anthropology--but he also does a lot with the theory of anthropology which necessarily borders on more general discussions of the theory of science. See this, for instance:[41]. It's not a paper in a philosophy journal, but I would probably !vote to keep it in. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question [42] looks good to me, and I agree with the rationale. Postmodernism is only "full of bull" when it is misconstrued as anti-science. (As a side note, I had the privilege of discussing this very question with Bruno Latour several years ago, as well as with Hugh Mellor who was one of the more prominently anti-pomo philosophers of the past several decades.) For anyone who'd like an accessible intro to the topic, I'd suggest this essay in Philosophy Now. Generalrelative (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole article seems like it was written by Stephen Hicks as it currently stands. There's a lot of work to be done on it - but one of the first orders of business is to clear out bad faith "criticisms" from people who clearly haven't done the reading. Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Also I find it very amusing that there's people who think Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida constitute fringe figures. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Everyone has blind spots. For all his bluster against Derrida, for instance, Hugh Mellor was a sweet and brilliant man who taught me a lot. It seems to me that most mainstream philosophers of the current generation are largely over the cleavage between analytic and continental traditions that dominated much of 20th-century discourse. Generalrelative (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

For better or worse, I guess. But, man, do I find continental philosophers insufferable. Sometimes we have "interdisciplinary colloquia" where they try to talk about what physicists don't know about time and I die a little on the inside. And if someone tells me to read Heidegger one more time...! jps (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That does sound insufferable, but I don't think someone like Karen Barad would put you through that. Which is why I'd suggest it's probably best not to put all continental philosophers in that basket. Generalrelative (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Just putting in a good word for reading Heidegger. The hermeneutic circle was a real mind bender for me, in the best possible way. Other things are more problematic, however....cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A lot of people in the anglophone world learn about the hermeneutic circle through Heidegger but he really wasn't the originator of the idea. The concept was developed by Wilhelm Dilthey (based on earlier ideas of Friedrich Schleiermacher) and later meaningfully expanded by Hans-Georg Gadamer. In my personal view, Heidegger didn't make any meaningful contributions to philosophy at all, but that view is controversial. Generalrelative (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You're certainly ahead of me, and I was aware there were antecedents, but for someone whose German was never much above "barely functional," Heidegger in translation was the most accessible portal I had! Still, happy to defer. Dumuzid (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Everybody becomes a "fringe figure" when they wander outside their area of expertise and leave fringe garbage there: Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Fred Hoyle, Ivar Giaever are cases in point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

when it is misconstrued as anti-science Well, thing is: if you would ask a cat if it is anti-mouse, it would say, no, to the contrary, I love them! Mice are great, especially the taste and the noises they make when you bite into them. The mice will say yes, of course.

I have to get this off my chest, so, here goes, even if I am preaching to the choir.

Philosophers of science and sociologists of science do not understand science. By which I mean, when anorganic chemists read a paper about biochemistry, they will often be stumped and unable to tell whether the reasoning is sound. Nobody can tell me that a philosopher or sociologist will fare any better, unless they have changed fields from biochemistry. The same applies to other fields. If one could understand any scientific field just by studying sociology or philosophy, universities would only need sociology or philosophy degree programs, and all the rest could be scrapped. After you get your sociology degree, you can decide if you want to be an architect, an astronomer, or a brain surgeon.

So, when trying to find out what science is, how it works, and why one theory has beaten another in the battlefield of ideas, they will often be unable to judge the science itself. There are three solutions to that: learn, ignore or fantasize.

They can try to understand the meaning by asking a specialist to explain it. Good idea!
They can ignore the actual science altogether and instead concentrate on the things they do understand: which scientist has which social circumstances, ideological leanings, and role models; who has power over who; who lives in which society with which ideological landscape. Of course those things do play a role too, but without judging the validity of the science itself, this is like the story of the drunk who loses his key at night in one place and searches for it in another place, because that other place is well-lit. This is the way the Strong programme chose. Every competent scientist can see that Bloor's symmetry axiom the same types of explanations are used for successful and unsuccessful knowledge claims alike is a really, really bad rookie mistake: fixing the result before starting the research. "You found that good science is more successful than bad science? Wrong result, try again until the explanations for success and failure are the same!" Did no sociologist ever notice this? If someone did: why is this thing not widely used as a prime example how not to do it? Maybe they all think there is no such thing as a rookie mistake because of the results of the Strong Programme: there is not good or bad science.
Or they can re-interpret the language of the scientific writings. This strategy leads to Leviathan and the Air Pump, and it is like Athanasius Kircher reading hieroglyphs: his translations are pure fantasy.

If pomos want to be taken seriously by scientists, they need to make it very clear that they are beyond solution 2 and 3 now. This implies distancing themselves from those, not just calling them strawmen. They were really used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hail, fellow brute quantitative empirical reductionist! There are some limitations on the sociological self awareness of people doing the daily grind, that some sort of sustained distancing from the community and study of its true history (among other preconditions) is necessary to overcome, but yes: an outsider without the internal understanding can never reach full enlightenment and will constantly miss the point. Basically creating a pseudohistory to replace the Whig or victors' history. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer is certainly a valid source for criticism on specific types of reasoning, as that’s part of their core purpose. In this case I’d be inclined to support restoring the text in question. I’ve done so under BRD, though I’m not sure about the blockquote portion (which doesn't really address reasoning) and would be fine with leaving it out. The description of Latour is more relevant, in my opinion, and is probably an important topic that should be sourced from elsewhere as well. Latour's original work is here, and the subject has even been picked up by the press [43].

