Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 95

PragerU

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

Do PragerU videos "contain misleading or factually incorrect information" promoting climate change denial, or do they "contain content widely considered to be misleading or false" promoting climate change denial? Which is the better summary in the lede of the climate change denial section? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The latter sounds like classic WP:PROFRINGE weaselling, given there seems absolutely no doubt about it.[1] Bon courage (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

How is that even a question? PragerU publishes blatant falsities. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The first statement almost tries to downplay the amount of blatantly false statements they make, especially in regards to climate change. The second statement is more descriptive anyways so... Frost.xyz | (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The change attempts to misconstrue the topic as ideas, popular and unpopular opinions, which is itself misleading (uncertainty propaganda). But warming is a fact, so is the importance of human activity. Thanks for patrolling, —PaleoNeonate – 10:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the first phrasing because it is clear that Prager provides false information. TFD (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

"classic WP:PROFRINGE weaselling" in "widely considered to be" of course, but why does it matter so much whether the "facts" in the videos are correct or not? Take for instance the one mentioned on the talk page and the Reuters fact check. In the context of the video (which seems to be targeted to about third-grade level) what does it matter really if Antarctic sea ice is growing or not. Arguing the "facts" is like candy for the contrarian thinker. Seems PragerU videos might be better described as a small wedge of truth used to drive home a load of ideological marketing. fiveby(zero) 16:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That's the usual MO with denial (i.e. "we accept Jews were killed in the Holocaust, but the numbers have been overstated" == classic Holocaust denial). The best way is just to follow the RS which calls it misinformation without getting sucked into the weeds. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the first option is better for the reasons that others have already given. The second option may have some appeal to those who think "if we word it that way then it is less open to challenge" but that would be a big mistake. The kvetchers are going to kvetch whatever we say and the second option actually makes it easier for them to do so. When it comes to the first statement, they will complain that Prager's falsehoods are actually true and we will just point at the sources and rebuff them easily. If we were to go for the second statement then they would sealion by asking "widely considered by who?" and then attacking each source, one by one, as being "lib" or "woke" or "bias" or "soy" or "gay", or whatever nonsense, and it would just become a perpetual whack-a-mole of idiocy. Also, we should bear in mind that some US states will be using Prager's "U" in school classes soon. We may well have some quite young children coming to Wikipedia to look up whether Prager U is legit. We should avoid overcomplicating the information that answers that. As always, we should speak plainly so that as many readers as possible, whether they are children or adults who do not have English as their first language, can understand what is being said. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Journal of Astrobiology

I created a new redirect today to Journal of Cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as its illustrious leader seems intent on changing the title of his self-published list of crackpot papers maybe to stay one step ahead of the critics. Anyhow, the article itself isn't quite up to the standards I would like. As far as pseudojournals go, the Journal of Cosmology/Journal of Astrobiology universe is as pseudo as it gets, in my opinion. So can we improve the article to help the reader understand that a little better? jps (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's going to be hard, Headbomb is sure to show up to obstruct any progress. Tercer (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

...at least been an entertaining diversion. Ball, Philip (March 8, 2011). "The aliens haven't landed". Nature.

Careful, now, Tercer. I may agree with you about NJOURNALS, but Headbomb is still an upstanding member of our community and has done valuable contributions on that page. jps (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Dammit. Headbomb, you've been summoned to account for your sins. [2] jps (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That's ironic. But I wasn't talking about NJOURNALS, but about his effort to block progress on Physics Essays. It was a lot of work to overrule him. Tercer (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've warned him on his page that further obstruction in this regard will be brought to WP:AE. I've had enough of this playing innocent WP:PROFRINGE game. He knows better. jps (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

And I've had it with your campaign to remove completely basic and verifiable information about topic you disagree with. Journal of Cosmology is perfectly sourced, and removing infobox, other cited infomation, or simply rewording things from "describes itself as" to "presents itself as" is nowhere near WP:PROFRINGE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Ho ho! A "topic you disagree with". This is a junk journal. What are you advocating for here? Some sort of whitewash? Why? The only reason we have an article on this at all is because the journal has been at the center of a number of controversies over its junk nature. That's the information the reader deserves. Stuff from the "horse's mouth",. as it were, is totally unreliable. We don't need to tell the reader what the website describes iteslf as doing. We need only tell the reader what reliable sources have described it as doing and reliable sources describe it as publishing pseudoscientific dreck. jps (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a junk journal, and clearly labeled as such. Removing the infobox, etc... is completely unjustifiable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Can't see much wrong with Headbomb's edits, I have to say. I don't see any problem with adding an infobox and his version of the first line of the lead doesn't leave much space for doubt that this is not a scientific journal in good standing. His edits most certainly don't merit a topic ban. --Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Nobody suggested a topic ban 2600:4040:475E:F600:41D9:41E9:57C1:C7D3 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I suggested that this could be a next step. Headbomb decided to ask for it first at ANI. jps (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's more than one website. How can we have "infobox journal" for something that is three websites? It's not even a real journal. What are you on about? jps (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

There's one clear main topic/subject. The other are associates of that topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

According to whom?!jps (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• WP:ANI#jps and their shutting down of discussion at Talk:Journal of Cosmology. What fun. jps (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Related: Rudolph Schild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You're not kidding. I see one reliable source on that page. He's widely known as a crank in astronomy, but I'm not sure many others have noticed. jps (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably could be deleted honestly. Might pass NPROF with an h-index of 47-ish according to ADSABS, but likely that h-index is with self-citations so I wouldn't put too much faith in it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I would want to run a Wikipedia Library search first though to ensure there isn't coverage in news sources that aren't publicly Googleable. Silverseren^C 20:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

There was a hot minute when MeCOs were seriously entertained as possibilities. A few papers showing that they weren't were penned and the community agreed and moved on. Rudy did not take kindly to that. He took to the internet instead. In his old age, he seems to have gone WAY off the deep end. jps (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I have now done that Wikipedia Library search and found a ton of news articles entirely about Schild and his research from the 1990's and 2000's. So I've improved the article and removed the notability tag. Silverseren^C 01:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have bowed out of editing Journal of Cosmology. If nothing else, there are now plenty of people looking over the thing. jps (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Electroacupuncture

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

Not all sources seem to be MEDRS, but what do I know? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Why can't this be merged to acupuncture? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Billy Meier

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

Should the article text state that Billy Meier's FIGU group is a "UFO religion"? We have several academic sources that call it that. Or should it be removed? Please discuss at Talk:Billy_Meier#Not_a_religion rather than here. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Historical reliability of the Gospels

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The rub is The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD.

Sources "on my side"

Valantasis, Richard; Bleyle, Douglas K.; Haugh, Dennis C. (2009). The Gospels and Christian Life in History and Practice. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780742570696. Smith, David Oliver (2011). Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels. Wipf and Stock. ISBN 9781498269933. Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 58–59. ISBN 0-19-515462-2. Proto-orthodox Christians of the second century, some decades after most of the New Testament books had been written, claimed that their favorite Gospels had been penned by two of Jesus' disciples—Matthew, the tax collector, and John, the beloved disciple—and by two friends of the apostles—Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the travelling companion of Paul. Scholars today, however, find it difficult to accept this tradition for several reasons. Holman Reference Staff (2012). Holman Illustrated Bible Handbook. B&H Publishing Group. p. PT344. ISBN 978-1-4336-7833-2. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Most critical scholars deny that Mark was the author or that he wrote on the basis of Peter's recollections Holman Illustrated Study Bible-HCSB. B&H Publishing Group. 2006. p. 1454. ISBN 978-1-58640-277-8. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Most critical scholars deny that Mark was the author or that he wrote on the basis of Peter's recollections Easley, Kendell H. (2002). Holman Quicksource Guide to Understanding the Bible: A Book-By-Book Overview. Holman QuickSource. B&H Publishing Group. p. PT233. ISBN 978-1-4336-7134-0. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Most critical scholars deny that Mark was the author or that he wrote on the basis of Peter's recollections Craig, William Lane; Lüdemann, Gerd; Copan, Paul; Tacelli, Ronald K. (2000). Jesus' Resurrection: Fact Or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig & Gerd Ludemann (in Dutch). InterVarsity Press. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-8308-1569-2. Retrieved 13 August 2023. I wanted to use that quotation in order to show that the results of historical scholarship can be made known to the public—especially to believers—only with difficulty. Many Christians feel threatened if they hear that most of what was written in the Bible is (in historical terms) untrue and that none of the four New Testament Gospels was written by the author listed at the top of the text. Jeon, Jeong Koo; Baugh, Steve (2017). Biblical Theology: Covenants and the Kingdom of God in Redemptive History. Wipf & Stock. p. 181 fn. 10. ISBN 978-1-5326-0580-2. Retrieved 13 August 2023. 10. Just as historical critical scholars deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, so they also deny the authorship of the four Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. [...] But today, these persons are not thought to have been the actual authors. E. P. Sanders (30 November 1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin Books Limited. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-14-192822-7. We do not know who wrote the gospels. They presently have headings: 'according to Matthew', 'according to Mark', 'according to Luke' and 'according to John'. The Matthew and John who are meant were two of the original disciples of Jesus. Mark was a follower of Paul, and possibly also of Peter; Luke was one of Paul's converts.5 These men – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – really lived, but we do not know that they wrote gospels. Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the second century. Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press. p. 235. ISBN 978-0-19-518249-1. Why then do we call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Because sometime in the second century, when proto-orthodox Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul). Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,11 and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century. Nickle, Keith Fullerton (January 1, 2001). The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-664-22349-6. We must candidly acknowledge that all three of the Synoptic Gospels are anonymous documents. None of the three gains any importance by association with those traditional figures out of the life of the early church. Neither do they lose anything in importance by being recognized to be anonymous. Throughout this book the traditional names are used to refer to the authors of the first three Gospels, but we shall do so simply as a device of convenience. Ehrman, Bart D. (November 1, 2004). Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code : A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 110–111. ISBN 978-0-19-534616-9. We call these books, of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And for centuries Christians have believed they were actually written by these people: two of the disciples of Jesus, Matthew the tax collector (see Matt. 9:9) and John, the "beloved disciple" (John 21:24), and two companions of the apostles, Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These are, after all, the names found in the titles of these books. But what most people don't realize is that these titles were added later, by second-century Christians, decades after the books themselves had been written, in order to be able to claim that they were apostolic in origin. Why would later Christians do this? Recall our earlier discussion of the formation of the New Testament canon: only those books that were apostolic could be included. What was one to do with Gospels that were widely read and accepted as authoritative but that in fact were written anonymously, as all four of the New Testament Gospels were? They had to be associated with apostles in order to be included in the canon, and so apostolic names were attached to them. Bart D. Ehrman (2000:43) The New Testament: a historical introduction to early Christian writings. Oxford University Press. Ehrman, Bart D. (2006). The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed. Oxford University Press. p. 143. ISBN 978-0-19-971104-8. Retrieved 13 August 2023. The Gospels of the New Testament are therefore our earliest accounts. These do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, and historians have long recognized that they were produced by second- or third-generation Christians living in different countries than Jesus (and Judas) did, speaking a different language (Greek instead of Aramaic), experiencing different situations, and addressing different audiences. Ehrman, Bart D. (2000). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press. p. 55. ISBN 978-0-19-512639-6. Retrieved 13 August 2023. We have already learned significant bits of information about these books. They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death by authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns. The authors all wrote in Greek and they all used sources for the stories they narrate. Luke explicitly indicates that his sources were both written and oral. These sources appear to have recounted the words and deeds of Jesus that had been circulating among Christian congregations throughout the Mediterranean world. At a later stage we will consider the question of the historical reliability of these stories. Here we are interested in the Gospels as pieces of early Christian literature. Boring, M. Eugene (2012). An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 522. ISBN 978-0-664-25592-3. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Beginning with Papias in the second century, a tradition developed in various forms that attributed the authorship of the Gospel of Mark to this John Mark, who had been the companion of both Paul and Peter (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). In all its variations, the ancient tradition makes clear that Mark's Gospel was accepted and valued in the church, not because of its historical accuracy, but because it represented Peter's apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark itself makes no claim to have been written by an eyewitness and gives no evidence of such authorship. While most critical scholars consider the actual author's name to be unknown, the traditional view that Mark was written in Rome by a companion of Peter is still defended by some scholars who begin with the church tradition cited above and do not find convincing historical evidence to disprove it.6 For convenience, in this book we continue to refer to the Gospels by the names of their traditional authors. Ray, Ronald R. (2018). Systematics Critical and Constructive 1: Biblical-Interpretive-Theological-Interdisciplinary. Pickwick Publications. p. 123. ISBN 978-1-5326-0016-6. Retrieved 15 August 2023. Authorship by an apostle was so unimportant to early recognition of a writing's authority that names of apostles (Matthew and John) or names of people thought to be associated with apostles (Mark and Luke respectively with Peter and Paul) were only attached to the four Gospels at the beginning of the second century, after those had gained recognition primarily because of churchly appreciation of their content. Having studied the content of John and Matthew, historical-critical scholarship massively doubts that the Hellenistic Fourth Gospel was authored by the apostle John, and widely doubts that the First Gospel was written by the apostle Matthew. That the author of Mark was Peter's associate also seems unlikely, since that Gospel is very Hellenistic and Peter—according to both Acts and Paul—was highly Jewish. Similarly, that the author of Luke was Paul's companion is most improbable, since Acts's accounts concerning Paul conflict much with what Paul's epistles report. Again, had any of the Gospels been written by apostles, why were their names attached so late?125 Nor would apostle associates have been apostles! Foster, Douglas A. (2012). The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-4674-2736-4. Retrieved 15 August 2023. During this period Disciples scholars such as Willett began to study at interdenominational theological schools and secular universities, and for the first time the Stone-Campbell Movement engaged historical criticism as the primary perspective on biblical interpretation. While Campbell's "Seven Rules" had advocated a kind of historical criticism, traditional conclusions about authorship, date, and the nature of biblical documents had been assumed, so that no one in the first generation had supposed that the consistent application of Campbell's own principles would lead to results that challenged and overturned these conclusions. By the end of the nineteenth century, those who followed the critical method arrived at a new set of conclusions that made the Bible look entirely different. Among these new conclusions: the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but represented a long development within history, the prophets were not making long-range predictions about Jesus and the church, but spoke to the issues of their own time; the Gospels were not independent 'testimonies" that provided "evidence" for the historical facts about Jesus' life and teaching, but were interdependent (Matthew and Luke used Mark and "Q"); also, the Gospels were not written by apostles and contained several layers of reinterpreted traditions. Leach, Edmund (1990). "Fishing for men on the edge of the wilderness". In Alter, Robert; Kermode, Frank (eds.). The Literary Guide to the Bible. Harvard University Press. p. 590. ISBN 978-0-674-26141-9. 5. The geography of Gospel Palestine, like the geography of Old Testament Palestine, is symbolic rather than actual. It is not clear whether any of the evangelists had ever been there. Wells, George Albert (2013). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-8126-9867-1. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Mark's knowledge even of Palestine's geography is likewise defective. [...] Kümmel (1975, p. 97) writes of Mark's "numerous geographical errors" Hengel, Martin (2003). Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 98. ISBN 978-1-7252-0077-7. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Furthermore, it is more than doubtful whether evangelists like Mark or Luke ever caught sight of a map of Palestine. Watts Henderson, Suzanne (2018). "The Gospel according to Mark". In Coogan, Michael; Brettler, Marc; Newsom, Carol; Perkins, Pheme (eds.). The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Oxford University Press. p. 1431. ISBN 978-0-19-027605-8. Retrieved 13 August 2023. suggest that the evangelist was a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine. Tucker, J. Brian; Kuecker, Aaron (2020). T&T Clark Social Identity Commentary on the New Testament. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 70. ISBN 978-0-567-66785-4. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Francis Moloney suggests the author was someone named Mark, though maybe not any of the Marks mentioned in the New Testament (Moloney, 11-12). Hatina, Thomas R. (2014). "Gospel of Mark". In Evans, Craig A. (ed.). The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. Taylor & Francis. p. 252. ISBN 978-1-317-72224-3. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Like the other synoptics, Mark's Gospel is anonymous. Whether it was originally so is, however, difficult to know. Nevertheless, we can be fairly certain that it was written by someone named Mark. [...] The difficulty is ascertaining the identity of Mark. Scholars debate [...] or another person simply named Mark who was not native to Palestine. Many scholars have opted for the latter option due to the Gospel's lack of understanding of Jewish laws (1:40-45; 2:23-28; 7:1-23), incorrect Palestinian geography (5:1-2, 12-13; 7:31), and concern for Gentiles (7:24-28:10) (e.g. Marcus 1999: 17-21). Millard, Alan (2006). "Authors, Books, and Readers in the Ancient World". In Rogerson, J.W.; Lieu, Judith M. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Oxford University Press. p. 558. ISBN 978-0199254255. The historical narratives, the Gospels and Acts, are anonymous, the attributions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being first reported in the mid-second century by Irenaeus Reddish, Mitchell (2011). An Introduction to The Gospels. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1426750083. Cousland, J.R.C. (2010). Coogan, Michael David; Brettler, Marc Zvi; Newsom, Carol Ann; Perkins, Pheme (eds.). The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Oxford University Press. p. 1744. ISBN 978-0-19-528955-8. Cousland, J.R.C. (1 March 2018). Coogan, Michael David; Brettler, Marc Zvi; Newsom, Carol Ann; Perkins, Pheme (eds.). The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Oxford University Press. p. 1380. ISBN 978-0-19-027605-8. Lindars, Barnabas; Edwards, Ruth; Court, John M. (2000). The Johannine Literature. A&C Black. ISBN 978-1-84127-081-4. Witherington, Ben (2 June 2004). The Gospel Code: Novel Claims About Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Da Vinci. InterVarsity Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-8308-3267-5. Burkett, Delbert (2002). An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity. Cambridge University Press. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-521-00720-7. Duling, Dennis C. (2010). "The Gospel of Matthew". In Aune, David E. (ed.). The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 301–302. ISBN 978-1-4051-0825-6.