Also, a previous FTN discussion about this article is at this link. The other participants from that discussion, excluding those who have already commented here, are Crossroads and XOR'easter. Sunrise (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration. Regarding postmodern philosophy in general, while there may be some good stuff there, frankly sometimes fringe anti-science is coming from inside ~~the house~~ academia. I am always inclined to give vastly more weight on various subjects to the scientists who study it with experimentation, quantification, and falsifiability than to a few academics who see everything as social constructs and say we need to add other ways of knowing, etc. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The question here appears to me to be whether those few academics who see everything as social constructs should be taken to represent "postmodernism". I would argue that the majority of the people whose job it is to know what postmodernism is reject that understanding of the term, though I suppose we could quibble about whose job it is to know this. If the question were instead whether philosophers (postmodern or otherwise) are more reliable on scientific matters than actual scientists, the answer would obviously be "no". So we're certainly in agreement about that. Generalrelative (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue here, and this is an issue quite evident in this thread, is that almost none of the critics who go after postmodernism are actually particularly versant in the discipline, its aims or even which books are well regarded within philosophy as a discipline. As an example: the philosophy of science in The Postmodern Condition is garbage. But do you know who was one of the principal exponents of that opinion? The author of that book. And even among people who read and like Lyotard it's widely recognized as just about the least valuable thing he ever wrote, whereas his work in Libidinal Economy - which was principally within his wheelhouse of the intersection of economics, psychoanalysis and semiotics has some value both as a literary work and as an academic text. Being somewhat less controversial, Foucault's work on epistemology is broadly misunderstood by science-fans who have only encountered Foucault via his critics (notably Hicks) and frankly Stephen Hicks is broadly derided for his failure to engage with, let alone understand, Foucault's epistemological work. This has led to the laughable assertion among Foucault's critics that he believed science to be entirely socially contingent and devoid of truth-value rather than his actual argument that the material circumstances that allow for the formation of a system of truth-finding are socially contingent and that systems of truth-finding tend to be logically complete and consistent within the bounds of the material circumstances they arise within. Frankly if the rational skeptic movement were closer to Hume in their skepticism they might be able to effectively engage with postmodernism as a mode of discourse since it is fundamentally a skeptical mode. Instead it tends to get caught up in the oh-so-anglosphere assumption not that absolute truth exists but that it can be attained by people. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

And as for Derrida, I think this was brought up somewhere in one of my conversations on postmodernism somewhere by another wkipedian, but Derrida was done dirty by his critics [44] Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

[A]lmost none of the critics who go after postmodernism are actually particularly versant in the discipline, its aims or even which books are well regarded within philosophy as a discipline. Depressingly true. And it's not made better by the fact that it's far easier to gin up controversy and win an audience by attacking strawmen of "cultural Marxist deconstructionist relativists" than it is to sift through the actual history of ideas. XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. I've raised Lyotard, Derrida and Foucault as my three exemplars in this conversation because I've read all three and they're either well known or historically significant to the term but across those three authors there's several hundred significant works in the forms of books, major essays and transcribed lectures. Foucault's work in particular but also Derrida's also depend on a lot of reading in philosophy, history, political economy and (in Derrida's case) theology in order to have an entrypoint into their arguments. Dismissing the whole field because Lyotard wrote a book with some bad philosophy of science is frustrating to say the least. I mean before getting into "postmodern" philosophy of science I'd suggest it might be good that people at least be familiar with Difference and Repetition and The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque - in addition to Birth of the Clinic. I say this not to lionize Foucault and Deleuze but rather to draw a circle around the point that an understanding of these sorts of text is necessary just to actually know what these people were saying at all. The criticism coming out of the American and British rational skeptic movement largely misses these or grudgingly says "yeah well Deleuze was really more of an analytic philosopher rather than a postmodernist." But that just becomes No True Scotsman. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that there are some critiques of postmodernism coming from certain empiricists which fall flat, just as vice-versa (though it seems to me that these days there is far less of the latter than the former). For me, the historical legacy of the Sokal affair has been its inspiration for the grievance studies affair which has made me re-evaluate what I think went on when Sokal wrote his paper. Trolling isn't an effective critique and the fall-out from the breaching experiment approach has been more a recognition that scholarship needs to be conducted honestly. Taking advantage of the editorial largess of a different discipline is unethical practice, and criticizing an idea without engaging with it seriously is academic malpractice. jps (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll just add a couple points to this conversation: the so-called laughable assertion that Foucault believed science to be entirely socially contingent and devoid of truth-value is something that I've seen being taught and professed not by critics of Foucault, but by people who consider themselves scholars of his work. So, even if it wasn't something in which he believed, it seems to be something that can be derived from an honest reading of his work. And claiming that the folks from the grievance studies failed to "engage with the disciplines" where they published their papers is a laughable assertion. Now that is something I have to assume comes from someone who doesn't know what they did, and only read what their critics wrote of it. VdSV9•♫ 15:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I read what they did. It's a shoddy scholarship and did not even prove what they claimed it proved. Small wonder Lindsay thought it legitimate to change his politics on this basis. When you're an intellectual lightweight, it's pretty common to think you're the smartest one in the room. jps (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Irreversible Damage#Undue Weight

The book this article is about is part of the Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy. Editors at the talk page are discussing whether or not it's appropriate to describe ROGD as 'fringe', and if not, what descriptor to use. Firefangledfeathers 13:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

"Fringe" has an internal Wikipedia use as a technical term of art, as in the title of this noticeboard, but to the general public it has enough pejorative connotations to make it generally inappropriate to use in article space in almost all circumstances. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This is one of those instances where reliable sources on the topic actually use the term, however. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a single academic source doing so has been presented, and multiple sources from WPATH pointedly not describing it that way have been presented. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

For context the sentence is The book endorses the contentious concept of rapid onset gender dysphoria where the disagreement is between using contentious and fringe as a descriptor of the concept. The major source used to support fringe is this, with this being the position statement from WPATH. Aircorn (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Not even that source claimed to support it uses the term, as can be seen from the full-text download on the author's website here. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Also for context, the only clinical study into the theory carried out to date found no support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of “ROGD” during adolescence and [a]mong adolescents under age 16 seen in specialized gender clinics, associations between more recent gender knowledge and factors hypothesized to be involved in ROGD were either not statistically significant, or were in the opposite direction to what would be hypothesized. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Can fringe journals be used to support non-fringe content?

General questions: Can "in-universe" or "fringe" periodicals like Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Homeopathy or the Townsend Letter be used to verify non-biomedical facts such as biographical information of prominent practitioners, or the history of a branch of alternative medicine? And similarly, if a subject has extensive coverage in alternative medicine literature, but rather less in "mainstream" literature, could it be appropriate to draw from alternative medicine literature as significant minority views, observing WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE of course. Or is it assumed that alternative medicine literature is inherently unreliable and fringe POV-pushing in any use? --Animalparty! (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this would be something that would have to be discussed on a case by case basis. Do you have any specific examples in mind? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Think it'd be fine. If the point is that such-and-such person died on such-and-such date. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it can be okay, but probably needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. At the Oasis of Hope Hospital, for example, the Townsend Letter is used to detail some of the quack therapies that have been offered. Alexbrn (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems that like for WP:ABOUTSELF common sense can be used. If the result is promotion or how-to, or if it's to support rants against people (not WP:BLPRS), it should be avoided... It's also still possible to WP:ATTRIBUTE despite these precautions. Then again, when only those sources can be found with the material, it's often an indication of WP:UNDUE. —Paleo Neonate – 06:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Ip edits could use a check

An editor using at least 63.142.197.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 63.142.197.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has a worrying pattern of of pushing fringe theories about psychiatry and other subjects, eg repeatedly claiming that The War of the Worlds radio boardcast a psychological experiment when. Much of their edits have been cleaned up and articles repaired but their other edits could use a check from someone with more experience with this sort of thing.2001:8003:34A3:800:B4B7:902C:5333:4053 (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It was a psychological experiment, just not a voluntary/aware one. It was an unintended experiment. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope that's not the definition of an experiment. That's open-and-shut a case study. And regardless, the claim being peddled appears to be that it was an intentional experiment. I'll have a skim through their edits. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright it appears that their specific deal is about psych and history, particularly psychological warfare. They made a lot of edits to the unconventional warfare article that I don't really have the expertise to handle. There's a bunch of other assorted history edits that I don't have enough knowledge of. By the way, you'll never guess what side they fall on regarding Water fluoridation in the United States. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they're editing from at least this range of IPs: Special:Contributions/63.142.197.0/24 --Xurizuri (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:8800:3136:BD00:0:0:0:0/64 may also be related, —Paleo Neonate – 07:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Crazy Sexy Cancer

Kris Carr is an alkaline diet advocate / raw vegan and alternative medicine activist who claims her raw vegan diet cured her own cancer and many others. I will fix up her biography but Crazy Sexy Cancer is in a very bad way that seems to be promoting fringe views about cancer and has no neutral or critical coverage. I think most of the article needs to be deleted and re-written. Any thoughts about what to do with this one? Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

On a further look, Kris Carr's article is also in a very bad way. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That does it! I'm writing a book with a catchy title. "Dog's Diet Cancer Cure". Should I wait for a cure or just publish and be dammned? -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say nearly everything after Plot Summary can be excised or condensed into the summary, as most of the subsequent content is plot summary, background info on Carr, or borderline WP:OR analysis of themes. It may not even warrant stand-alone article: while it appears to have premiered at the South by Southwest Film Festival, it appears to be a TV film aired on TLC and the Oprah Winfrey Network. If substantial coverage is found lacking after honest attempts to find them, then a redirect to Kris Carr is in order. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I was amazed to see that it scores 0.0% on the Copyvio Detector because, oh boy, does it read like something that wouldn't! In fact, I am wondering whether the detector is broken. Anyway, a lot of it is unreferenced guff and, if kept at all, it should be pared back to a stub or maybe slightly more than a stub based on what reliable sources actually say about it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm so many issues with this article... As with many propaganda films, the plot voluntarily leads into straw-men and dead-ends, to finally result in miracles (and who would recommend multiple organ replacement for a single non-metastasing tumor? It's obviously medicine scaremongering). Then there's stuff like "Carr also adopts a new, healthier way of life", when "detox" can actually be harmful including enemas... It's a case that should be rewritten from the point of view of independent sources with their analysis, rather than blindly following the story. If those are lacking, it's a case for AfD (merging would be another possibility). I'll try to look again at it next week... —Paleo Neonate – 07:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC about rapid-onset gender dysphoria

Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage#RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Alchemy#RFC: Should Alchemy be included in Category:Pseudoscience

People here may want to opine there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Lidar being used to find the ancient Mormon city of Zarahemla

See this article.[45] The narrative section of our article is a mess and even includes names of notable people. Looking at this I also found Book of Helaman - hardly NPOV.

I posted this at RSN by mistake yesterday and there are a few comments there about the “ancient city “ article with one editor saying they may take it to AfD. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh let them have their Camelot and Atlantis..... Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Since the article specifies "this project is not endorsed or supported by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the largest practitioners of the Mormon faith" my impression is that it's UNDUE including per NOTNEWS, unless there's an article about the subgroup... As for the book article, it lacks any mention that it's a late forgery. Perhaps it should be merged/redirected in the main book article? There are only two sources there. —Paleo Neonate – 20:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of religious converts

Nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of religious converts and other similar lists for deletion. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Polyvagal theory

This article used to take a fairly skeptical tone (see historical version). After recent rewrites, the article takes a much more credulous tone. I don't really have the background in neuroscience to understand it all myself - it could do with a review from someone with more expertise. MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead at least no longer reflects anything about the criticism section that still exists (social neuroscience and the limited acceptance)... —Paleo Neonate – 22:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This article just needs to be TNTed and rewritten from a neutral, WP:DUE perspective. I've added some relevant cleanup tags. JoelleJay (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Are there any historical versions of this article that it is worth reverting to? Pinging @1000Faces: who originally created the article a decade ago. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astrology

Due to the Astronomy delsort getting clogged with recent astrology-related AfD's, I have chosen to create a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astrology specifically for this topic area and WP:WikiProject Astrology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ehhhh. The Astronomy delsort only has a handful of entries at any one time anyway, and the Astrology AfD glut didn't reach anywhere near the size that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women is normally at. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Spagyric / herbal alchemy

There is a discussion on Talk:Paracelsianism on the question of whether the modern application of spagyric (AKA herbal alchemy, or plant alchemy) is pseudoscientific. Help with sourcing would also be greatly appreciated. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

September 23, 2017 star sign prophecy

I have nominated this for deletion as non-notable. Besides that there seems to be too much in-universe detail even if people decide it was noticed enough in the major media. Your attention is requested. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Panspermia

Here's a status report on the article Panspermia. There continue to be occasional attempts to add WP:PROFRINGE content to the article, although the ones since the last FTN thread (Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_81#Panspermia) have usually been reverted.