References

Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not super comfortable with this post as it seems to be outside the customary scope of this noticeboard. FTN is for dealing with the promotion of patently fringe beliefs that have been roundly condemned as such by universal or near universal consensus among reliable sources and experts in the field. There is no consensus within the community that religion or religious belief is, ipso facto, fringe. This strikes me as cutting it a bit close to WP:CANVASSING in what is essentially a content dispute. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• • Okay, I retract my request. In my defense, there is such a thing as non-mainstream Bible scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Thank you. I am taking no position on the issue being debated at the article talk page. Only that it is outside the scope of this forum and that you need to be careful about canvassing for support. I am going to go ahead and archive this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fringe and undue

Is that, that and that edits are really undue and fringe as the undoers claimed there? 202.134.10.130 (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Undue yes, as they are rambaling messes. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

They are undue. Also, those quotes are a lot. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 18:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Asherah

Hi, this is about [3]. See also A "Mt. Ebal Inscription" in the Western Wall? An Example of Cognitive Priming on YouTube. Or The So-Called Mt. Ebal "Inscription" Publication: One Big Nothingburger on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis and Origin of the Azerbaijanis 'mixed ancestry'

The Azerbaijanis article has a lot of synthy genetic existentialist crap that seems to pervade Turkic articles. The problem is that while the origins are debated and like all cultures 'mixed' but it presents them as being 'mixed' in the present in a way that isn't backed up well. I'm not sure what teh best way to clean this up is.

Also does anyone know if there is a policy about 'genetics' sections in ethnic group articles? They're always always super fringey but i'm hesitant to just nuke whole sections—blindlynx 14:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Competitive Enterprise Institute

• Competitive Enterprise Institute (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

May need more solid sourcing for denialism. The Institute appears in several places in Merchants of Doubt, but I found no really good quotes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Psychohistory

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

Just noticed this for the first time, coming from Pseudohistory, which mentions it; I had thought Asimov had a monopoly on it.

Most of the criticism is ghettoed away in a WP:CSECTION, I suspect the categories could use improving, and maybe other things are wrong with it. I am not competent enough to make it better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I will shy from classifying psychoanalysis as pseudoscience; what is the extent of intersection? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I see some classic WP:GEVAL there, arguing in favor of why outdated Feudian premises (like the generalizations of psychoanalysis) may be useful. One has to read past the lead to find "According to conventional historians "the science of culture is independent of the laws of biology and psychology"[3] and "the determining cause of a social fact should be sought among social facts preceding and not among the states of individual consciousness".[4]" and then it falls in a type of essay trying to convince the reader that psychoanalysis of societies may be useful despite the fact that historians and anthropologists don't ignore social context... —PaleoNeonate – 21:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

Is [4] an improvement? Doug Weller talk 13:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This topic isn't my area of expertise, but no, it looks like an attempt to dilute well-substantiated evidence of researach misconduct. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m not familiar with this specific thing but I am a meteoriticist, I’ll do a lit dive and try to clean it up some after. Warrenmck (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

If someone has the time I suggest to also look at the above WP:FTN#Flood_myth#Historicity_-_comets_again and Talk:Flood myth#Erich Schmidt. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Brant J. Pitre

A WP:FRINGE Catholic fundamentalist, has a reputation of defending traditional dogmatic POVs widely considered debunked among mainstream Bible scholars. The point is that the article is bereft of sources which aren't WP:BLPSPS or WP:BLPSELFPUB, i.e. lacks sources which are independent of the subject.

Quoted from the article: "In his works, Pitre has consistently defended the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation [...]". The metaphysical reality of transubstantiation is simply not a matter of Bible scholarship: Bible scholars will tell you who defended it and who opposed it, but cannot tell you if it is metaphysically real. Since that is not a matter of historical research, but a matter of official religious dogma. Telling whether it is metaphysically real would require direct access to the Mind of God, and historians are not privy to such information. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hello there, @Tgeorgescu:. Professor Pitre is not a "Catholic fundamentalist" (whatever that means), but a renowned scholar who has worked for respectable institutions, such as the University of Notre Dame, and has published widely acclaimed scholarly works with Eerdmans and Mohr Siebeck; I can only say that he is a conservative theologian and biblical scholar, which is perfectly legitimate. As for transubstantiation, Pitre's defence obviously belonged to the realm of theology (he is also a theologian) and he was defending the Catholic dogma from Protestant criticism. Please refrain from using such an aggressive language and behave in a constructive way.-Karma1998 (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Pitre's book will only convince the already convinced. Its basic argument is that an objective investigation by an honest researcher will discover a thoroughly Jewish first-century Jesus with a penchant for present-day Catholic teaching on the real presence. This is exceedingly difficult to swallow and shows an altogether naive confidence in the ability of modernist historical methods to deliver Christian doctrine.

In fact, Pitre's book is not a work that makes a compelling argument but one that uses some words from the New Testament and relatively or very late Jewish sources to re-present Catholic teaching for non-scholarly Catholics. Excavating the roots of Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is an important task, but it is not helped by books that use historical scholarship so naively.

— C. Kavin Rowe, George Washington Ivey Distinguished Professor of New Testament; Vice Dean for Faculty, Duke Divinity School

Rowe's books have been published by Yale University Press and Oxford University Press—he's obviously no lowly peon.

Current scholarship opposes the author Pitre on every account. His stance is fundamentalist at best. His writing style is that of a high school freshman. ... If you want to learn something, read a book by Dr. Paula Fredriksen or even Dr. John P. Meier, who may have taught Brant Pitre while he was a student at Notre Dame. It's obvious that Pitre didn't pay much attention in class.

— T. Bill, Amazon.com

Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible

What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?

Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008

Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)

Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.

"And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091

On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)

In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.

If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.

— religio criticus, Amazon.com

In respect to the last quote: Pitre maintains that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, and so on. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Simon Gathercole also holds that Mark wrote Mark and so on in this paper published at the Journal of Theological Studies. Is he a fundamentalist too? Potatín5 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe quotes without sources (where did Rowe state this?) and random Amazon reviews should be considered when it comes to a person's reliability. Veverve (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

At https://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/07/confecting-evidence tgeorgescu (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Tgeorgescu: As for professor Rowe, he is indeed an appreciated scholar and his opinion is much welcome. As for the other two (who appear to be internet reviews on Amazon.com), their opinion is highly irrelevant. This still does not explain why professor Pitre should not have an article on Wikipedia.-Karma1998 (talk)

@Karma1998: I did not ask for it to be deleted, I have only pointed some problems with it. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like the word "fundamentalist", fine: he is naive as a historian of Christianity and kowtows to the theological orthodoxy. If he were part of the Catholic clergy, that would be considered more or less normal. But for a Bible scholar (i.e. an expert in higher criticism) isn't normal. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: He is simply a conservative biblical scholar, you'll find plenty of them. Other labels are simply slurs used to demonise scholars that are not liberal..--Karma1998 (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, naive is not my own opinion, see the cited article. It wasn't exactly published in a liberal journal. If you want an example, N. T. Wright is conservative, but not naive. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where this is supposed to be going. It's really quite irrelevant whether or not Pitre's positions and arguments are "naive" or out of step with theologians/scholars outside Catholicism; what matters is whether anyone cares what he says, and what they say if they do care. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I was expecting to see something like William Lane Craig with uncritical exposition of positions, but the article is actually pretty skeletal. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is either. Perhaps the word "consistently" is a problem? But that seems a minor thing to encourage a conversation this involved. Help me out! jps (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mangoe and ජපස: If you don't take my word for him being WP:FRINGE, fine, because that is not the main point of this thread. The main point is that this WP:BLP article consists exclusively of WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB, which is not done. I.e. the article has no WP:INDEPENDENT sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, never mind, nobody seems to listen to what I said here, so I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brant J. Pitre. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that many of the positions this person is advocating are WP:FRINGE, I just am not sure I see the problem with the sourcing the same way you do. jps (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup, there are WP:RS if you look good enough for them, but they aren't in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You are certainly within your rights as a Wikipedian to stubbify the thing and add better sources. jps (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Bruce Maccabee

Seems odd that the biography of physicist and ufologist Bruce Maccabee has only positive information and no "Criticism and controversies" section like Stanton T. Friedman, considering Maccabee publicly supported the Gulf Breeze and Carp, Ontario, Canada "Guardian" UFO cases which have been reasonably argued to have been hoaxes. Maybe an editor could add at least a sentence of some kind to balance it so that it doesn't read like a glowing resume? I don't know if balance has been attempted in the past and reverted. 5Q5|^✉ 13:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

A more basic issue in this WP:BLP is the lack of inline refs. A "Criticism and controversies" section requires decent sources, and it may, in general, be a good idea to avoid a separate section on that per WP:CRITS. That essay is an essay, btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Ape Canyon

• Ape Canyon (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Section "Alleged Bigfoot attack" may profit from fringe-savvy editors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Claim that "Equus cf. mexicanus" bones have been found dating to about 1000 ce

See [5]. Doug Weller Doug Weller talk 10:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Saturated fat

This issue has been raised at this board many times in the past. The same fringe papers are being cited every year. See talk-page discussion [6]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Anti-mask sentiment

Article doesn't really get into the science at all. Consequences of anti-maskers = being called a Karen? Entertaining alleged ineffectiveness at reducing COVID-19 transmission, or alleged exaggeration of the threats of the virus without actually explaining that effectiveness or citing anything resembling MEDRS. Dropping a note here, but admittedly I haven't done anything to try to fix it and won't likely have the capacity in the immediate future. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Pioneer of refusal to wear a mask to protect other people: Hannibal Lecter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. Redirected. It's already covered competently elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Good WP:BLAR. Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Good redirect, but missing one WP:BESTSOURCE in the target "Masks for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 in Health Care and Community Settings" and the editors of Annals of Internal Medicine commentary "Getting to the Truth About the Effectiveness of Masks in Preventing COVID-19". fiveby(zero) 14:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

James A. Lindsay

From April 2021 to April 2022, there was a discussion at Talk:James A. Lindsay/Archive 2#Academic label about whether James A. Lindsay, a popular fringe figure on the right, is appropriately classified as a mathematician by profession, and if it should appear in the lead. I think the overall weight of the arguments and discussion show that it should not, so I removed it from the lead section. On the other hand, Jweiss11 has a different reading on the discussion, and added it back. I believe that while it is true that Lindsay studied mathematics in school, and that this should be mentioned in the article about his education, I don’t think it’s appropriate to refer to him as a mathematician in the lead, as he’s never used his education in his career. Jweiss11 thinks differently and points to popular sources calling Lindsay a mathematician, but none of these are especially reliable or compelling. I am posting this here because Lindsay is a leading fringe figure and conspiracy theorist who his supporters defend by using the old argument from authority gambit—"Lindsay has a PhD in mathematics so we should take his theories about the dangers of Cultural Marxism and CRT seriously." I would appreciate if others take a look at this and weigh in. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll concede that Lindsay doesn't have much of career in mathematics post PhD. Nevertheless, many sources, even those critical of him, call him a "mathematician". I think that issue should be addressed on the talk page of that article. This bigger issue, and the one more appropriate for this noticeboard, is the labeling of Lindsay as a "conspiracy theorist" in the lead, in Wikivoice. At present, this rests entirely on the opinion of one sourced commentator, Aaron Rabinowitz, writing for The Skeptic. The validity of whatever Lindsay has argued about culture and politics rests on the merits of those arguments, not on his PhD in mathematics. What's he's written about critical race theory and Marxism, applied racially, culturally and otherwise, is best summarized in Cynical Theories, a book published by a non-fringe publisher and co-authored by Helen Pluckrose, who we don't label a "conspiracy theorist". Jweiss11 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

This discussion can handle both topics for discussion; I don’t think Lindsay should be labeled a mathematician in the first sentence in the lead, but I think it is acceptable to describe his education in the lead. Surely, you must see this as a reasonable compromise? It just means moving the mathematician description later in the paragraph. If I was arguing from your position, this would be a no-brainer solution. As for whether Lindsay is a conspiracy theorist, you can’t honestly believe only one reliable source says that, so I don’t know where you are coming from with this. Lindsay has gone so far down the conspiracy rabbit hole at this point, that I don’t think it’s even a debatable topic. I follow the conspiracy theory space very closely, as I have a particular interest in right wing cults, and Lindsay’s Twitter (X) feed is indistinguishable from a QAnon feed. Perhaps you haven’t looked at it lately? He’s gone completely through the looking glass of reality and has come out the other side. He’s no longer with us here in base reality, he’s gone. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

A reasonable compromise might be the removal of both "mathematician" and "conspiracy theorist" from the lead. I know Lindsay has been a player in lots of Twitter drama in recent years. I've seen some of it. I surely haven't seen all of it. For our purposes here on Wikipedia, any Twitter activity that fails to garner significant coverage in reliable sources is irrelevant. Which sources besides Rabinowitz in The Skeptic label Lindsay as a conspiracy theorist? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m not ignoring your request, but I did want to back up and further address the claim about RS calling Lindsay a mathematician. In 2019, the academic journal The Philosophers' Magazine called Lindsay a "freelance writer and researcher",[7][8] not a mathematician. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Take your time with that request. In the meantime, the sources that refer to Lindsay as a mathematician include [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

And yet, editorial discretion would have us discard those sources as inaccurate and misleading. We aren’t stenographers. For example, The Chronicle of Higher Education you link to calls Lindsay an academic. He’s not. Not all sources are accurate. We don’t just add sources like a bot. We have to sift and weigh them. I gave you a link to a journal article that called him a freelance writer and researcher in 2019. I guarantee you that description was written by Lindsay. And as the talk page noted, he refers to himself as a former mathematician. It’s weird that you are still making the case for such an erroneous description against all the evidence. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm just providing the sources. I've already conceded above that Lindsay "doesn't have much of career in mathematics post PhD". Editorial discretion might also have us discard the opinions of his political enemies that label him a "conspiracy theorist". Jweiss11 (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Jweiss11, please visit the SPLC page I linked to below. It documents a wide sampling of Lindsay’s descent into the rabbit hole of right wing conspiracy theories. You simply can’t dismiss this as an opinion of his political enemies. We either inhabit a shared reality or we don’t. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