The lead section of this article is much cleaner than the last time this was brought to FTN. Good job!
The History section seems to be heavily WP:PROFRINGE. I already removed a paragraph that was irrelevant to the hypothesis.
The Proposed mechanisms section seems to discuss a large cross section of various hypotheses, some of which may be given undue weight; it should cover only the most notable ones and any relevant mainstream commentary. Also, some of the remaining content is potentially off-topic, such as the sentence in the leading paragraph about cleanroom procedures to minimize interplanetary contamination. The Pseudo-panspermia subsection, like the History section, is largely an indiscriminate collection of studies that support the hypothesis.
It seems that most, but not all, of the Extraterrestrial life section is likely off-topic; I've already removed some of the most obviously irrelevant material. It gives undue (and probably misplaced) pro-fringe coverage of the hypothesis that certain pathogens are of extraterrestrial origin.
I'm not 100% sure about the relevance of the content of the Extremophiles section; it primarily covers observations about extremophiles and experiments about whether microorginisms can survive in space.
I whittled down the See also section to only the most relevant articles, such as Interplanetary contamination.
The contents of the Further reading and External links sections are probably pro-fringe, like the bulk of pop-science coverage of this hypothesis. I didn't look into any of the external links, but one of the books is by a top proponent of panspermia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The sentence that jumps out to me is and others able to resume life after being dormant for 100 million years - whether these things are actually this old is subject to debate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this! I'd given up on that article as beyond repair. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've made some further cuts. XOR'easter (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Leo Galland- Propose for deletion

I came upon the article of fringe individual Leo Galland, which was quite sparse and hadn't been edited for nearly a year. I then made edits to remove a reference to a defunct and non-notable Huffington Post column (such content was well-known as fringe) and being a "Castle Connolly top doctor" (which is also not notable and considered a scam by some).

Since there were no sources remaining in the article, I proposed it for deletion. The article creator User:Binksternet reverted the article back to an even worse state and removed my deletion proposal. I'm unsure of what to do here because this is the first deletion I've proposed for a person. Thank you. ScienceFlyer (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm surprised that someone with Binksternet's experience would even attempt to defend the article in the state it was in, given its utterly crap sourcing. If Galland merits an article, it will need entirely new sources, providing actual evidence of notability from independent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

All I was looking for was for ScienceFlyer to take the article to AfD rather than prod. Other sources exist showing that the guy is part of the media conversation. Is he notable? Let's let the community decide. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree the fate of this article should be determined by AFD and due-diligence search for sourcing, rather than evisceration and PRODing. I have added some reliable sources and removed the PROD of Leo Galland. Other coverage may exist offline or behind paywalls (not everything is Googleable!). Good faith efforts to find sources are appreciated. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet and Animalparty: Thanks for your comments. I'm confused because it seemed like I was following the instructions at WP:BLPPROD, which only has a single passing mention of AFD, in a parenthetical. If the procedure is use AFD, then the instructions entitled "Proposed deletion of biographies of living people" need to be edited to clarify the appropriate process. As for the sources currently on the article, many are dubious. For example, one article from Salon/Undark is by one of Galland's patients. Another article is from Cosmopolitan and the title claims "How Lyme disease messes with your mind" even though the consensus of experts is "No studies suggest a convincing causal association between Lyme disease and any specific psychiatric conditions." ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Galland. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@ScienceFlyer: WP:BLPPROD#Before nomination states: 1: Make sure the article contains no sources in any form which support any statements made about the person. 2: Consider finding reliable sources yourself (See also WP:BEFORE). 3: Consider using another deletion process if you do not believe the article meets notability guidelines, or What Wikipedia is Not... I'm sure your intentions were good, but It doesn't appear any of those steps were followed. Removing sources in any form that are already present and then Proposing deletion comes across as a bit disingenuous and underhanded. There are now several reliable sources in the article, including The New York Times Magazine, New York Daily News, and Newsweek. Whether this (and other sources yet to be added) amounts to WP:NOTABILITY is what the AFD will determine. Do not judge sources by their headlines alone, per WP:HEADLINES. And remember, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The AfD has been relisted. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin again

Recently appeared is an article (already getting ~3,000 views/day) about:

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

A popular Youtuber who has increasingly been posting about Ivermectin. Push-back has largely been from qualified scientist Youtubers (e.g.[46][47]) but there is a NZ fact check I have included in the article. Could probably use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

ID2020

ID2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An NGO conspiracy theorists invent conspiracy theories about, according to the lede. But the article itself is silent about that aspect. Anybody know anything? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there was a section about this which Deepfrieddough removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Given that there was no edit summary or talk page entry explaining why Dfd though the section needed removal and that it created a stray floating cite not tied to any text, I reverted the removal pending discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your revert/restore, especially considering that it played a role in notability. The article only exists since 2020, although the project seems to at least go back to 2016... —Paleo Neonate – 11:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Drug Recognition Expert

The page Drug Recognition Expert lends credence to the notion that law enforcement officers are able to detect drug impairment through observation alone. The page makes it seem as if this is a thoroughly scientific way of determining drug impairment and the page includes no criticism or skepticism of this form of drug detection. I'm not an expert on this at all, but this seems highly sketchy[48] and I can see that some people are describing DRE methodology as akin to a coin flip.[49] I'm curious if any subject matter experts on this board could take a look? I also wonder to what extent this page should be covered by the MEDRS guideline? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS would apply to WP:BMI, and so probably not that relevant unless there are assertions that drug X causes observational effect Y. The Seiders source (already cited in the article) makes it clear there is legal debate about how "scientific" DRE evidence is. Our article should reflect that; a plain assertion that such assessments are "scientific" probably would be WP:FRINGE (as well as fairly meaningless). Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

yep tragically medrs doesn't apply here. But normal RS still does. And if you look in the external links section, you'll see a few links to reviews that easily dismiss this. And you're right, it's incredibly fringe. Even with training, humans still have an enormous margin of error on figuring out if someone is lying - we certainly can't reliably tell if someone is intoxicated and what they're intoxicated with. Huge Quadro Tracker vibes on this claim. --Xurizuri (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

China COVID-19 cover-up allegations

I notice

China COVID-19 cover-up allegations (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

(newly renamed from "China COVID-19 cover-up") is nominated for deletion. May be of interest to fringe fanciers as it bears on the virus origin question. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but third time at AfD this year? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I've kind of lost track; this content seems to be forked into multiple articles. Alexbrn (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Life review

Life review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to have recently (today) changed status from unproven to proven. What gives?

Raymond Moody? That can't be good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Feng shui

Feng shui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_59#Feng_shui

Edit-warring to remove "pseudoscientific" from the lede, and now "geomancy" as well. --Hipal (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Aminoff Entropy Definition of Human Happiness and Suffering

I wasn't exactly sure how to tag this.

Aminoff Entropy Definition of Human Happiness and Suffering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

And now it's been G11/G12'ed. Carry on. XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Global warming skeptic, climate change skeptic

Do we use that euphemism, even when talking about prominent deniers?

Nick Minchin
Vincent Gray - the edits were really to the disambiguation page. But Vincent R. Gray needs attention too. -- Hob Gadling (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Pattern Recognition in Physics
Uunartoq Qeqertaq
Craig D. Idso
Anthony Lupo
Easterbrook
Frederick Seitz

All have recently been changed to "denialist" by an IP, then today reverted to "skeptic" by User:Peter Gulutzan. Not sure how to handle this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The IPv6 might have done more damage than that, I can't tell. If these people (most of whom are alive) have not expressed a fringe view then it's inappropriate to bring them up on this page, but suggesting changes with reliable sourcing on the articles in question, and seeking consensus, without canvassing, is appropriate for the cases that have not been discussed already. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

In general, "skeptic" in such cases is used as a propaganda tactic and does not describe any real skepticism. Follow the best references, and be very careful of using "skeptic". --Hipal (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not usually how the term skeptic is used. That term refers to pro-science people responding to pseudoscience. But, in this case, you have anti-science people pushing false claims about settled science. So denialist is the accurate term here, not skeptic. Silver seren^C 22:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If these people [..] have not expressed a fringe view That is counterfactual. They did express fringe views, obviously. If you still believe that climate change denial is not fringe, then maybe you should not edit articles about that topic until you learn more about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The National Center for Science Education has a good take on this. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would air on the side of whatever secondary sources call them. In most of these cases, the answer is "denialist" or "doubter" or "contrarian." "skeptic" is what many of these people would prefer to be called, but that does not necessarily make it the correct moniker. [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A post on a noticeboard is not WP:CANVASSing, —Paleo Neonate – 16:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The terms are often interchangeable (as well as easily weaponized to easily dismiss an argument), but not necessarily so: the Encyclopedia of Global Warming edited by Steven I. Dutch describes Craig D. Idso thusly: "he argues that atmospheric carbon dioxide does affect air temperature and that it may be good for plant growth." When possible, loaded phrases and labels should be replaced with more nuanced descriptions, and probably not shoe-horned into first place in the first sentence: the same encyclopedia introduces Idso and his father as geographer and physicist, respectively, not "climate change skeptic/denier" right off the bat. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A difference is that WP should tell when it's erroneous, —Paleo Neonate – 23:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"Skeptic" is itself a loaded term, in that it brings its own connotations: carefully considering the evidence, arriving at thoughtful conclusions, etc. These are often the wrong connotations, as Shibbolethink pointed out above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin in Australia

Thomas Borody (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Another day, another ivermectin article. This one, about an Australian doctor, has seen some ... committed editing from a WP:SPA and this may need to go to WP:COIN. In the meantime, more eyes (and more sources!) would help. Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming

Neuro-linguistic programming (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Is science now, cause of studies, according to someone on the Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Body language

While looking up some claims from proponents of the use of body language for lie detection and other types of questionable inferences, I found that this article has many credulous-sounding claims referenced to questionable sources. Has anyone here looked at this and related articles? Am I off the mark in thinking this is pushing pseudoscience?

Oculesics, for instance, seems quite the Fringe-fest. The "List of emotions", by the middle of the page, apparently mainly sourced from a "changingminds.org", is very questionable.

I'll try to work on these when I get some time, but thought I'd ask the kind folks here in the meantime. Cheers! VdSV9•♫ 20:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, anything relating to body language that is used to "uncover" things will lack genuine evidence. Also, for the most part, the culturally dependent nature of body language means that any claims that are apparently global are unlikely to be true. We're not even entirely sure about exactly how many fundamental/universal human emotions there are, or how many different emotions there are. You're going to need review papers on those articles to get anything trustworthy. The oculesics article is atrocious, by the way. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts, exactly! Thank you. VdSV9•♫ 18:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thaddeus Golas and related pages

Thaddeus Golas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Love and Pain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Cosmic Airdrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These need checking for wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