At least one of those (the Bakersfield.com item) reads like a churned speaker bio from Lindsay or his agent. Speaking more generally, sources throwing the word "mathematician" into their text without actually covering contributions to mathematics aren't significant coverage of that part of his life. (Of course, in this case there aren't any contributions for them to talk about.) They contribute nothing to the case for describing Lindsay as a mathematician. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Which sources besides Rabinowitz in The Skeptic label Lindsay as a conspiracy theorist?. It’s somewhat of an unusual request, as Lindsay’s entire schtick is based on ideas that are deeply tied into conspiracy theories. Journalists Joanna Hou, Russell Leung, and Maia Pandey refer to Lindsay as "an author, conspiracy theorist and anti-LGBTQ+ activist" in The Daily Northwestern.[17]. The SPLC has their own page devoted to him documenting his conspiracy theories, calling him a "leading voice" in the "conspiracy propaganda movements". They write, "James Lindsay regularly shares conspiracy theories about the supposed communist takeover of the world (especially the United States), promotes “groomer” rhetoric against the LGBTQ community and spreads the “white genocide” theory that Marxists want to eradicate the white race. With alarmism and fearmongering, Lindsay incites and segregates his base."[18] Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so in addition to The Skeptic, we have an activist piece from a student newspaper and another from an activist org that has defamed similar figures in the recent past, like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Anything else? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m curious, what makes the journalists activists, and how does the SPLC quoting Lindsay’s conspiracy theories make them guilty of defamation? Let’s recap: you believe criticism of Lindsay comes from activists and political opponents, and you believe actual, quoted examples of Lindsay’s conspiracies are a form of defamation. This is not a reasonable position. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Because the student journalists are students writing a piece that is clearly activist in it's framing? As for the SPLC, I think they're doing was Lindsay's political opponents on the left typically do, distort his criticisms of the left and conflate them conspiracy theories, similar to how the SPLC conflated Nawaz's and Ali's criticisms of Islam with anti-Muslim extremism. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Please visit our article and subsection on the subject: James A. Lindsay#Conspiracy theory promotion. It feels like you are promoting alternative facts as a legitimate worldview and paradigm. This is a form of post-truth politics and is incredibly destructive to reasonable discourse. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I read the SPLC piece. I think it's a manipulative piece of political propaganda. You seem to be feeling and "having trouble processing" (your own words) a lot of things related to this subject matter. Are you suggesting that I too am some sort of conspiracy theorist in "promoting alternative facts as a legitimate worldview"? It wasn't me who just the other day proposed the "theory" that Lindsay has been pretending to be an atheist for a decade-plus only to serve a trojan horse for Christian nationalism ([19]). Jweiss11 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Lindsay is a an authorized member of the "TPUSA’s speaker’s bureau"[20]. This means that TPUSA, a Christian Nationalist group,[21] is responsible for sending Lindsay out to college campuses to promote their conservative and religious agenda. Odd work for an avowed atheist. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is hardly a reliable source for such a claim. Springee (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if serious. Charlie Kirk and TPUSA have been consistently referred to as Christian Nationalist by dozens of academics and reliable sources. Sociologists Philip Gorski and Samuel L. Perry studied this topic in their 2022 book published by OUP. They specifically call Charlie Kirk a Christian Nationalist on p. 99 of The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy (2022). There is no serious reliable source who disputes this characterization of TPUSA and Kirk. I am of course aware that Christian apologists continue to fight this notion with the bizarre claim that Christian Nationalism doesn’t exist and is a figment of the liberal imagination. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the exact religious beliefs of Turning Point USA are, but it doesn't make sense to suggest that Lindsay agrees with them, or is somehow lying about being an atheist. The reason he spoke at their conference is because he agrees with their criticism of social justice ideology, not their religious beliefs. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the exact religious beliefs of Turning Point USA are What an unusual comment! We know what TPUSA believes in terms of religion, it’s been explained here, and has hundreds of sources in the literature explaining it. It’s neither a mystery nor is it unknown. I am unaware of any atheist in the history of atheism speaking on behalf of an extremist, religious organization that wishes to tear down the separation between church and state and replace it with a Christian theocracy, so you’ll forgive me for questioning the sincerity of Lindsay’s so-called atheism. But since he was getting paid between $5-10k per speech, it’s now clear to me that this has little to do with atheism and more to do with the conservative grift we find so often on the right. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Viriditas, you're getting a little hyperbolic with TPUSA. I'm a liberal and also often find TPUSA cringe, but extremists? Is everything Lindsay does necessarily supposed to have something to do with atheism? I'm an atheist and I do lots of things that have nothing to do with atheism. By arguing here that Lindsay shouldn't be called a CT in wikivoice, I am also now not an atheist anymore? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Anything else? Also the other cites you can find in the article. I won't list them for you again here, since you've participated in plenty of prior discussions about them at the article talk page. MrOllie (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie, well, we might want to recap for those less familiar. Some of the sources cited in the "Conspiracy theory promotion" section of the article don't even mention Lindsay, but rather service the synthesis being fabricated there, e.g. [22], [23]. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Some of the sources cited in the "Conspiracy theory promotion" section of the article don't even mention Lindsay And, of course, some of them do, and they support the point quite directly. MrOllie (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there a few other opinion pieces penned by Lindsay's political enemies, one from the leftist defamation mill Salon.com and two others from avowedly Marxist publications like Current Affairs and Jacobin. I wonder how a Marxist will react to someone who is highly critical of Marxism? Click thru to find out! Nevermind, let's just let Marxist sources have the final say on critics of Marxism and put it in wikivoice. NPOV for the win. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

When you're advancing anti-semitic conspiracy theories, more or less every source is going to come from a political enemy. MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way to criticize Marxism without being anti-semitic? Asking for a Jewish friend. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I dunno, but labeling everyone who would like society to treat minorities better as a 'marxist' as Lindsay does is certainly not the way to do it. MrOllie (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not a remotely fair summation of Lindsay's arguments. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that he should not be called or categorized as a "mathematician" if he does not have and has never had a career as a professional independent mathematician. Lay sources misassign labels all the time, that doesn't mean they are automatically defining features worthy of being in the lead or in categories. No aspect of his notability is derived from his work in mathematics, so we don't need to call him a mathematician. JoelleJay (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

While we can discuss whether "conspiracy theorist" is the correct specific wording to use, it's quite clear that he is a fringe, borderline pseudoscience type of academic (and is Helen Pluckrose from the looks of things) and the co-published book's content is the same sort of fringe nonsense as many of the figures discussed on this noticeboard. So that fringe nature definitely needs to be stated in some form or fashion. Silverseren^C 21:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Reminds me of our arguments over Rupert Sheldrake. One-time biologist, now something else. Similarly, Lindsay is a one-time mathematician, now something else. Crucially, Sheldrake is not known for his contributions to biology. If that is all he did, we would probably not have an article on the guy. Similarly with Lindsay, he is not known for his contributions to mathematics. jps (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I also agree he should not be called a mathematician or even a former mathematician. My standard here is not high: if he had published anything, literally anything, after his thesis I would be fine with calling him a former mathematician. But it really doesn't seem he has, so he's not. He's qualified to become a mathematician but does not appear to have ever professionally done math. Loki (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• This seems a little WP:RGW. GMG^talk 00:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, can you explain you mean here? Which wrong are we talking about? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

In a case where an otherwise boring subject had a JD, and was admitted to the bar, but became an author and public figure instead of practicing law, I have a hard time imagining there would be much controversy referring to them as a lawyer. I expect there would be a presumption that their background informed their later work, even though they realized that they prefer writing and speaking to trying cases.

The difference here seems to be the subject's objectional beliefs. Just look how quickly the discussion veers off course in that direction. Which, even if he liked to kick puppies and slap babies, "subject is a bad person" isn't relevant. But above, when we don't like what the sources say, we need to exercise editorial discretion, and below when we like what the sources say, then "that's all that's supposed to matter". This shouldn't even be at FTN in the first place. Whether or not he qualifies as a mathematician isn't a fringe theory, and that's supposed to be the actual topic of discussion. This is a discussion about how to describe the work and qualifications of a living person, and should be at BLPN or NPOVN. GMG^talk 11:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, thanks for clarifying. I agree with your comments. The question question whether or not Lindsay should be treated as a "mathematician" in the lead of the article is not a question about fringe theories, and therefore doesn't seem relevant to this noticeboard. Meanwhile the question about whether his political commentary qualifies him as a "conspiracy theorist" in the lead might. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If someone had a JD, was admitted to the bar, and then left law to earn fame as a kickboxer, referring to them as a "lawyer" probably would be disputed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I never gave you permission to use my life story. (I kid). Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• The man never worked as a mathematician, didn't teach, didn't publish--there's nothing "mathematician" about him. "Conspiracy theorist" seems pretty obvious. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue with the article calling him a conspiracy theorist, but the section on his claims about cultural Marxism could use some revision. That section essentially implies that he believes the same things that International Jewish conspiracy cranks believe (see Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory) just because he has used the term "cultural Marxism", even though the sources for the article do not support that claim. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s an interesting point, but I assure you, they are one and the same. Alex Jones and others push this theory, but are careful to use pseudo-euphemisms for Jews instead of the J-word. The most popular one on the extreme right is the term "globalist", which Trump latched on to and continues to use today. It is a pejorative term and dog whistle for Jews. The article on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory says, "Breitbart claims that George Soros funds the alleged cultural Marxism project". Soros is often considered the primary "globalist" antagonist. We are not talking about two different theories, it’s the same one, and always has been. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

To quote one of the cited sources: Lindsay goes on to accuse critical race theory of working to penetrate and undermine “every school, college, university; every workplace, office, hospital; every magazine, journal, newspaper; every television program, movie, website; every government agency, institution, program; every church, synagogue, mosque; every club, affinity, pastime, and interest” in the United States and beyond. Hearing Lindsay’s paranoid speculations, one suspects that before long critical race theory will have inspired the shooter on the grassy knoll, concealed the remaining Romanov children, and — worst of all — ruined my night at the bar. - looks well supported to me. MrOllie (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "paranoid speculation" when many proponents of these ideologies openly admit they support this. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

But the source does, and that's all that's supposed to matter here, right? MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

But the sources also say Lindsay is a mathematician. And that's all that's supposed to matter, right? Can you see the point? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll find I have expressed no opinion on mathematician either way. MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Many others surely have. Do value consistent principles? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm with Emerson on the prospect of consistency. MrOllie (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That's quite the poetic and "foolish" cop-out when corned by your own contradiction. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Only when you don't understand the quote. When the situation is different the conclusion will be different. - MrOllie (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like self-issued license for hypocrisy. Jweiss11 (talk 01:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Partofthemachine, I agree. This isn't a paranoid delusion or a "conspiracy theory". It's a legitimate criticism of leftist politics. Critical race theory doesn't do anything by itself; it's a set of ideas. But it's proponents do and desire to do plenty of things. To which organizations and entities does a CRT proponent think CRT doesn't apply? I honestly don't know. I've even seen articles about how hiking is racist and needs CRT therapy ([24], [25], [26]. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not a legitimate criticism of anything, it is a manufactured controversy funded and fabricated by the same conservative grifters, Christian Nationlists, and dark money networks and foundations. It is quite literally the very definition of illegitimate criticism, or fake criticism, and operates solely on an emotional level to sway low information voters using baseless conspiracy theories and fallacious arguments. This has been extensively studied, proven, and demonstrated. What you describe as legitimate criticism has been appropriately and accurately categorized and defined as propaganda and disinformation. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That's very strange because I'm a very high-information liberal, and I've been observing and criticizing the rise of CRT and related leftist identarian ideas for nearly 20 years now, just about as long as I've been editing Wikipedia. I have the receipts; they're probably out of bounds for this discussion, but I'd be happy to share them with you elsewhere. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the wake up call and paradigm shift. Christopher Rufo invented the manufactured CRT controversy. This is widely known and discussed in the literature. There’s nothing the least bit legitimate about it. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm the one who took the red pill here (and I mean this in the most politically-neutral Matrix sense). If Rufo manufactured the CRT controversy, can you explain why I was already concerned about CRT in 2005, when Rufo was 19? It is possible, rather, that he observed something some real yet abstruse and made it digestible for low-info voters? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

JWeiss11 - having read your hiking links, I confess to being a bit unsure how you are defining "CRT therapy." None of those sources explicitly mention CRT, and don't seem particularly philosophical or legal, the two domains with which I most associate CRT (though that's just me). Do you consider any marked anti-racist initiative to be "CRT" in some way? Or could you give a succinct definition? Dumuzid (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Dumuzid, our article on CRT opens with "Critical race theory (CRT) is an interdisciplinary academic field devoted to analysing how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity. CRT also considers racism to be systemic in various laws and rules, and not only based on individuals' prejudices." The first link I provided opens with "American Hiking Society believes that the outdoors should be a place of healing and enjoyment for all. Our mission, 'empowering ALL to enjoy, share, and preserve the hiking experience' will never be fulfilled until systemic racism is erased and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) are safe and welcome outside, have equitable access to quality natural spaces, and equitable employment and leadership opportunities in the outdoor industry." The connection is obvious, no? I think it's highly unlikely that any anti-racist effort coming from the political left in the contemporary west wouldn't be connected to CRT. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I get it now -- would it be fair to say that any initiative or intellectual framework which assumes the existence of systemic racism would then fall under CRT? Feel free to tell me if I have that wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Dumuzid, I don't think it's correct to generalize it that far. If you assume the existence of systemic racism in the American South in 1860 or 1960, you're just observing the obvious. If you're assuming the existence of systemic racism in the hobby of hiking in Vermont in 2023, I think that falls under CRT. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, right. This is sort of where my confusion comes in. Where I said "marked" above I was a bit imprecise. I should have said "overwrought" or something like it. As you describe it, would it be fair to say then that identifying CRT involves more art than science? Dumuzid (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that identifying CRT involves more any more or less art over science than identifying any other political or philosophical ideology. As for CRT itself, it's certainly way more art than science. In fact, a core tenet of CRT appears to be the explicit rejection of the fundamentals of science on the grounds that those fundamentals are systemically racist. I'll quote our article here on CRT again: "In a 1997 book, law professors Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry criticized CRT for basing its claims on personal narrative and for its lack of testable hypotheses and measurable data.[149] CRT scholars including Crenshaw, Delgado, and Stefancic responded that such critiques represent dominant modes within social science which tend to exclude people of color.[150] Delgado and Stefancic wrote that "In these realms [social science and politics], truth is a social construct created to suit the purposes of the dominant group." Jweiss11 (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

But you would agree with me that there exist cases where two people could, in good faith, reasonably differ on whether a given situation is "CRT," for lack of a better term? Dumuzid (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there could be such cases. There also could be cases where two people could, in good faith, but not-so-reasonably differ on any question. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

But when one responds to such difference in interpretation with the "conspiracy theorist" label, we may be moving past good faith. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That's an issue you should take up with the sources using the label; while it may not be WP:DUE or otherwise appropriate for inclusion here, there is certainly at least a colorable argument for it in the article. Dumuzid (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Dumuzid, how do you feel about the sources that call Lindsay a "mathematician"? Is there a colorable argument there too? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Again, not saying it belongs in the article, but certainly not a frivolous argument. Dumuzid (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think mathematician or conspiracy theorist should be used. It is reasonable for the lead to say he has a PhD in mathematics since that is the origin of his academic background. I agree with those who say if he hasn't worked/published since the PhD we shouldn't suggest he has used that math skill as in a professional sense. As for CT, that doesn't seem to be well enough supported to apply such a contentious label in wiki voice. This is a BLP and we are supposed to err on the side of doing no harm. We can include information on things he has said that RS say are spreading conspiracy theories. Per BLP [27], only in rare and very clear cut cases should we be apply such a label to a BLP subject.