He seems to have been a relatively little-known writer who wrote a somewhat influential book in the self-help, New Age, and psychedelic circles of the 70s. He seems to get quoted frequently in inspirational/self help literature and aphorism compilations, and his most well-known work inspired at least one canine feel-good book. I found a brief obituary that lays out his basic biographical info.^[1] He is not to be confused with Thaddeus A. "Ted" Golas, a San Francisco firefighter and occasional actor who once dated Danielle Steele and had a bit part in Star Trek IV, as well as possibly the painkiller commercial mentioned below.^[2]^[3] I've found some limited coverage, excerpted below, and if more newspaper/magazine coverage can be found then a short single article incorporating his works might be feasible, but I think three articles is unwarranted. Or perhaps he was too underground to leave a lasting legacy. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

When Thaddeus Golas self-published his little book The Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment in 1972 it became an almost instant success. By 1976, when I dished out two dollars for my first copy, published by the Seed Center in Palo Alto, California, it was already into its sixth printing, with 175,000 copies in print. By the early 1980s Golas had achieved enough cult celebrity status that I saw him on an American television commercial making a testimonial on behalf of a popular cross-the-counter painkiller. He died in 1997, at the age of 73, after reportedly having supported himself almost entirely from the earnings of The Lazy Man's Guide...^[4]
It is an intriguing premise that opens the Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment — a premise that, if true, could save people a lot of time spent sitting on the hard floor over at the Cambridge Zen Center. And for this reason, the book has done extremely well. Author Thaddeus Golas first published this slim (80 pages) treatise in 1972, after he "plunged into psychedelic chaos in San Francisco for several years." Eleven years later it is in its 10th printing, and is at present being published by Bantam Books...^[5]

Yes, there might be enough for one (trimmed) page, but 3–4 seems too many. I've gone ahead and redirected the books to the author's page, and cleaned up the latter somewhat. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

References

^ "Obituaries: Thaddeus S. Golas". Sarasota Herald Tribune. 19 April 1997. p. 6B – via NewsBank.
^ Bane, Vickie L. (1999). The Lives of Danielle Steel. St. Martin's Paperbacks. p. 196. ISBN 978-0-312-95575-5.
^ Hoyt, Nicole (1994). Danielle Steel: The Glamour, the Myth, the Woman. Pinnacle Books. p. 206. ISBN 978-0-7860-0032-6.
^ Hefner, Robert (11 December 2005). "The easy road to enlightenment". The Canberra Times – via NewsBank.
^ Denison, D.C. (January 11, 1983). "Where there's no will". The Boston Phoenix. Vol. 12, no. 2.

See Talk:Answers in Genesis#NPOV tag

The editor who added it is User:1990'sguy who also edits at Creationwiki, conservapedia and Infogalactic.[60] Doug Weller talk 09:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not originally add the tag.

Also, please see WP:WIAPA: ...some types of comments are never acceptable: ... Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. My Wikipedia edits/activities are separate from what I do on other Wikis (though I will note that I haven't edited CreationWiki since July 2018). --1990'sguy (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Doug mentioned your affiliations not to dismiss or discredit your views, but to give people an idea which direction this specific profringe pushing is coming from.

Dismissing or discrediting your views is not necessary since they were dismissed and discredited long before any of us was born. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Belarusians are really Lithuanians?

Belarusians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Litvinism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cukrakalnis is spreading information that "The western Belarusian area was inhabited by Lithuanians. The western Belarusians are certainly largely Russian-speaking Lithuanians." quoting the book of Austrian-German anthropologist Michael Hesch [de], member of Nazi party and SS. In a discussion with me, he admitted to never having the book in his hands. More about Hesch theory is written here. I don't think Wikipedia should be spreading such, clearly racist, theories. Marcelus (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Even disregarding the specifics of Hesch's dubious merits as a source, and the questionable assumptions implicit in the claim, Wikipedia cannot possibly cite a book written in 1933 for such statements. Anthropology has thankfully long moved on from such essentialising 'origin theories' when discussing ethnicity, and Wikipedia needs to do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Most of the research in the book published under Michael Hesch's name was done by Rudolf Pöch, who died in 1921. Applying the label "Nazi" to what was essentially his research is just ascribing ahistorical attributes. Even ascribing the word "Nazi" to a book that was published in 1933 outside Nazi Germany and based on research from World War I, is dubious. The source's statements could be phrased in a more nuanced way - some Belarusians have Lithuanian ancestry. That's all that sentence is saying. What's so radical and fringe about that?

That Belarusians are Slavicized Balts is stated by some Belarusians themselves. If it was a fringe theory with no basis in reality, then why do multiple different individuals from radically different backgrounds come to the same conclusion? Various Belarusians, Austro-Hungarians, and Lithuanians all stating the same and agreeing to some sort of grand conspiracy? The insanity is that WP:RS are being removed because some persons value their opinion more than research by accredited academics. If Michael Hesch was the sole individual stating this thing, then it would maybe be warranted to doubt this as a single, outdated individual's POV. The thing is, that multiple various sources from absolutely different backgrounds (and time periods) are converging on the same point - Belarusian, Lithuanian and Austro-Hungarian sources. Ergo, the inclusion of that statement, because of these precise circumstances, where its findings are affirmed, is warranted.

As for 'origin theories', I must point out, that there is nothing wrong in pointing out that e.g. most citizens of USA are descended from colonists and immigrants from Europe, or that Afrikaners are descendants mainly from Dutch people. So too, there is no reason to avoid explaining the origins and how certain groups appeared or began or are descended from.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Century old research is nowhere near a good enough source for the sweeping claims you are making. As to That Belarusians are Slavicized Balts is stated by some Belarusians themselves that is some WP:WEASELy nonsense and a bogus argument. "Some" British people claim that they are descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel, see British Israelism, doesn't mean that it's true in the slightest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Just like Hemiauchenia said, just because you googled two articles in which two pretty random Belarusians are saying that they think that Belarusians are really just Lithuanians doesn't mean you can include it in the Wikipedia article. These aren't valid sources and that's not how encyclopedia is supposed to be created. Marcelus (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, Sorry for the WP:WEASELy statement, the two Belarusians referenced in the article are the Belarusian political activist and journalist Alieś Kirkievič [be] and Belarusian researcher with a PhD Aliaksiej Dziermant [be]. They respectively state it here [61] and [62].--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, these two individuals are not just some "random Belarusians" off the street, they are well-educated individuals. What they said and how they said it fulfils the criteria for a source.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The question is not Have some people suggested this but rather Is this the consensus view or a significant minority view in contemporary scholarship, otherwise it is undue per WP:PROFRINGE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, thank you for the concise question. The answer is that this is a significant minority view in contemporary scholarship, because two scholarly individuals, that is Aliaksiej Dziermant [be], a PhD researcher specializing in the subject of the ethnogenesis of Belarusians, and Lithuanian professor Zigmas Zinkevičius, both state the view (which is being questioned as being WP:FRINGE).--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You have not fundamentally answered the question. You have yet to demonstrate that this is a significant viewpoint in contemporary scholarship rather than the viewpoint of a handful of scholars. It is important that Wikipedia does not lend undue weight to views of very small minorities. This would require quoting contemporary books describing the theory and the prevailing scholarly views on the topic, rather than just pulling more researchers out of a hat who support it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, in the book "A History of Belarus A Non-Literary Essay that Explains the Ethnogenesis of the Belarusians" [63] by Lubov Bazan from 2014 (can't give pages, because copyrighted material), it is written:

"Thus, indigenous Baltic tribes became a substrate in the formation of the Belarusian ethnic group. As a result of the Slavicisation of the Baltic population and its merging with the Slavic population a portion of the Slavic people split off into a separate group of Dregovichs and Krivichs, and through their historical and cultural development this led to the emergence of the Belarusian language and the Belarusian people." Next paragraph "This theory on the ethnogenesis of Belarusians appeared in historical academic circles in the 1960s, and was based on extensive material accumulated from archaeological and linguistic research. It was called the Baltic Theory, but was entirely suppressed by the official Soviet scientific authorities."

Basically, the view that Belarusians descend from Balts is a significant view in scholarship. I hope this hits the nail on the head, metaphorically speaking.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The material you have quoted doesn't even remotely support a claim that 'Belarusians descend from Balts'. It suggests that Belarusians have some Balt ancestry (as a 'substrate'), but that is all it supports. Note the the paragraph following the one you quote goes on to discuss 'assimilation' by Slavs. Slavs who had presumably settled the region too: "merging". Not that it matters, since you clearly haven't read the full text. Citing source snippets found by Google-mining isn't the way to demonstrate academic consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"A History of Belarus A Non-Literary Essay that Explains the Ethnogenesis of the Belarusians" is not published by an academic press, but by Glagoslav Publications, an independnent press specialising in the translation of works to English by Slavic authors. The author is also an art historian rather than a historian of Belarus. In a book review in the journal East Central Europe, Catherine Gibson of the European University Institute, Florence writes:The book falls into the not altogether unexpected trap of being laced with Belarusian Romantic nationalism, something that the title does not attempt to hide. References are made to the Belarusian “territory” (13), “ethnic group” (14), and “language” (68) from the beginning, despite the dramatically changing borders of all the chronicled proto-Belarusian states, and the absence of an ethnolinguistic group which regarded itself as a coherent “Belarusian” entity up until the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century (Snyder 2003; Rudling 2015). I remain unconvinced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you realize that your "sources" are just opinion pieces? An§ interview and an essay? Why don't you just use some actual English literature on this topic? There are many books about Belarusian history in English. Marcelus (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Marcelus, opinion pieces by accredited academics still count as good and valid sources. To limit oneself to just the literature in English about a certain topic is a grave mistake if one wishes to delve deep into a topic about a foreign country.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Cukrakalnis you aren't delving deep, it's a very short article. This is an English Wikipedia you should be looking first of all for English literature, especially in such basic subject. Opinion pieces are opinion pieces, nothing more, and they aren't valid sources. Especially since Dziermant changed his opinion vastly since then. I doubt he has PhD or conducted any serious studies on Belarusian ethnogenesis. In 2010 he was neo-pagan member of neofascist party, today he is main mouthpiece of Moscow in Belarus and supporter of "Eurasian" projects. He isn't an authority on this topic. Marcelus (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that I was delving deep into the subject, I was just making general remarks.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"Austro-Hungarian sources"???? By definition, any Austro-Hungarian sources are a century or more out of date, and from an era when essentialism and bizarre racially-oriented theories were thought scientific, at least by bigots and extremists. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Orange Mike, the main point was that the international provenance of sources necessarily precludes the possibility of a nationalist conspiracy against another group. I fully understand that using a century-old source by itself is incorrect, but it is being used in conjunction with other sources, including very modern ones from the 21st century. Considering that all of these sources align, despite their age difference, reassures that these findings are indeed correct (despite the context you mention, which is indeed problematic, but then again, not everything from back then is wrong and some things from back then are still correct and valid). So, it's unreasonable to remove the source.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

We aren't the slightest bit interested in whether you think something is 'indeed correct', and nor are we interested in what you think 'unreasonable'. Century-old sources cannot be cited for claims relating to anthropology and similar subjects, whether they were written by Nazis or not, and regardless who else may agree with their conclusions. If you want to include content concerning the possible Lithuanian origins of modern Belarusians, you will have to do so by citing, directly, modern sources from appropriately-qualified academics, which directly support such content. And that only after you have demonstrated that this perspective on Belarusians is shared by at least a significant minority of scholars with the relevant expertise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump and Hemiauchenia, for possible Lithuanian origins of modern Belarusians - Article "Uniparental Genetic Heritage of Belarusians: Encounter of Rare Middle Eastern Matrilineages with a Central European Mitochondrial DNA Pool" [64] has the following statements:

The N1c(Tat) tree in this study indicates that Belarusians share a considerable portion of haplotypes with Balts pointing to a shared patrilineal founder(s) and history.

haplogroup N1c(Tat) shows the highest frequency (around 15%) in north-west Belarus and is decreasing southward, as it could be expected, bearing in mind that among Lithuanians N1c(Tat) comprises close to a half of their Y-chromosomes [21].