Springee (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent addition to Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Parts of Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources were recently copied into Wikipedia:Reliable sources, see diff here. Given the subject matter I thought it might be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Chronic lyme disease

A new editor is threatening to "dramatically rewrite" Chronic Lyme disease stating that it is no longer considered pseudoscience or fringe science. More eyes on the situation would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I doubt this is a new user [28]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with what you've said so far on the article talk page, Hemiauchenia, but I'll add that the article could be clearer on the relationship between "Chronic Lyme disease" (which is apparently a pseudo-diagnosis) and "Post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome" (which is apparently legit). I'd suggest that a rewrite for clarity could be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The source I mentioned on the talkpage goes into some detail [29], the actual symptoms between the two conditions seem similar (the paper cites "fatigue, myalgia, or arthralgia" as the main post antibiotic symptoms for Post-treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome). The main point of difference seems to be that in order to be diagnosed with "Post-treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome", they must have actually had symptoms of real lyme disease, while those with "Chronic lyme disease" have never had any symptoms that would indicate that they were ever infected with lyme disease to begin with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, and I now see how it's implied by the final sentence of the first paragraph of Chronic Lyme disease –– but the way you just stated it is way, way clearer. Perhaps we can add something very close to what you just said to that opening paragraph to make it more evident to the reader? Generalrelative (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I've reworked the lead. Do you have any thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's much improved! Generalrelative (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The user seems to have moved on editing the Lyme disease article, where they have been edit-warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Slate article “ Betty and Barney Hill lost three hours on a New Hampshire highway in 1961. They spent years trying to understand it.”

A good read, interesting analysis. [30] Doug Weller talk 18:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! I'll also say that I have greatly enjoyed the podcast Strange Arrivals, the first season of which was all about the Hills. It takes a sympathetic but very grounded approach--and actually taught me a lot about something I thought I knew backwards and forwards. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

CNEOS 2014-01-08 - confirmed interstellar object?

There's a lack of consistency across various articles about the state of scientific opinion about if CNEOS 2014-01-08 is confirmed to be an interstellar object and also claims about it being related to alien life.

• Charles Hoskinson has "CNEOS 2014-01-08 was confirmed as an interstellar object by the United States Space Force in 2022" and doesn't mention any disagreement on this point, and also mentions that Avi Loeb claims "it could have been created by alien life, a claim which lacks widespread support from the scientific community".
• CNEOS 2014-01-08 says in the lede it's a putative interstellar object but then later that it's been confirmed as an interstellar object. Then towards the end of the article briefly mentions that some scientists doubt this. The article doesn't mention aliens directly, although several of the references do.
• The Galileo Project doesn't mention any dispute about if the meteor is interstellar, saying that this has been confirmed, and in general is a lot more credulous of claims about its composition being anomolous and possibly related to aliens.
• Avi Loeb is a lot more balanced and includes criticism from scientists of both the claims.
• Interstellar object treats it as a confirmed interstellar object in the lead but mentions doubts about this further down the article.
• Manus Island and 2022 in science both say it is a confirmed interstellar object with no mention of this being controversial.
• ʻOumuamua mentions it is a proposed interstellar object but that the claim has been met with skepticism.

JaggedHamster (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent human evolution

Template:Fringe theories was added to the Recent human evolution article last year and is still there; however, the parts criticized as fringe in the accompanying discussion, mainly citations of the unreliable Nicholas Wade, appear to have been removed since then, and the discussion ended more than a year ago. Is this sufficient to remove the template under WP:WTRMT? - LaetusStudiis (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Jaime Maussan

• Jaime Maussan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jaime Maussan has recently been in the news regarding alien claims. Worth keeping an eye on and/or expanding with sceptical coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

There are so few reliable sources discussing his past, he could be a candidate for WP:ONEEVENT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Anna Ali

Very strange page created by a Sockpuppet in 2009 of a Kenyan nun who, apparently, says she was visited by Jesus and whatnot. Zero references, and I can't find anything to show notability online. Wonder if it should just be PROD'd.VdSV9•♫ 19:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Lokenath Brahmachari

This guy is alleged to have lived to 160 but it more likely he died in his 80s. The page has been re-written by a new account with non-English sources and we have statements now such as "He finally attained Enlightenment in the Himalayas at the age of 90 in 1820. His guru was still alive and was 150 years old at the time".

Not sure what to do here. The exact same content was added to the Russian Wikipedia article a few days ago but the article was recently deleted [31] due to the unreliability of the content/translation of the sources.

Some of the newly added sources are suspect, for example Bhowmick, Haripada (2013–2014). শ্রী শ্রী লোকনাথ বাবার জন্মস্থান পূর্ণতীর্থ কচুয়াধাম. I can't find that source online. I see the author has written some books [32] but there is no way to translate these works or verify if the content is accurate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Both of the books by Bhowmick were published by the Lokenath Mission, Kachua which is a religious institution dedicated to Lokenath Brahmachari. That means that its independence is questionable. And obviously any source stating as fact that he lived to 160 must be considered WP:FRINGE unless extremely solid evidence exists that supports it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The same editor that recently added content to the article did the same with the Spanish and the German version. They also made edits in other languages recently. I am guessing they added the same information everywhere. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It might be best to restore the article before they started editing it. Looks like a single purpose account to me that is adding unreliable content that cannot be verified. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

If he died in 1890, then why he is getting coverage from partisan sources only now?

The oldest I could find was this partisan source from 1980 but it provides only a passing mention; "Mauni Baba was probably of the same age as Lokenath Baba , who was 160 years old when he died in 1890."[33] Editorkamran (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The source of Haripada Bhowmick can be verified online in Internet Archive. Link: https://archive.org/details/lokenath-haripada-2023 . Reya3625 (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I have added the citation and I can read Bengali. I am not doing it for fringe religious discussions but rather stating the true facts. Some of the citations are also available online, please check the citations and sources before removing them. The original author has mentioned the birthplace of Lokenath as Chakla, however, there have been so many sources included in the versions that indicate the birthplace to be Kachua. I do not undertand the obsession with this. If there are not many English citations to the information, then please believe the translations done by people who know the local language :) Spandan uo1 (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone takes issue with the question of the birth place. The WP:FRINGE issue concerns claims about his age. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah! I saw the whole article being averted to its former self, hence the confusion. The whole article along with the reliable citations were deleted and reverted to the ones with the lesser cited ones, hence the confusion - sorry. Reya3625 (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I can read Bengali : many of the given sources had PDFs online but some didn't. The ones which were available online had the information that Kachua (Kachuadham) is the birthplace of Lokenath Brahmachari, however, the reverting of edits is leading people to believe the birthplace is "Chowrasi Chakla". The problem is, there is no viable citation given to prove Chakla is his birthplace however there are a handful of citations given for Kachua as a proof - I do think guys, that the citations should be verified and studied before the changes are suddenly reverted back. Reya3625 (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Reya3625: Can you describe the reliability of those sources you have used here and how they verify the information? Editorkamran (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as I've understood - Haripada Bhowmick is an independent Lokenath researcher. And previously the claim of Chakla being the birthplace was not backed by any source at all. The information of Kachua being the birthplace is backed by 3-4 sources however, so I don't know - for me, some sourced information is better than none at all. Reya3625 (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

In many cases, identifying the birthplace of someone is not crucial to the article (says someone who was once involved in a 3 or 4 year long edit war over the birthplace of a celebrity). If the birthplace is disputed, and there is doubt about the sources, leave the birthplace out. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources Spandan uo1 is adding and taking his information from are self-published non-academic works such as this [34]. They should not be cited on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"The information of Kachua being the birthplace is backed by 3-4 sources however", just because a user may add a source does not mean the source is reliable. The sources Spandan uo1 has been adding are entirely unreliable. One academic work I found on Google Books says "Loknath was born in Chakla village in Twenty Four Parganas, West Bengal" (Kunal Chakrabarti, ‎Shubhra Chakrabarti, Historical Dictionary of the Bengalis, p. 107). Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the sources being self-published, though. They are separate entities - the author and the publisher. Reya3625 (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully you are not suggesting this [35] is a properly published academic work. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks to me like a brochure by the Lokenath Mission. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I ran several internet searches on "Lokenath Mission" and "Tushar Kanti Basak". The only links that come up are Wikipedia articles created Spandan uo1 for Lokenath Brahmachari [36], [37]. There is no information about "Tushar Kanti Basak", he is not a recognized academic or historian. There is no information about the "Lokenath Mission". I guess that he is associated with the Lokenath Mission and they are also new. The brochure was published a few weeks ago. I believe Lokenath Mission does exist because Spandan uo1 has uploaded a photograph [38] on Commons. But I am afraid I am not convinced this is a good publisher. The brochure is of poor quality. looks self-published. We shouldn't be linking to this on Wikipedia articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a brochure here the link: https://archive.org/details/20230809_20230809_0625 it has been published not new but in 1983... Reya3625 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

My comments were not referring to that, I was talking about this booklet which has a different author [39]. Do you agree that Tushar Kanti Basak is an unreliable source? You can easily see the poor quality. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, Lokenath Mission is the institution that takes care of the temple compounds back in Lokenath's birthplace, so why shouldn't one consider it as reliable? I mean, I am just curious. Reya3625 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a not a recognized or academic publisher. The brochure is very poor quality. It looked like a comic book to me. It is not acceptable to be citing content like this for historical information. The bar is set higher on the English Wikipedia. We need reliable sources. If all Wikipedia articles cited sources as poor as the Lokenath Mission then this website would be in a mess. If we are citing historical content we need good sources. Let's not cite poor sources and ruin the credibility of articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Their connection gives rise to issues of independence. We have to ask the question: does the Lokenath Mission exist to support unbiased scholarly studies or to promote a particular view? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Psychologist Guy: and @TrangaBellam: I noticed you guys have remove chunks of unsourced or poorly sourced content from Lokenath Brahmachari. I would request both of you guys kindly look also Trailanga, Vishuddhananda Paramahansa, Mahavatar Babaji, and Tibbetibaba. In these Hindu saints article you'll notice either IPs have added unsourced or poorly sourced content regarding their age or their spiritual powers especially Trailanga and Vishuddhananda Paramahansa. Kindly go through these article and remove such poorly sourced content. Thanks--Glcris (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

These days, I am sparingly active.

Each of the sources used at Trailanga, Tibbetibaba, Mahavatar Babaji, and Vishuddhananda Paramahansa fails HISTRS (and even RS). This is no small feat but it is what it is. So, I will pare them down to a couple of lines just as I did at Loknatha.

That said, I do not yet have the time to see if decent sourcing exists for these topics. So, I cannot decide if it will be a good idea to send them to AfD or not. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done TrangaBellam (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Werewolf of Châlons

• Werewolf of Châlons (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Does anybody know of any sources? See last entry on the Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Willem de Blécourt, but looking for where he found the name Damont. Article should probably be Tailor of Châlons and trace the history of the accounts from Sabine Baring-Gould's The Book of Werewolves and Montague Summers' The Werewolf. fiveby(zero) 11:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

He tells us it's one of only seven published trial accounts and names Damont but doesn't tell us where to find that account and only points to Summers and Baring-Gould and can't find in any of his sources (it's not from Henry Boguet). Would be much more informative for the reader if this were redirected to an expanded Werewolf witch trials#France. fiveby(zero) 13:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Feldenkrais

• Feldenkrais Method (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Is kicking off again, with some sweeping changes being mooted on the Talk page.[40] More eyes welcome. Bon courage (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Martha G. Welch

WP:BLPN#Problems with the Controversies section in the Martha G. Welch article Doug Weller talk 21:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

2023 Mexican Congress alien corpses display of so-called "Nazca humanoid mummies"

These "Nazca humanoid mummies" are just more fraudulent 'dolls' assembled with the bones stolen from peruvian mummies. Here is part 2 of a 3-part series debunking similar claims, for anyone wanting a quick update. There are some references in the video description but I don't think they pass RS muster. Here is a good one, I think. VdSV9•♫ 16:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC) One more ref, here. VdSV9•♫ 16:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Untill they are examined by accredited (and identified) scientists who have published their findings in a credible peer-reviewed journal this will be a fringer's paradise. As well as a waste of our time. All we can do is invoke fringe and say "until some credible evidence is provided NO!". Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a credible peer-reviewed journal is needed, nor should we expect that to happen. This an obvious fraud and most serious scientists don't waste their time with it. There have been, mostly peruvian, scientists addressing it on more informal venues which I think should suffice. The Wired story above voices some of those positions and should be enough as a secondary source to further debunk Maussan's claims. VdSV9•♫ 20:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this alien mummy thing a semiannual claim by Jaime Maussan? IMO, this article should be a redirect to Jaime Maussan. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup, redirect to the Maussan bio, which puts his hoax in context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a Spanish language article too so if anyone also edits on Spanish wikipedia, Exhibición de cadáveres de extraterrestres en México de 2023. Appears to be largely a translation of the English article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all for the feedback.VdSV9•♫ 20:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: and @LuckyLouie: to my surprise, I came across an article actually published in a Biology journal describing how the skull of one of the mummies is probably made from the deteriorated and modified braincase of a llama. Doesn't look like the greatest of journals, but not much is needed for this BS. It was used as a reference to this article (in Portuguese, from Instituto Questão de Ciência), in case you want to use a secondary source. Maybe there are others in English.VdSV9•♫ 14:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• https://www.vox.com/culture/23875671/aliens-mexican-congress-real-or-hoax-peru-nazca-mummies-jaime-maussan-fraud-scam This should help. --Hipal (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The Vox article is very illuminating. It'll help fill out the details of the scamsters, either at Jaime Maussan or other relevant articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Vivek Ramaswamy's climate change opinions

There is a Request for Comment about whether Vivek Ramaswamy's view on climate change should be labeled as "climate change denial".

It seems like the RfC was started without enough thought put into deciding its statement, as it avoids the real question, which is how Ramaswamy's position on climate change should be described. The RfC creator is also reverting changes to the RfC statement that allow for alternative outcomes. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

AFAICT, there's no alternative outcome being contested? The issue seems to be that the text being added to the RfC is already in the article, with no one disputing it's inclusion. The editor trying to add it to the RfC didn't want it removed and not has anyone else suggested it should be removed. While I think it would have been better for the starter of the RfC to discuss the wording before starting the RfC and it may be that there are other issues which should be in the RfC; it's unclear to me how adding discussion over something which is undisputed actually helps the RfC. If anything, adding discussion over something which no one disputes just makes the RfC worse since you're wasting editor's time over nothing, and if there are other issues to be discussed, editors are more likely to feel they're sick of discussing it and refrain from participating. Nil Einne (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

NASA UFO Report

[41]

I think it deserves inclusion in more than a few of our articles. I notice a solid debunking of the "GOFAST" video high speed claims. Also a pretty clear declaration that there is no evidence that any UFO is due to aliens.

Anyway, thought I'd drop it here because so many different articles would likely benefit from including this as a source.

jps (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

NASA Delivers Bad News for True Alien Believers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Miracle of Calanda

• Miracle of Calanda (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

For those who want to check whether Spanish-language sources do say that someone's amputated leg grew back. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Clearly a fringe claim, note that any religious miracle is by definition fringe as to be a miracle it as has to inexplicable by science or reason. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

He knew, as this was commonly altogether impossible at any small distance of time and place; so was it extremely difficult, even where one was immediately present, by reason of the bigotry, ignorance, cunning, and roguery of a great part of mankind. He therefore concluded, like a just reasoner, that such an evidence carried falsehood upon the very face of it, and that a miracle, supported by any human testimony, was more properly a subject of derision than of argument.

— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

archive link It is first and foremost an object of historical inquiry. Google translate doesn't do well enough to check if this article is useful or not. fr:Miracle de Calanda cites Luigi Garlaschelli here. fiveby(zero) 15:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The pdf article in Italian seems to be the one mentioned in the last paragraph of the Thanksgiving and inquiry section, from the appendix of Messori's book.VdSV9•♫ 21:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think (and hope) that the author was merely using the story to illustrate that what was a 17th century miracle is now a somewhat commonplace procedure and not actually voicing an opinion on Pellicer's leg as the WP article says. fiveby(zero) 22:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

What's this about at Talk:Osireion#Seems like a joke

User:JKim wrote "The data is very contested if not clarly wrong. The floor level was not there at the time of the suposed construction. Nothing about the laser like figures or the strange heavy blocks. Again, info is stuck in XVIII century. A pity." This response just made to a warning I gave in January maybe relevant, I'm not usre.[42] Doug Weller talk 16:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Child sacrifice in Uganda and Charisma News

• Child sacrifice in Uganda (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Charisma (magazine) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

On Talk:Child sacrifice in Uganda, someone complained that Charisma News should not be used as a source. I agree and I deleted the two instances in the article, but it is still used in several other articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Veterinary chiropractic

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Chiropractic_woo_through_the_backdoor (and please go there to discuss to keep it centralized). Thanks. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the “ Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained”?

We use it in a few articles. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I see the author Brad Steiger is characterized as a generally unreliable source. Where is it being used (and for what)? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie the first five here.[43] Doug Weller talk 18:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it the same Gale as in the WP-library? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I will confess a bias here: I quite like this tome and have owned one for some time (befitting my morbid fascination with woo). I suppose I can see a tortured way to use it as a source for the sociology and folklore of the "paranormal," but I would say it is generally unreliable absent very particular circumstances. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I managed to see a PDF of it, and was surprised at its generally reasonable and evenhanded tone, quite unlike the sensationalized fringe the author(s) normally indulge in. Maybe the Gale editorial staff severely restrained them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Shiva hypothesis

The Shiva hypothesis article could use an expansion to incorporate criticism the concept has received e.g. This article in OUP out this month > Also, I question the statement in the lead that "coherent catastrophism" is equivalent to the Shiva hypothesis. "coherent catastrophism" gives off strong Velikovskian vibes. It's also not clear to me that "Shiva hypothesis" is the best title for the article, because looking at scholar that name appears rarely used. I think a better title would be "Extinction periodicity". Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't really know what to do with that whole thing. Napier and Clube are Velikovskian "reconstructionists" in the sense that they were influenced by Velikovsky but abandoned a lot of the obvious pseudoscience. Still, their arguments are not taken that seriously and seem to weasel their way in the literature through backdoors like textbooks in adjacent fields (e.g. geology) that don't really deal with the subject and so summarize stuff uncritically. jps (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Japan Air Lines Cargo Flight 1628 incident part trois

I see this page has been cited here twice. First time in 2017, when MjolnirPants (I'm not bothering to tag because he retired) said he would look into the page, but I'm guessing he never got to it. And then again in 2018 when @LuckyLouie: opined that it should be WP:TNT'd. And I agree. It's one of the most pro-FRINGE things I've seen in a while. The lede currently states the most far-fetched claims as facts. The whole "this pilot had so many thousand of hours of flight" thing is very UFO-speak. Those images are also a bit crufty, but maybe I'm being over-zealous. The Leslie Kean book in the "Further Reading" section is very pro-fringe, but I'm not sure if it's okay to keep. I made a couple small changes, will see if I find time for more, but I'm still officially "away from WP" for personal reasons. I think the AP piece by Raeburn already in the references (archived here) should be used more, and Brian Dunning had an episode on it in 2020, which could also be of use. VdSV9•♫ 19:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, with sources like "International UFO Reporter" magazine, the article definitely needs attention. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, kind of a credulous article. I made some minor revisions to it just now too, removed some redundant citations irrelevant factoids and reworded a few things, but just minor stuff. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The whole "this pilot had so many thousand of hours of flight" thing is very UFO-speak. You've identified some real problems, but this is not one of them I don't think. It's standard in aircraft incident reports to lead or close to it with the crew, the total number of hours they have and the number of hours on the type. I think in this case it's just using industry stylings. To pull the most recent two NTSB crash reports I can find, we have The pilot reported, on his most recent medical certificate application, that he had accumulated 750 flight hours, 232 hours of which occurred during the previous 6 months. According to company records, the pilot began flying for OPC on March 9, 2019, and he reported (on an insurance form dated March 8, 2019) that he had 872 hours of total flight experience, with 771 hours as PIC and 101 hours as second-in-command. His flight experience included 1.7 hours as PIC in turboprop single-engine airplanes, 396 hours as PIC in multiengine piston airplanes, and 27 hours in multiengine turbine airplanes. As well as, in the next most recent report I could pull up: At the time of the accident, the pilot had about 8,577 hours flying experience, which included about 1,250 hours in Sikorsky S-76-series helicopters and about 75 hours of instrument flying time, at least 68.2 hours of which were accumulated while flying under simulated instrument meteorological conditions (IMC).16 In the 90 days, 30 days, and 24 hours before the accident, the pilot accumulated about 61 hours, 15 hours, and 1.5 hours flying time, respectively.

This is just standard reporting on aviation incidents. NTSB, EUASA and a host of national air regulators all follow a standard format and industry reporting also echoes it. That said there are no NTSB reports for this (seemingly because nothing happened besides seeing some stuff they couldn't explain, none of which adversely affected the aircraft) so I'm not sure its deserving of an article at all. --50.234.188.27 (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that it is standard in aircraft incident reports, but this is not an aircraft incident report, it's a WP article. I say it is "UFO-speak" because it's something ufologists like to bring up as if it were evidence that the person making report is an experienced pilot, therefore, is unlikely to have made a mistake. I wouldn't include this information as I don't think it is at all relevant to the average reader. VdSV9•♫ 20:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear lard - just took a look at this page and I'm still shaking my head. I've written a few pages on UFO's and this is overly technical and very pro "a UFO happened here" - some serious work needs to be done here and probably just rewritten completely. Is there someone who wants to take this on, cause I might have time to do it tomorrow. But if I do, it will be a complete rewrite and not a fuss here or there. I want to be sure I'm not stepping on toes if I do. Sgerbic (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"with a cargo of Beaujolais wine" is in the lead ... who has been writing this article? Why is Beaujolais wine important? Are the aliens trying to get the wine? Sgerbic (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm working on the rewrite - as I'm only using RS sources, this article will be quite short.Sgerbic (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The aliens just called me. They want to know what you did to all their wine. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that ufologists find every detail important (except mundane explanations). That is what makes UFO stories so dull. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

LOL well I'm done - leaving notes on the talk page. It's 1am here, so I'm leaving it to you all to deal with my grammar issues. I was firm and just put in RS and removed photos and transcripts and well most of the previous article. I don't like the categories as this wasn't much of an "incident" and I wasn't sure about the short description I used. Sgerbic (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm too tired to care that I will probably be burned in effigy by (my) morning.Sgerbic (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If that happens, it will probably be a miscarriage of justice. The article seems much better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Blue zone

A user who is also using two IPs is repeatedly adding original research to the article, see talk-page discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

IP still does not get it. Ignores WP:BRD and WP:OR because they know better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

They have broken policy and edit-warred, the best thing to do is to file a case against them at WP:AN/3 which I will do soon. They may be blocked for 2 weeks. They admitted to using the other account, I will assume good faith and not put that down to sock-puppetry but it is a bit odd why they need to use two IP addresses and an account on the same article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The IP thing doesn't seem like an attempt at sock-puppetry. He wasn't trying to hide that it was the same person, so no harm done. VdSV9•♫ 14:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree it is not sock-puppetry but today they are again using a different IP. I don't think it helps when they do this. Unfortunately their edits on the talk-page are disruption. They are not listening to advice nor assuming good faith. This is an on-going issue, I have filed at the ANI board [44]. I believe they should be blocked from the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Edward J. Steele

• Edward J. Steele (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Panspermia crank. Article may profit from more eyes. (Fun blog entry from 5 years ago: [45]) --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

OMG I thought I heard of everything - Covid came from outer space ... like Little Shop of Horrors outer space??? Sgerbic (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Multiplicity (psychology)

Multiplicity (psychology) feels like it could do with some attention. It's been split recently from Multiplicity (subculture). The bulk of the history section is based on uncritically treating mesmerism/animal magnetism as factual. In general it's lacking context or information from a modern mainstream scientific perspective.

As far as I can tell, this article was created by someone who was angry that it was identified as a disorder. Seems like a right great wrongs sort of scenario. If there is some controversy over whether it is always a disorder, there ought to be sources to that effect. None of the ones in the article indicated as much (one Frontiers In article seemed to say that there *might* be a continuum, but it was unclear), and I think that this is fully explored on the Dissociative Identity Disorder article in any case. jps (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, the original Multiplicity article takes too friendly a tone. Most of the people in those communities are self-diagnosed and a decent portion of them are attention-seeking. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:48AA:8774:EFCB:2856 (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiplicity (psychology) (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Peter M. Douglas

• Peter M. Douglas (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The death section caught my eye as a potential red flag for fringe:

Douglas died of lung and throat cancer on April 1, 2012 at the home of his sister in La Quinta, California. As his cancer progressed, he wrote of his beliefs about life and death in lengthy, highly philosophical emails to friends. He halted mainstream Western medical treatment in favor of Eastern therapies, abandoned his strict vegan diet and wound up outliving his doctors' prognoses by many months.

Assuming that everything checks out in the sources (I haven't had time to even look), the problem isn't necessarily the individual facts, but rather how they are placed together in this paragraph, and imply (quite deviously I might add), that Eastern medicine and a meat-based diet extended his lifespan by several months and proved the doctors wrong. It's an absurd claim on so many levels that I don't think I need to go into any more detail, as it should be obvious to others. If someone could help fix this, that would be wonderful, as Douglas was a good guy. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Word for word from Elaine Woo's Los Angeles Times obituary. fiveby(zero) 00:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I've cut down the passage. Hopefully that removes the plagiarism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Was going to add something about obits, but the saw WP:OBITUARIES. fiveby(zero) 00:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the bit about him lighting leaves on fire after he was treated for cancer is in the ==career== section? Am I missing something about his career? Does it have something to do with leaves? Sgerbic (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Without going into too much detail, the edit history shows a few of the usual suspects that I brought up on the NPOV noticeboard a while back for engaging in similar behavior. I only just now connected the dots and see that I'm chasing the dog's tail. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's mostly a case of it not actually fitting in any of the sub sections. [46] But it also seems fair to ask if it belongs in the article at all, at least without further context. E.g. if it limited the subjects planned activities after their recovery or something perhaps it might have relevance, but if it's just something unfortunate that happened to them late in their life that doesn't receive much attention then it might be undue. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

James Tour

• James Tour (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Is this edit acceptable? (This is one of the article where IPs regularly remove the fact that ID is pseudoscience.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would have made that edit. But I will agree that the previous version may have given possibly UNDUE weight to some views of these organizations in a way that sounded like the section was intended to disparage the subject. We need to tread carefully with BLPs when it comes to presenting relevant facts while avoiding presentations that a reasonable person might read as a subtle way of saying "this guy is a kook." To be sure there are kooks out there. And if they are being so labeled by reliable sources that's one thing. But this guy doesn't strike me as one and I cringed a little reading the older version. Do I think this was a disruptive edit? No. But I'm underwhelmed by the fix. A better wording is one that can be discussed on the article talk page and sorted out through the usual processes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess "kook" can take many forms, but there is a bit of "lady doth protest too much" in Tour's insistence that his religious fundamentalism does not influence his certain maverick positions and breaking bread with other nakedly-hostile-to-science religious fundamentalists. It's a common issue among compartmentalized science PhDs who are paraded about by the creationists as evidence that there are "real scientists" who take their pseudoscience seriously. I think it is important that readers are honestly given this information. jps (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I find that some parts of that edit are not only acceptable, but "good", like the part about messianic judaism - the ref used isn't about Tour, there was no reason to include it in his bio, I agree with the editor's reasoning for removing it. As for the more "even-handed" treatment of the Discovery Institute, I strongly oppose it. The context is needed. The bit at the end with "in line with his Christian Fundamentalism" I am on the fence. I don't see many "non-kooks" publishing in the Discovery Institute. To be more precise, if he weren't one, he would be the first. And he may be a very serious scientist in his field, but I have watched his debate with Farina, and his views on origin of life research are very "kooky", with astronomical levels of intellectual dishonesty and/or cognitive dissonance on his part, so... You know. Dodges and ducks like a Quack, for sure. VdSV9•♫ 02:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem I always have in these discussions is a question of audience. I take seriously the complaints of many good faith critics of the typical Wikipedia style (dareIsay, influenced heavily by this board) in identifying pseudoscientific arguments plainly and without hedging as brow-beating and clunky prose. On the other hand, I work with a group of people who use Wikipedia fairly regularly as a first-stop shop on their research journeys and they definitely find such plain, aggressive, and ugly language to be useful as they start their journeys. It isn't fair to sugar-coat or obfuscate the marginality of people like Tour who oppose WP:MAINSTREAM understanding. I think the goal should be to identify such opposition plainly and clearly without torturous tangential exposition that can look a lot like WP:COAT. Context is also important, though, so this needle is often hard to thread. jps (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

AARP/Blue Zones Vitality Project

There have been issues on the blue zone article and talk-page which I noted before but I have just seen this article. The article reads as promotional. Pretty much the only sources on the article are The Albert Lea Tribune.

Most of Dan Buettner's claims regarding blue zones are fringe. I suggest that the AARP/Blue Zones Vitality Project could be redirected to the Dan Buettner article, which is also in a bad way. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Given the attention being brought upon this theme from the recent Netflix advertainment-series [47], I'd say that improving these articles should be given high-priority. VdSV9•♫ 15:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

• Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should the article be rewritten because it is poorly written and argumentative? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Ergodicity economics

Ergodicity economics is problematic. It is sourced largely to articles by Ole Peters, cites the “London Mathematical Laboratory” (a private organisation run by Peters), and if my spidey sense is right, the editor who created the article seems to share a lot in common with Mr Peters. At a minimum I think the article needs to be de-promotionalised, de-mathcrufted, and positioned as fringe. I’m 50:50 on whether it would survive AfD. What do others think? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This rejoinder seems particularly incisive. The authors in that piece argue that ergodicity in economics is a legitimate problem, but Ole Peters's conclusions may be running in a direction that is a bit too far afield from established scholarship. I think there is enough here for discussion somwhere in Wikipedia, but a standalone article like this may not be it. jps (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article is problematic, extensive use of primary sources authored by Peters being one problem and, I have to add, the way prior research is described in the Ergodicity economics article is quite different (towards fringe conclusions and unexplained omissions) even from his own peer-reviewed article in Nature Physics.

Ergodicity in economics is a valid problem, to quote Nassim Taleb post referenced in the article: "For, in the quarter millennia since the formulation by the mathematician Jacob Bernoulli, and one that became standard, almost all people involved in decision theory made a severe mistake. Everyone? Not quite: every economist, but not everyone: the applied mathematicians Claude Shannon, Ed Thorp, and the physicist J.-L. Kelly of the Kelly Criterion got it right."

The Peters work left me with an impression of "ergodicity economics" being, at least in part, a re-branding of this well-established theory without a clear (recognised by reliable secondary sources) material difference from the predecessors. The way Ergodicity economics describes it and the field is entirely inadequate and misleading.