Haplogroup I in Belarusians is composed of multiple genetic inputs, mainly from the north-western Balkans (I2a(P37)), and, to a lesser extent, from West and north-west Europe (I1(M253), I2b(M223)) [57]. N1c(Tat) along with its much less frequent sister group N1b(P43) (previously N2), detected in Belarusians indicate an ancient patrilineal gene flow from the north Eurasia westward, yet in the context of studied here populations is best explained by partially shared Y-chromosomal ancestry of Belarusians and their northern neighbors, Lithuanians and Latvians, among whom N1c(Tat) reaches frequencies above 40% [20], [21], [26], [58].

This article, published in 2013, has the following contributors: Alena Kushniarevich, Larysa Sivitskaya, Nina Danilenko, Tadeush Novogrodskii, Iosif Tsybovsky, Anna Kiseleva, Svetlana Kotova, Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Ene Metspalu, Hovhannes Sahakyan, Ardeshir Bahmanimehr, Maere Reidla, Siiri Rootsi, Jüri Parik, Tuuli Reisberg, Alessandro Achilli, Baharak Hooshiar Kashani, Francesca Gandini, Anna Olivieri, Doron M. Behar, Antonio Torroni, Oleg Davydenko, Richard Villems.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you really so naive as to believe that nobody is going to actually read the source you have just cherry-picked? It doesn't even remotely support any claim for 'Lithuanian origins of modern Belarusians'. It demonstrates that the modern Belarusian population has a shared genetic heritage with populations all around them: "Our results reveal that around 80% of the paternal Belarusian gene pool is composed of R1a, I2a and N1c Y-chromosome haplogroups – a profile which is very similar to the two other eastern European populations – Ukrainians and Russians. The maternal Belarusian gene pool encompasses a full range of West Eurasian haplogroups and agrees well with the genetic structure of central-east European populations. "I suggest you drop this now, before someone decides to look further into you editing history, to see if you have been as cavalier with sources elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that Cukrakalnis has added exactly the same material, again sourced to Hesch, to the Western Belorussia article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be surprising if the Belorusian ethnogenesis did not also entail language shift, intermarriage and other things which you per default would expect with neighboring peoples. But I doubt that the simplistic formula "Belorusians = Slavicized Balts" is supported in any mainstream publication by an academic scholar of international standing. –Austronesier (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Baghdad Battery

This is being discussed at the Facebook group Fraudulent Archaeology Wall of Shame (quite a few practising archaeologists there) and it's been suggested it isn't clear enough that this is rejected by the archaeologists who have discussed it and is more of "it could be this, it could be that". This should be a good source[65] a blog but Carl Feagans is an expert. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Title issue

WP:COMMONNAME of course says this should be the title of the article, no question about that in my mind. But how does NPOV affect this? Current scientific opinion in those articles which actually discuss it in detail rather than just mention it is that it's not a battery. But the title suggests that it is. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Another meteor disaster in the ancient Near East?

Umm al Binni lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We've already previously discussed the claims on this noticeboard that a meteor airburst around 3600 years ago destroyed Tall el-Hammam in Jordan. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Tall_el-Hammam_and_Steven_Collins_(archaeologist). I would like to focus on another fringe impact claim. The Umm al Binni lake in Southern Iraq has been claimed by some geoarchaeologsts to represent an impact crater that caused disaster in the Middle East c. 2200 BCE, though there has been no actual work on the ground to confirm/refute this. The primary sourcing in the article is currently done using conference abstracts by the proponents of the impact theory. I can find only one paper that analyses the claims in any detail, which claims that the lake is likely the result of regional subsidence, and finds no evidence for the impact claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed some OR. I also see that the article says "...Hamacher determined that an impacting bolide would have produced energy in the range of 190 to 750 megatons of TNT (for an asteroid and comet impact, respectively)" The abstract of the source says "Sharad Master used satellite images to discover a possible Holocene impact structure in the Al 'Amarah marshes of southern Iraq, known as Umm al Binni lake. With an estimated age of < 5000 years and a diameter of ~3.4 km, this structure may help explain this disaster. Using numerical models and scaling equations for a cosmic impact, I show that although destructive forces would have damaged Sumerian cities within a few hundred km of the coast, it is unlikely that this single impact would have caused the large-scale destruction seen over the larger region. The impact origin of the structure is unconfirmed and any connection to Bronze Age catastrophes remains speculative."[66] Doug Weller talk 12:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I've scheduled an email to be sent to the author asking for a copy of his article Monday. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Lloyd Pye

Lloyd Pye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP edit warring WP:PROFRINGE stuff. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits claimed he was an anthropologist, the article claimed he also was a psychologist and had worked for intelligence services, but the in-article citations apparently did not support it. —Paleo Neonate – 12:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Also claimed DNA of starchild "is not 100% human". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Some of my genetic material also comes from fish!

—Paleo Neonate – 13:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

May want to reach out for page protection if the IP continually does disruptive editing.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

[1] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20061017024044/http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/06/coulter-911/

[2] ttps://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-21/

[3] ttps://www.peoplesworld.org/article/coulter-crap-don-t-ignore-it-expose-it/

[4] "Obituaries: Thaddeus S. Golas". Sarasota Herald Tribune. 19 April 1997. p. 6B – via NewsBank.

[5] Bane, Vickie L. (1999). The Lives of Danielle Steel. St. Martin's Paperbacks. p. 196. ISBN 978-0-312-95575-5.

[6] Hoyt, Nicole (1994). Danielle Steel: The Glamour, the Myth, the Woman. Pinnacle Books. p. 206. ISBN 978-0-7860-0032-6.

[7] Hefner, Robert (11 December 2005). "The easy road to enlightenment". The Canberra Times – via NewsBank.

[8] Denison, D.C. (January 11, 1983). "Where there's no will". The Boston Phoenix. Vol. 12, no. 2.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]