I wouldn't oppose a standalone article that would provide a summary of the recognised work on the subject by Bernoulli, Kelly/Shannon and Thorp, as the way it's thinly spread between Expected utility hypothesis, Ed Thorp and Kelly Criterion is not exactly helpful, but Ergodicity economics article is not it and WP:TNT is probably the most efficient way to clean it up; I'm not convinced that "Ergodicity economics" is a WP:COMMONNAME for the problem too - the term doesn't seem to have wide following outside of the Peters works and possibly affiliated authors. PaulT2022 (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I looked into the edit history and to the article creator's credit, the original version didn't have any of the issues present in the current article, which seem to have been added by single-purpose accounts later, accurately describing Ergodicity economics as a research programme; bold reverting to it may be a simpler solution than an AfD. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Go for it. jps (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been warned for inserting fringe content

Here, I was just warned for inserting fringe content. I'd like some additional opinions, please - am I in fact unknowingly pushing fringe material? Relevant edits are in the recent history of Foreskin, discussion is at Talk:Foreskin#Foreskin_function. - MrOllie (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a load of bollocks. Brian Morris (biologist) apparently makes anti-circumcision activists see red, but happens to be an author on a lot of very high-quality (secondary, peer-reviewed, well-published) material on this and other topics. In the past we've had an unwritten rule on penis-related articles to use something other than Morris sourcing where it exists, to avoid the DRAMAH, but if Wikipedia allowed otherwise high-quality sources to be tossed out just because activists hated a particular scientist, we would all be lost. Note the editor issuing this warning has been blocked. This is a permathread, and discussed probably about once a year. Bon courage (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine activism now in mainspace

I have just moved Anti-vaccine activism from draft to mainspace. It is still a very short article, and is undoubtedly missing a lot of stuff, including specific notable incidents and theories. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Well-done! Should this include categories of people involved in anti-vaccine activities? What is the vision of the page to inform on the whole culture of the movement? Or something else? Sgerbic (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would say that the vision is to make the article as complete and comprehensive on the general subject as possible, which will necessitate naming some individuals. I would leave a more comprehensive list of antivaccine activists to a separate page. BD2412 T 04:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Well done, I think for a while Wikipedia's partitioning of the anti-vaccine/hesitant space has been wonky. This should give a better foundation for coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bon courage (talk • contribs) 04:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Integrated information theory (IIT)

Integrated information theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This possibly WP:FRINGE topic has gotten some attention lately (there was a letter published signed by 124 researchers who criticized the theory as pseudoscience) and I am worried it is suffering from some whitewashing and WP:DUE/WP:NPOV issues. It could use more eyes.

For example, Steelpillow, feels that this change has "too much PoV bias" whereas I see it as simply providing more context and detail on what is already there. Steelpillow has been fine as far as adding criticism to the lead (where it was not mentioned at all), but I am concerned that the article overall is being governed by people who are sympathetic to the theory (judging from the IP edits and new accounts and such). It has all the hallmarks of any "flaky" theory's article. These are the changes that have been made since I first noticed the article (note again that the extensive criticism was not even in the lead at all).

—DIYeditor (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

OMG, that's a terrible article in almost every conceivable way. Large walls of copy-pasted stuff from a wiki; some terrible sourcing (where there is sourcing); thread-mode support and criticism sections, and all while reading like some kind of nerd fancruft. Have cut some of the worst but needs a lot of work. Bon courage (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this article is a mess - badly written and haphazardly sourced. But in among that jumble of sources is a solid body of RS discussing and even endorsing IIT, even describing it as a "leading theory" of consciousness. so this is not some fringe pseudoscientific bullshit like astrology or ancient aliens. There is also a solid body of controversy. Its status is perhaps more like string theory was in the early days: a neat concept looking to be developed into something tenable, but finding that remarkably elusive. Even today, string theory suffers from the critcism of being untestable metaphysics, but that does not make it fringe pseudoscience. Despite the awful state of this article, the same applies to IIT. But what the article does not need is endless anti-fanboi trivia. Better to cut the actual fanboi trivia and bring it back into balance that way. I reverted a bunch of edits because they were just adding to the total mess, and I am disappointed that DIYeditor has not respected WP:BRD or WP:NPOV but has gone ahead and restored them wholesale. There was some value in some of them, but say ranting on about "media frenzy", or naming minor critics and their institutions in the main text, are just too trivial to help anybody here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry re: BRD, your edit summary seemed to be in error regarding POV and I didn't see how that applied at all. Maybe WP:DUE regarding Zenil. Zenil seems to be credible and relevant, but the credentials could be omitted of course. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to expand a little on my own opinion. When the founder of IIT claims in effect that a braindump of your conscious thoughts onto a media drive would remain conscious even after it was powered down, he does his theory no favours whatsoever. But that is a reflection on the fool's philosophy and not necessarily on the science of the theory. However, without RS to back up such an opinion, it is hard for us to sort the wheat from the chaff. This perhaps helps explain why our lovely mess is so hard to clean up. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That does sound suspiciously no-true-Scotsman-y. Bon courage (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

re: science of the theory, I am not certain this is a "scientific" (a posteriori) theory, rather it seems to be an a priori argument, or attempts to bridge the two I guess, with assertions (axioms) the origin or justification of which I do not know. As such it is going to run into a lot of trouble with scientists as we can see among the critics. I have no personal opinion on IIT nor the expertise to form one, despite being interested in the philosophy of mind. I'm just going on my impressions of the article per se; in fact IIT sounds similar to things I have wondered myself.

I think the article is in a much better state after Bon courage's edits. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

So far as I can see, outside the fringe milieu from which this has originated ('consciousness studies'), this is viewed as a load of old bollocks. Wikipedia should of course align with that independent take. Bon courage (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It might well deserve a qualified pseudoscience label right in the first sentence, given that is what the critics are saying and how many of them there are and how vocal they are. It's distinctly not science to my mind and many seem to agree. It's philosophy of some sort as far as I can tell. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I personally agree with most of the above. At present IIT is just some cod philosophy and a (to my mind farcically badly conceived) attempt at a mathematical model of the complexities of conscious thought. The model at least aspires to testability, so to that extent - and that extent only - may be treated as a scientific proposal. On the other hand IIT embodies some significant philosophical ideas, however ham-fistedly, and has attracted interest and criticism mainly on that score. I would argue that it is not even pseudoscience, it is philosophy and needs to be treated at that level. The difficulty is supporting that judgement with RS. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

James Gordon Meek

General FYI: See this discussion at WP:BLPN regarding possible WP:PROFRINGE editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Debugging insect-related conspiracy theories

So us entomologists get to deal with a variety of fringe intersections, but one of our main journals here in the US had a pretty interesting piece that might be of interest to some here. The examples in it might be more of interest to those that deal more directly with politics subjects in the US.

“Debugging” insect-related conspiracy theories, Annals of the Entomological Society of America, Volume 116, Issue 5, September 2023 KoA (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Can't resist a doi:[48] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

However, the author of that article, May Berenbaum, teaches entomophagy (according to WP) and is obviously part of the cover-up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Request_for_comment

An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. It would be appreciated if more experienced editors were involved. TarnishedPath^talk 00:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Kosmos Facttor LLP

• Kosmos Facttor LLP (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

New WP:PROFRINGE PR article... anybody know any RS for this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated it for speedy deletion - even disregarding the woo, it is nothing but an advertisement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Baba Vanga

A prophetess. Article lists predictions that were supposedly accurate, but not, for instance, her prediction that there would be a nuclear war between 2010 and 2014. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I don't see that in the article. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Baba_Vanga#Work. It is also noted that some examples may not have been genuinely made by Baba Vanga. I'm not sure if we should include a list of predictions, whether correct or not, that can be genuinely attributed to her. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Not to belabor this, but I still don't see in that section the nuclear war thing. I can't find the word "nuclear" or those years mentioned in that section or anywhere in the article. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Doug is referring to a failed prediction (near the bottom of the article) that isn't mentioned in the article. - Donald Albury 00:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Domestic violence

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

I've grown rather exhausted with the WP:IDHT/WP:CPUSH behavior of a certain editor at this and related articles where they have attempted to challenge the strong consensus that women are the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic violence. If you have the patience for it, see the repetitious argumentation here, here, here, here, here, here, and now here.

In their most recent talk page post they argue for the inclusion of a statistic stating that 1 in 3 men experience some form of domestic violence in their lifetime, which is well sourced (a fact sheet published by the CDC). However, this source defines "violence" very broadly, so that even psychological harms like being stalked are counted as violence. On the other hand, we currently include the statistic in the lead that 1 in 3 women experience domestic violence (sourced to the WHO), and this is defined narrowly, in terms of actual physical and/or sexual attack. Being WP:NOTDUMB, this recent addition appears to me like it might be the latest attempt by this user to do an end-run around consensus by creating in the mind of the reader a false sense of equivalence between these two very different statistics.

Note that I brought similar concerns about this user to this noticeboard back in August, and that I've made a number of attempts to engage them on their user talk page, most recently here. Any additional eyes on the situation would be welcome. Thanks y'all. Generalrelative (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Not good. See also this edit, [49], which I've reverted for obvious reasons. [50] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Side issue has been resolved. Generalrelative (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow! That one was flagrant. Thanks Andy. Generalrelative (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC) @AndyTheGrump: That was very inappropriate of you. How is that WP:OR? The section was talking about results of the study.... The source compared the results of the Dunedin Study to the mainstream... Please read the source before you accuse me of OR. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC) I just realised, this was a genuine mistake. I mixed up male and female perpetrators. Despite this, it is still not WP:OR. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC) Regardless of whether you mixed up the perpetrators, you have used equivocal secondary commentary about the study from a senior police officer ("If the findings were a true reflection of our community..."), to support an assertion that other studies have been 'contradicted'. The officer, Wills, doesn't say that, he merely notes that previous studies have had different results. Furthermore, you have used the source, referring to a specific very narrow cohort, to generalise about levels of domestic violence amongst men and women generally. The study is interesting, and quite possibly of real significance. These findings clearly merit attention. They cannot however be used in the manner you did to make claims they don't make, and cannot possibly support. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC) Agree. Note that I've started a separate talk page thread for discussing this issue in case anyone else would like to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC) Okay, so fix it. I already used "suggested", which does not assert that the results are true. Maybe 'contradicted' should be changed to another word, but it was used to give proper context to prevent a false balance. Reverting my edits on this error isn't appropriate, instead it'd be better to just fix the wording. Further comments on this issue should be made on the discussion that Generalrelative made. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC) Noting here that this side issue appears to have been resolved. Generalrelative (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that I've been asking for clarification on the talk page and haven't had any adequate answers, eg here where I specifically asked Generalrelative for clarification and got no answer. Issue appears to be largely due to communication errore. I request that Generalrelative please give requested clarifications like what AndyTheGrump has kindly done on the now resolved side issue. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Astrological aspect

• Astrological aspect (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Pretty detailed. Now a conflict is starting about how important one specific aspect is. The fringe has a fringe. How is this to be handled? With popcorn or with the big axe? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no conflict. An editor made an edit, looks like. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Is a YouTube video with archaeologist Brad Hafford a reliable source for Baghdad Battery?

I don't see why we can't use the video, Hafford knows his stuff. This is the video.[51]. The guy running the YouTube channel is good but probably not an rs himself. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I have argued in the past that for videos that are serving as evidence of interviews of reliable sources who are verifiably experts, we should try to preserve the source at, for example, wikisource. If the video is released under a creative commons license, this is straightforward. If it is not, we should have a system for allowing for fair-use transcription somewhere. I imagine commons is not the place. jps (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If a person clicks the horizontal row of three dots on the right end of the video's info below the title, he or she will find basic transcripts, either one version timed to the video and another untimed are available from Youtube. These can provide the basis for a transcription if copyright issues can be addressed. Paul H. (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I deleted it because I was under the impression that YouTube is never an RS. It seems that I was wrong. I have no horse in this race. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

In this case, "YouTube" wouldn't be the source. It would be Brad Hafford directly, I'd say. jps (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Vision therapy

Collapse WP:MWOT. Bon courage (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The article on vision therapy has serious issues with neutrality and requires revision. This has been pointed out by several people on its talk page over the last few years, and their concerns are continuously dismissed by a single user (Bon courage), who refuses to allow any edits that attempt to rectify this issue. This user cites several different Wikipedia guidelines to back up their stance – WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RS, WP:PST, and WP:COI – but it seems to me that contrary to this user's intentions these guidelines back up those who would wish to make the article more neutral. The scientific consensus at present is that vision therapy is effective at treating one disorder: convergence insufficiency, a medical condition marked by a reduced ability to turn the eyes inward, something that constitutes one of the primary components of binocular vision. Convergence insufficiency is found in the general population, but is most often diagnosed in one of two groups: children who struggle with reading or learning to read, and those with a recent brain injury. All of this is uncontroversial and is stated in multiple sources cited in the vision therapy Wiki article itself. The issues begin with the claim made that vision therapy can do more than address convergence insufficiency and related vergence disorders. As the article acknowledges, "vision therapy" is an umbrella term that encompasses a multitude of specific practices, procedures, and exercises aimed at improving ocular function, not limited to convergence insufficiency. Often practitioners of vision therapy will attempt to measure smooth pursuits and saccades, and then prescribe specific treatments aimed at improving ocular function in these areas. As far as I am aware, there are fewer controlled studies examining these other functional deficits and the efficacy of vision therapy at treating them, but scientific research is ongoing and some studies do exist, such as this one. There the result of a controlled study is the claim is that a kind of vision therapy (oculomotor training) is effective at improving saccades and reducing neurobehavioral symptoms for patients exhibiting saccadic dysfunction. So although there is less control tested data regarding other types of functional vision deficits (which are also common after a brain injury), there is some evidence that certain types of vision therapy are effective at treating these symptoms. This should be reflected in the article. The main problem with the vision therapy article is that it ignores the claims above and insists that vision therapy is a body of knowledge (to quote the opening sentence) "based around the scientific evidences that vision problems are the true underlying cause of learning difficulties, particularly in children." As multiple users have pointed out in the talk section, this is not an accurate representation of general self-understanding or actual practice of those who prescribe vision therapy – usually specially trained optometrists (neuro-optometrists and behavioral optometrists). Generally, these optometrists attempt to treat specific visual deficits that can emerge either in the development of the individual or as a result of a brain injury. These deficits (particularly convergence insufficiency) can lead to difficulties reading and learning more generally – again, there is plenty of empirical evidence for this claim, evidence which the article cites – but this is very different from the claim that learning difficulties in general are all tied back to vision problems. IT is not at all clear that the majority of vision therapy practitioners are making such a strong claim (on this, see the back-and-forth between Lechevaler and Bon courage on the vision therapy talk page). In other words, I am in agreement with Lechevaler that the article's opening paragraph sets up and attacks a straw man. Now, it is undeniably true that some practitioners and prescribers of vision therapy overstate its effectiveness and range of application beyond what has heretofore been substantiated using valid scientific procedures. There is plenty of evidence for this – most notably, from a New York Times article from 2010 on controversies around vision therapy, which the wiki article in question cites. It is also true that there is an ongoing schism between optometrists and ophthalmologists, the latter group being trained MDs who distrust the former, and that vision therapy is generally practiced by optometrists, not ophthalmologists. But despite the underlying institutional confusions and disagreements, the relevant standards for evaluating the claims made by practitioners of vision therapy should be those for any good science: the results of controlled studies designed to test the effectiveness and veracity of specific treatments. These show that at the very least, vision therapy is effective at treating some functional vision deficits, in particular convergence insufficiency. Of course, as already mentioned, vision therapy is a general category, and it remains an open question which procedures are the most effective for specific visual deficits (as this scientific paper makes clear). But the Wikipedia article should reflect what is supported empirically, and what is not, as well as the institutional and scientific reasons for doubts around the practice of vision therapy. Claims that lack evidence because there have not been sufficient empirical studies to prove them should not be conflated with claims that have been definitively refuted through such studies. And what really should not be done is to is define vision therapy at the outset as a practice centered around a belief that very few actually hold (namely that "vision problems are the true underlying cause of learning difficulties" in general), and then use the obvious falseness of this belief to claim: "vision therapy has not been shown to be effective according to modern evidence-based medicine." As I have argued, the evidence shows that it is effective at treating some very specific functional vision deficits. In my opinion, the edit executed by Lechevaler and seen here does a significantly better job at a) accurately characterizing the actual practice of vision therapy, b) stating what it can claim to effectively treat as well as which of its claims lack sufficient verification, and c) maintaining a neutral tone in doing so. Unfortunately these edits were removed by Bon courage and the polemical tone as well as the mischaracterizations discussed above were reinstated. AtavisticPillow (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:WALLOFTEXT. Consider starting a discussion with one short paragraph and refer to the ongoing discussion, rather than a wall of text that is too long to read. Thanks. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Think I meet need some kind of 'vision therapy' to read that screed! Sheesh. Bon courage (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I note that an IP tried to whitewash the article back in July, which was only partially reverted so I've rolled it back. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This reversion addresses one of issues I raised (it mentions the effectiveness of vision therapy at addressing convergence insufficiency in the opening paragraph) but continues to paint a misleading picture, for the following reason: it is not that vision therapy is quackery that incidentally happens to treats convergence insufficiency (as with chiropractic and lower back pain). Rather, the neuro-optometrists and orthoptic specialists who prescribe courses of vision therapy have devised effective ways of accurately diagnosing and treating convergence insufficiency. In my view, this is the primary function of vision therapy and the thing that makes it legitimate. Other, grander claims should of course be treated skeptically, as the article suggests. AtavisticPillow (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the wall of text. The issues at hand are obviously complex and require various qualifications of course, hence the length, but the core claim is pretty simple: the vision therapy article mischaracterizes the actual practice of vision therapy, particularly in the opening paragraph, which paints a picture that does not align with the sources cited or the best available scientific data. And also it is overly polemical. Would appreciate engagement on this at least. AtavisticPillow (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you the same editor as Lechevaler? Bon courage (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No, but I did look through their arguments on the talk page and found myself largely in agreement with them. I believe they are an optometrist, whereas I am just an interested layperson. AtavisticPillow (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Autism Speaks

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

From the Talk page: Indeed AS is a hate group, consciously spreading hateful misinformation about Autism. The Autistic community is fighting to repair the damage they do, but with a Wikipedia page like this I understand that we're fighting a uphill battle.

This seems to need more mainstream sources (but not in a separate criticism section). --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt the parity of sources would allow us to write in Wikipedia's voice that Autism Speaks is a "hate group" or is "consciously spreading hateful misinformation". The article looks like it could use some more post-2016 criticism from autism/neurodiversity advocates (it already presents criticism from before this point), but I don't think that's an issue for FTN. Endwise (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a fringe theory, but it is a common opinion among autism self-advocates, for sure. jps (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

What about in post-2016 sources? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Saturated fat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Same user still promoting conspiracy theories on the talk-page now claiming "I've cited many high-quality secondary (and tertiary) sources supporting the alternative POV that high saturated fat consumption does not increase risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease". Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Amazing how lenient wikipedia is with users - all meat diet guy still not banned... def using Wikipedia as a soapbox and also gives me serious competency concerns. Glad you opened an ANI case. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User notified of this discussion. jps (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Link to ANI posting for reference. jps (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Reflecting back on your 'audience' comment, there would probably be something informative for the reader in threading the needle, but it's the editors such as "all meat diet guy" that seem to prevent that by exhausting everyone else. Anyway, "blatant disregard for scientific process can lead to confusion and public distrust" might be useful if this comes up again, and i liked the editor's note: "Overblown claims". fiveby(zero) 15:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It has only just come to my attention that this same user is already topic banned for sexual health [52], there is a repeated pattern here that has been going on for years. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conspiracy theory at 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

There is one disruptive editor, Atinoua who is ignoring the third opinion, fillibustering, and displaying other types of tendentious editing on this article. Currently, one of the edits they are warring over is to include this:

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) maintained a network of informants among the student activists and actively aided them in forming the anti-government movement, providing them various equipment including typewriters and fax machines according to a U.S. official.

The source for this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim is this. A brief AP news clipping from one person's statement. WP:UNDUE unless other RS verify this conspiracy theory. Atinoua's most recent revert here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, editor Hemiauchenia has kindly jumped in, thank you. For anyone that cares, there is plenty of other whitewashing type stuff happenning there, as you might suspect. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Joe Rogan: controversies or misinformation?

• Joe Rogan (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

An uptick of interest in how to summarize Rogan's output, could use eyes. Bon courage (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

But separate issue, lede has nothing to do with the other much more blandly factual edits that I made in the Neil Young section and the section about Rogan supposed views against trans women participating in "any" sports. These banal corrections Bon courage won't allow, for some unexplainable reason. So please, not just eyes on the hyper easy-to-argue lede. Assuming all parties are just trying to help and be impartial, why don't we start with rereverting my much more indisputable edits (either as they were or with whatever changes necessary). {[User:Destrylevigriffith|Destrylevigriffith]] (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Destrylevigriffith, on Wikipedia fewer quotes are usually considered better. You can find a partial explanation on the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy page under WP:IMPARTIAL. And from the other edit, "trans women competing with women in all forms of amateur and professional women's sports" feels redundant and thus less clear to me. Some articles will be more scrutinized on Wikipedia than others, especially if they cover living people or fringe topics. It's going to be much easier learning the norms and technology while editing the motorcycle suspension page than Joe Rogan's impact on trans teenage athletes. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Davidovits

See source 6. The article now leans towards his concrete pyramids view. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed the whole paragraph that contained source 6. It was composed entirely of material taken directly from the source. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

John Ioannidis

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

Accused of conspiracy theories or not? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

If he has been accused of conspiracy theories then he has been accused of them, that does not mean we should jump to conclusions and call him a conspiracy theorist to pander to those who do not like him. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:LABEL is a legitimate concern, but the content at question here is about whether we can say he was accused of supporting conspiracy theories or not. jps (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

First assessment: the article is mostly PR, WP:ABOUTSELF-like but self-serving, often directly using primary sources with COI. It's long and may violate WP:NOTCV. However, there used to be an apparently more reasonable article before. —PaleoNeonate – 10:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, article has gone downhill since I last looked at it. Smells of UPE. Bon courage (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Ioannidis turning out to be a COVID downplayer was one of my biggest disappointments during the pandemic. JoelleJay (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

A lot of idols turned out to have clay feet. I wonder if there's enough sources for COVID grifting yet? Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's UPE, it's just that Saintfevrier is just profringe, and arguably WP:NOTHERE. She got into a massive argument on the wikimania listserv a few months ago because she was upset about the possibility of seeing a transwoman in the bathroom at the 2023 event. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Saintfevrier. jps (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Interesting how I have been branded as "profringe" and "NOT HERE". Extremely interesting how my activity on a Wikimedia mailing list (and the link to it) has been included in an irrelevant discussion on John Ioannidis. I can confidently assume that there is a Wikipedia policy against drawing arbitrary conclusions about a user by tracking their activity on multiple outlets of Wikimedia but I won't waste my time looking it up. Please have a look at my statement in the ArbCom "request for enforcement" thread mentioned above, as you will find interesting details that you either didn't bother to check (i.e. I have been active on practically all the Wikimedia projects for years, expecially Wikidata and Commons) or didn't care to confirm (Please check the screenshot I uploaded to Commons, also in the above thread. I apologised to the LGBTQ community in my last reply to the list but it was withheld from the community. The feeling I get is that some folks are trying to make me look like a villain. I thought being a Wikipedian was about courtesy, transparency, openness etc. After 15 years on the projects, I may be just discovering that I was wrong) Saintfevrier (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Interesting? No, not in the slightest, about as interesting as how long you've been an editor. If you dislike details in John Ioannidis's article, take it up with the sources used to back up the details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

User is now indeffed. This thread can probably be closed now. jps (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Family Constellations

• Family Constellations (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This is not how to do it, but the article should probably still mention it, if there are sources. It does have the category Pseudoscience, which should happen only if the article actually says so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I WP:BOLD added the wording to the lede using source 4; unfortunately I accidentally published before I typed out a coherent edit summary. Article still reads a bit fluffy; perhaps a WP could help? Fermiboson (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COI editor Arbomhard (regarding Nostratic languages and Allan R. Bomhard

As Nostratic languages and the work in this area by Allan R. Bomhard has recently been discussed on this board, I note the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COI editor Arbomhard regarding these issues. I am inclined to close the discussion there as passing the proposed caution, but would like to give editors working specifically on fringe topics the opportunity to weigh in. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There are at least two issues involved in the discussion at WP:ANI, one of which is a topic for this noticeboard rather than WP:ANI. The first topic is whether Arbomhard is engaged in non-neutral editing promoting his own research and his own career due to his conflict of interest as an academic author. The second topic is whether the Nostratic languages hypothesis should be considered a fringe theory and should be presented as such. The first topic is not in the scope of FTN. The second topic is very much in the scope of FTN. I think that the Nostratic languages hypothesis is considered a fringe theory by most historical linguists, and that is the issue for this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I'm obviously not a neutral party in this, but last time we talked about this at length on a noticeboard there was generally an issue caused by the fact that experts aren't going around saying "This minor theory we never mention is a fringe theory". A cursory glance shows linguists routinely referring to it as a fringe theory on sources which wildly fail WP:RS, but it's a bit tricky to find a serious blanket statement that Nostratic is a fringe theory. Likewise you don't find credible academics publishing on it, either. There's shades of grey, as well, between things like Nostratic (which is undeniably a fringe theory at this point) and Altaic (maybe fringe-adjacent in places, but generally its supporters are credible scholars within the field and their perspectives are simply significantly minority ones, as opposed to fringe theorist perspectives). I think it's probably worth rolling Nostratic and all equivalent top level macrofamilies (such as Borean languages and Proto-Human language, etc.) at least to an extent fall under the scope of FTN, whereas others like Altaic languages, while fringe-y in some ways, end up in the serious weeds of academic discourse far more than things which FTN generally keeps track of, but probably could benefit from FTN watching them. Warrenmck (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

In short, the usual issue of academics not paying attention to obvious bollocks. That does make our lives difficult, for sure. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Generation Rescue

Hi, first time poster, long time reader. There appears to be some attempts at removing one of the paragraphs at this article. [53] [54] [55] [56] (COI editor) [57] [58]

This is referenced in the article [59]. Can I make sure that the reference is OK and my reverts (3, so at my limit) are correct? I did e-mail @Ad Orientem: in regards to the COI editor and they left them a COI template. I wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing. Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Service: Generation Rescue (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Damn it, I always get confused about whether to bracket titles. Thanks for putting that right Hob Gadling. Knitsey (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Not bracketing titles is fine. I like that "al" template because there is a high likeliness the article is already on my watchlist, so links to the article history and Talk page history prevent having to click directly on the article or Talk page, which would mean I miss the changes that happened since the last time I checked it. There must be other people who think like that, otherwise that template would not exist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't even know that template existed (hangs head in shame).

AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) has responded to the tp query. I'm going to sit back and learn. I don't have the experience yet in dealing with kind of conflict so I will leave it up to you 'old timers' (please don't block me). Knitsey (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI, have a look at WP:RSP#Jezebel. That would be enough of a red flag for WP:BLP-adjacent material. Fortunately, it is not usually too hard to find good sources for the bullshit Generation Rescue pulls. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Administrator note Page semi-protected x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

James Tour‎

• James Tour‎ (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Would be nice if someone commented on the Talk page on whether abiogenesis is better called a "theory" or "mainstream approach" or whatever else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Mediumship

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

It's Halloween season when the paranormal articles briefly awaken and some contend fringe policy doesn't apply. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The topic essentially details spiritualistic beliefs and practises and the scientific research into the field. The wording (which I restored and subsequently cleaned up anyway) is typical of definitions used to define trance mediumship, which is the purpose of the section. Lucky Louie removed a chunk of the text elaborating on how trance mediumship actually works on the pretext that it was FRINGE; so by the logic of his own rationale that must mean the remaining text in the section is the non-FRINGE view of mediumship. His argument completely falls apart, because the non-FRINGE view of mediumship is that there is no empirical evidence for the phenomenon accepted by the scientific community.

In this case, I contend that FRINGE does not apply to terminology that provides clear-cut definitions for the FRINGE theory that is the subject of the article. I don't think adding words like "supposedly" is particularly helpful, and goes against WP:WEASEL; whether you believe in it or not, whether it's true or not, a definition is a definition. The introduction to the topic makes it clear that no empirical evidence for mediumship that is accepted by mainstream science. Betty Logan (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

We can't say in Wikivoice that a spirit does this, a spirit does that, people's minds are full of this message, etc. because those are either subjective beliefs or subjective experiences. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem with just providing a diff is that the edit is taken out of context: the article as a whole makes it clear there is no empirical evidence accepted by the scientific community, but at the same time the article must have the freedom to provide definitions for the terminology that is utilized in the field. The problem with Lucky Louie's approach is that, in an article such as this, you would have to precede virtually every other sentence with the word "claim", or "supposedly" or "purportedly". I think that would compromise the neutrality of the article and become quite a weary read for the reader, and is not necessary when you have already provided the necessary scientific context for these practises. Betty Logan (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

So preface the definitions to make it clear they are not factual claims. Spiritualists define mediumship as: <etc, etc> MrOllie (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That would be one solution. I have no fundamental objection to that but it would entail the same repetitive wording being added to every definition. Another approach would be just to state at the start of the section that it is providing definitions, so we don't need to keep saying it over and over. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• The wording (which I restored and subsequently cleaned up anyway) is typical of definitions used to define trance mediumship - typical of what. Whose definition. You didn't add a source so it's completely unclear where you're getting this from - is it just your hazy subjective opinion? If you have a source then we need to add it, then we can fix the text to reflect what that source says. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't get it from anywhere because I didn't add it in the first place. There are a bunch of citations in the section, but in any case the wording was not removed on the basis of not being sourced, it was removed on the basis of being FRINGE. So I will ask again, FRINGE compared to what? FRINGE compared to what was left after part of the definition was deleted? The whole field of communicating with the dead is FRINGE, so the rationale does not make sense; if you are going to start deleting stuff in that section on the basis of being FRINGE then the whole section should probably go. Betty Logan (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, then, let's remove the whole thing until we can find better sources. There's a bit in Braude that covers what the trance mediums (which they call "trance speakers") believed, so we can rely on that instead. I don't think we need to kill the entire section - Braude and a few other sources are good sources in that they situate trance mediums in their historical context, and they certainly aren't fringe sources at a glance (although a quick search suggests that we may be suffering from western bias; most of the sources on Google Scholar that talk about trance mediumship are about Buddhism. I'm not sure it can be considered the same topic, though.) The only problem was the "trance mediumship is XYZ" paragraph. The fringe concern is that we want to avoid stating the beliefs of mediums in the article voice, but this is easily avoided if we have proper sources - non-fringe WP:SECONDARY sources will use attribution and more cautious wording anyway, which we can just reflect, while primary sources can just be attributed when we use them at all. --Aquillion (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say. I am not defending the section as written, and if I had written that section myself it certainly would be superior to what is there now, and it would be clearer which claim comes from which source. This discussion has somewhat expanded beyond the purpose of my original edit though, which was that the rationale for removing some of the wording and leaving the rest under the stated rationale didn't really make sense to me. Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• A bigger problem is that we're not citing any sources in this part at all. Is this a summary of the sources after the blockquote? If so we should actually look at what they say. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Turbo cancer

• Turbo cancer (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Article about an antivax rumor, new and good but still short. Probably worth watching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I always love "it happened once in a mouse, it is a thing!" claims. With carefully cherry-picked evidence you can argue virtually every thing in the world. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Gunnar Kaiser

• Gunnar Kaiser (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Another fringe author who died according to no source. Article does not always follow WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Texas sharpshooter fallacy

There is a discussion that requires further input at its talk page over the applicability and sourcing of an example in the article. The example is a study which purportedly links power lines to childhood leukemia; the current sourcing for the example is inadequate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Let's stop blessing Medical Conflicts of Interest at WP:MEDCOI.

Just making a note of this. I find that the view that information from health regulatory agencies (FDA, CDC, etc.) can not be trusted due to "regulatory capture" is often used as a wedge to prefer information contrary to agency findings on the safety and efficacy of products and practices (or absence thereof). BD2412 T 03:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Should "Forensic Architecture" be cited for factual claims on the Hamas-Israel war?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#RfC:_Should_the_article_include_content_regarding_the_statements_of_the_"Forensic_Architecture"_group? The RfC asks whether the article should note the claims of a group called "Forensic Architecture" relating to the cause of the explosion in Gaza during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Neutrality^talk 14:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The FA group is unusual:

• A 2021 profile (entitled "The Artists Bringing Activism Into and Beyond Gallery Spaces") in The New York Times Style Magazine described FA as an activist art collective that shares "a belief in art as a revolutionary practice."
• A March 2023 piece in Art in America by art critic Emily Watlington ("When Does Artistic Research Become Fake News? Forensic Architecture Keeps Dodging The Question") said that "FA emphatically refuses to distinguish between art and investigation"; that "most FA members are trained in architecture, but really, what they produce is video art"; and that the group believes in "there are no facts, only interpretations"; and that its "post-truth" approach often leans on "fuzzy evidence and debatable conclusions."

You can imagine what I think of this. More eyeballs—and, better yet, input—at the RfC linked above would be most welcome. Neutrality^talk 02:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This is honestly an outrageous framing of this issue and your actions here have been increasingly disruptive in my view. I could just as well post should Peabody award winning organization that has worked with Amnesty International (AI report) and is cited by numerous reliable source be included in an article. This is really stretching the bounds of AGF here. nableezy - 02:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Blatant canvassing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If there had already been an ARBPIA notification I would have reported it to AE. nableezy - 13:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No, not really. I've made a limited post, transparently, to a widely used noticeboard. I've made my position clear because I think it's important to establish the relevance to fringe notions. Neutrality^talk 13:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Bullshit. 'Making your position clear' in a notification for an RfC is canvassing, plain and simple. And frankly, I don't even see what this even has to do with the purpose of this noticeboard. There is no 'fringe theory' involved. Instead, the group appears to have been applying the same analytical techniques that they have previously used regarding a wide range of incidents. Reaching their own conclusions regarding an incident over which the facts are still far from clear, rather than accepting a consensus arrived at despite firm evidence isn't 'fringe'. And given that the NYT seems to now be likewise questioning the same consensus [60] regarding the incident, your suggestion seems even less tenable. Forensic Architecture might be right about this. They might be wrong. Either way, they seem to have put more effort into looking at the evidence than those who have jumped onto a shoddy journalistic bandwagon, and arrived at a convenient narrative the known facts appear not to currently support. There is nothing more absurd than suggesting that Wikipedia should reject as 'fringe' those who engage with evidence rather than regurgitating the hasty judgements of media looking for quick (and often convenient) headlines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• What is "bullshit" is using a tweet (not even a full report) by an activist art collective that "emphatically refuses to distinguish between art and investigation" and that believes that "there are no facts, only interpretations" in an encyclopedia article. Regardless of what the conclusion is or is not (and even this group labeled their claim a "preliminary" analysis), that is a fringe approach. And you have zero basis on which to assess how much "effort" they put "into looking at the evidence." Neutrality^talk 13:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• No, what is bullshit is a goddamn administrator blatantly violating WP:CANVASS while WP:GAMEing the process by reverting out what had a rough consensus for inclusion and then opening an RFC to enforce their removal for 30 days. You are acting tendentiously and disruptively and frankly in a manner not in keeping with the expectations for being an administrator. That you think you can ignore WP:INAPPNOTE which requires unbiased notifications is absurd. Since ANI is systemaically unable to deal with anything related to this topic it looks like youll get away with it, but do it again, please, so I can report it to AE. nableezy - 13:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Mate, could you please relax? Honestly this level of hostility makes editing the same pages as you awful. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Cool story. nableezy - 14:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Given the number of mainstream media sources that seem to consider the Tweet worthy of mention (i.e. the sources the article in question was actually citing), I'd rather go by their assessment of what is or isn't 'fringe' than yours. As for how much effort Forensic Architecture put into their investigations, I suggest that people visit their website and see for themselves. [61][62] A damn sight more informative than a couple of cherry-picked quotes clearly intended to discredit an organisation who's conclusions you don't like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, an administrator came to FTN to seek backup for their removal of The New York Times, Bloomberg News, el Pais, and al Jazeera. Yes, that really happened. nableezy - 14:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Nableezy: (1) It's perfectly appropriate to start an RfC. There was no consensus, "rough" or otherwise, for including the challenged content. Now other editors will get a chance to weigh in during the RfC. That's the process working. (2) We should be cautious, especially in this area, with adding questionable material. Amid a torrent of conflicting claims and uncertainty, there's no need to rush to stick in everything under the Sun. An encyclopedia article does not typically reflect every claim that has been made - rather, it summarizes the best, most recent sources, even if there is a delay. We are not a newspaper or a breaking news site. (3) You're perfectly entitled to your views, but please don't cast aspirations on me (as you've done), or other editors, or personalizing disputes.
• Andy: The fact that a few news articles have noted a claim (1) does not mean that they are endorsing the claim and (2) does not mean that the claim is due weight to repeat in an encyclopedia article.

In any case, I am stepping back from this article, as my energies are better directed elsewhere (toward less toxic areas). Neutrality^talk 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have not cast a single aspersion, I have shown that you have violated WP:CANVASS with your non-neutral message to a noticeboard that is not even relevant. The claim I am violating anything by a user who has demonstratively violated policy is as absurd as this half-truth propaganda level framing of the opening comment here. nableezy - 14:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think it's fair or reasonable to call my view "half-truth propaganda level framing," nor do I think this this noticeboard is irrelevant. But, in an effort to lower the temperature here, here's what I propose: I could hat the second part of my original comment on this page (as well as all the discussion that follows), leaving only the pointer to the article talk page and the one-sentence intro "The RfC asks whether..." Let me know if you are amenable. Neutrality^talk 14:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If you hat everything after the first line, I would find that to be a neutral notification that would not be canvassing. And I would not object to hatting the entirety of this section after that as well. But since you are claiming this is a due weight issue, the correct noticeboard is NPOVN. But also, the section title is inaccurate, we are not citing FA for anything, we are citing several other sources citing FA's analysis. But whatever. nableezy - 14:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. They have been around for more than a decade. Anybody who hasn't heard of them is frankly a newbie to war reporting. They have been around for yonks and worked with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on behalf of UN special rapporteurs, received EU funding, worked with Amnesty, etc. Extremely reputable 3D site modellers and investigators, and yes, they use designers, because, hello, you use computer-aided design to produce 3D models. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Geez, canvassing with a non-neutral notice, misrepresenting the edit in question (no one is citing a tweet, and no one is citing FA; citing 4 RS reporting on a tweet by FA is a crucial difference, not lost on an admin who has been here forever), and then hatting all the responses? You know that old saying about editors who have "truth" or "neutrality" in their username... Don't do this again. Levivich (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I agreed to the hatting given he hatted the non-neutral part of the notification as well. Think it would be better to restore the hatting. nableezy - 16:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

William Delbert Gann

• William Delbert Gann (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Loads of fringe claims have been resurrected. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

A new IP WP:SPA is removing any discussion of the subject sourced to reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, reasoning that if one says that Gann reasoned so-and-so, that must be verifiable from Gann, and not someone else. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

RSN

A discussion is going on at RSN. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Books by Anthroposophists are not RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Water ionizer

Over at Talk:Water_ionizer#Water_Ionizers I am being accused of violating NPOV and 'Status Quo Stonewalling on an article that seriously lacks NPOV' on this article, which is about pseudo-scientific devices used to produce 'Alkaline water', which proponents argue has numerous health benefits. More voices at the article talk would be very much appreciated. - MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This has now expanded to a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New_Zealand_Herald,_Whanganui_Chronicle,_opinion_piece? MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of asking for help here as well. Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

For clarity on a few points, to make sure I don't get lumped in with the "proponents [arguing that alkaline water] has numerous health benefits":

1. I'm arguing that water ionizers produce alkaline water. As far as I can find, the only sources that claim that they do not produce alkaline water largely refer to the Wikipedia article itself and are thus cyclical citations. Even many sources critical of their health benefits (as they should be) agree that they produce alkaline water. The mechanism behind this is well-understood, and I've provided multiple studies confirming this fact. The main scientific dispute about water ionizers is about the benefits of the water produced.
2. Alkaline water has numerous studies that have come to the conclusion that it is helpful for reflux diseases. Even studies that are critical of alkaline water's claimed health benefits tend to concede that the one area it is helpful for is for reflux diseases.
3. Alkaline water does not change body pH. Alkaline water does not change blood pH. Alkaline water is not some weird kind of "structured water" or "spherical whatever.". Alkaline water is not a magic cure-all. Alkaline water does not help cancer. Alkaline water does not help diabetes. The only solid evidence for alkaline water's medical benefit is in helping treat the symptoms reflux diseases. There are a few more things that there is some extremely limited shaky evidence for, but I wouldn't advocate for the inclusion of any of those in the article, given how shaky the studies are.
4. Water ionizers are sold via scammy MLM's and pyramid schemes that charge way more than the product should cost and engage in predatory tactics.

I am not someone arguing for magic and snake oil. I'm attempting to add nuance to an unuanced article. Ronnocerman (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Richard Webster (British author)

• Richard Webster (British author) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Wrote against Satanic Panic (amongst other things). IPs (probably one person) added lots of stuff in October, most of which seems inappropriate to me, so I blanket-reverted. More eyes may be useful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Effects of pornography on young people#Consumption effects on the brain

IMHO, this whole section is WP:FRINGE. E.g. Gail Dines is not an expert on brains, why should we trust her judgment about human brains? Further, correlation does not prove causation. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing looks questionable for the claims being made, certainly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the bit that was sourced to Dines. The rest could certainly be pared down and copy edited for tone –– or perhaps removed entirely, since it's making general claims based on a single study. Have other studies shown similar results? Generalrelative (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Claims about effects on the brain should meet WP:MEDRS, and the cited source clearly does not. 'Removed entirely' is the way to go. MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Dirk Pohlmann

• Dirk Pohlmann (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Dubious conspiracist guy, article looks whitewashed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

White-washing on Richard Hanania

This article has recently been white-washed after Hanania has complained on the talk-page [63]. Richard Hanania is a white nationalist who has written articles for various neo-nazi magazines such as Counter-Currents, Occidental Observer and VDARE. If you check the old lead [64], many sources have now been removed. The lead now says "Richard Hanania is an American right-wing academic". Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

New lead, more white-washing - "Richard Hanania is an American academic" [65] Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"a white nationalist who has written articles for various neo-nazi magazines" maybe, but he wrote those blog posts in 2008-2012 and has disavowed them as wrong. So the article seems pretty balanced (not "white washed") to clarify that.

The old lead wasn't well written, but I have updated it as of now. Per MOS:LEADELEMENTS, the lead can include "mention of significant criticism or controversies". Many experienced users on the talk page have suggested the significant prominence given to his (since disavowed) opinion pieces from 2008 constitutes NPOV. Putting "right wing" before academic seems strange, hence I put it in the second sentence that He has been described as right wing and libertarian, and a supporter of "enlightened centrism". Zenomonoz (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing any good sourcing for the academic claim, he is known as a political commenter. We have sourcing that says he still makes racist comments "Hanania no longer writes for those publications. And though he may claim otherwise, it doesn’t appear that his views have changed much. He still makes explicitly racist statements and arguments, now under his own name" [66], which is also found in four other sources [67], [68], [69], [70]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

He was a research fellow at Columbia University and a visiting fellow at another uni. Academic is an appropriate title and operating a think tank is his primary job. Meets requirements per WP:NPROF. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems WaPo describes him as a "Political science researcher". Zenomonoz (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to describe this person as a "researcher" if that's what the Washington Post says, but he meets none of the criteria of WP:NPROF. He is notable rather for the controversy he's created, so WP:GNG. Generalrelative (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It really looks like reliable sources are still primarily describing this person as a white supremacist/nationalist to this day, so pointing out his far-right activism in the lead is not a violation of WP:RECENTISM or WP:UNDUE. But given his disavowal of those views (which might be or might not be disingenuous), I think describing him as a white supremacist/nationalist in wikivoice also does not look like the right choice here. That being said, I think we should definitely talk about his far-right activism in the first paragraph of the lead. Saying that he is known for being anti-woke and a libertarian before pointing out his far-right activism is probably undue. Also, whoever put "heterodox commentary" in that infobox was almost certainly trying to white-wash the article, that really looks like an WP:EUPHEMISM. SparklyNights 03:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia page on me is still just a summary of hit pieces. No reason a pseudonym that got no attention at the time should be in the introduction, I'd appreciate people deleting it, or putting at the bottom. Worth fighting this or impossible?" [71], page protection might be a good idea. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

If there was significant IP editing, sure. There was one when Hanania tweeted it, but nobody else has done much. Zenomonoz (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Triggernometry

• Triggernometry (podcast) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This came to my attention because an editor keeps adding stuff in about Sam Harris which looks rather COATRACK-y. However, more generally there was an AfD on this article which was closed with a redirect, which has not happened. In my understanding this podcast is pretty much a platform for all things fringe and culture wars, but I don't think it's received much attention from good sources. More eyes welcome. Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage: There was also a deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 March 22#Triggernometry (podcast). The outcome was to allow recreation... —Alalch E. 01:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, "... subject to a possible reexamination at AfD". Did that ever happen? Whatever, we we ended up with was poor with bad sourcing, OR and COATRACKING. As suggested in that review the way to proceed now is to follow WP:SPLIT if there's enough material in the Kisin article to merit that, Bon courage (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If the content beneath the redirect is restored (yet) again we need to allow for another AfD (i.e. start one), unless all of the changes that introduce new sourcing relative to the originally AfDd version are subject to being reverted for some serious reason (then the version of the article would be pared back to something (near-)identical to the version discussed in the AfD, so it would make no sense to AfD the same version of the same article twice). I don't think that anyone ever will propose a split, realistically. —Alalch E. 02:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's see what happens and if/how the re-merge gets un-merged. Bon courage (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oh well, the full puffery/OR version has been restored with an accusation of bad faith (baked into the edit summary no less).[72]. The article is already getting over 300/views/day and promises to be a WP:FRINGE locus. More eyes probably helpful. Bon courage (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I read your most recent comment here and went over to the article. I also noticed the arguing, which I read only enough to realize that it would never resolve. So I tackled the article on my own as a new viewer (not having noticed it had had a prior AfD, LOL) and cut cut cut some junk, until I gave up and wrote instead my evaluation on the talk page (which is when I noticed the prior AfD). So if the editor who un-redirected it doesn't re-redirect it himself, I'm happy enough to submit to AfD myself. I'll give him either a day or two, or until he notices my eval and writes something that tells me he isn't going to re-redirect it.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've just noticed there is an article on the co-host, Francis Foster (comedian), which has similar issues. Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I’ve went ahead and started a deletion discussion. Fermiboson (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Apollo program#Conspiracy theories

See talk page Parham wiki (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Watchmaker analogy

• Watchmaker analogy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Discussion on German Wikipedia spilled over here. Is a professor of media studies, writing in a journalistic source, relevant? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Seriously WP:UNDUE, especially in the form of a long quote from Schneider's blog. HuffPost explicitly swears off responsibility for Schneider's text, marking it with "This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site". It's like quoting a self-published book. Bishonen | tålk 12:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC).

Galactic Federation (ufology)

Galactic Federation (ufology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Found this article because I'm working on Scientology topics and the page creator mistakenly tied together Scientology and... what is this stuff. The topic seems to have been discussed back in 2020 at FTN Archive 76, but that was before this article was created. I have no clue about this topic but it sure looks hokum FRINGE to me.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. AfD just filed. Utter nonsense with no place on WP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, Ground Crew Project needs the attention of someone with a chainsaw. It's a credulous play-by-play summary of a crazy UFO religion that may just satisfy the letter of WP:FRINGE but has massive NPOV issues and is basically a platform for deranged nutbaggery. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Ground Crew Project has excellent WP:FRIND sources, something you don't often see in these kinds of articles. From what I've read, the few instances of credulous prose may have been unintentional. I copyedited the lead accordingly. The body may be a bit bloated and could use some copyediting tweaks, but it is solidly referenced. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The AfD just closed as merge to Ground Crew Project. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)