Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 61

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63→Archive 65

BloodofFox and the Cryptid Debacle

I've been quiet about this issue for far too long, which I realize now was a mistake. I just wanted to make everything perfectly clear in terms of User BloodofFox and his edits to all articles and categories pertaining to WikiProject Cryptozoology. I have recently been made aware of BloodofFox's edits to the article on the Cryptid whale and his removal of information without properly discussing it beforehand. A brief overview on the history of the article and the user's edits to it is this: Several times now, BloodofFox has either deleted the article with no discussion or attempted to get it deleted through legitimate means but failed to do so. When that failed he posted here complaining and lying to everyone stating that there was no consensus for its restoration even though he was a part of the consensus (he was against it) that determined that the article be restored. Now he is removing massive amounts of information that is legitimately sourced, under the claims that they don't mention cryptid whale in it, a similar tactic he has used for removing categories and reworking articles pertaining to Cryptozoology for the sole reason that they never mention the word "Cryptid" in the article. Cryptozoology is the study of "mystery" animals that have so far haven't been proven to exist by science. Any purported animals that are not only rooted in culture but also through claimed sightings and have not yet been proven to exist by science fits into the categorization of "Cryptid". Articles such as the Pope Lick Monster and the Melon Heads, which so far as I can tell, are only rooted in folklore due to a complete lack of purported sightings. These are acceptable reasons for removal from the WikiProject and its categories. However, Mass removal of sourced information from a controversial subject should be discussed first BEFORE they are removed which has never happened with the edits by BloodofFox. This might sound like ranting, and it might be, but I have ALWAYS tried to reach compromises and when I see edits and removal of legitimately sourced material, WikiProjects and Categories that have never been discussed with anyone, then that is an issue. Every time me or someone else adds these back in so that they can be properly discussed BEFORE they are removed, BloodofFox has reverted such edits under false claims of UNDUE and FRINGE whichout ever specifying a legitimate reason for removal and reversion of attempts to restore the material. Looking at both of BloodofFox's claims, it never clearly specifies the treatment of those articles the way the user has been doing. It only states that more caution be taken with such articles so that they are well balanced and do not contain bias of information if the source is legitimate and verified. True, some articles that were under the Cryptozoology banner were in some way "info bias" and not completely neutral. This would constitute more balanced coverage with theories from skeptics within the scientific community added if they come from legitimate sources. Rewriting an article so that it says "legendary [animal] from folklore" instead of purported [animal] found in folklore/ a part of folklore seems more appropriate. If there are no purported sightings that are backed up by legitimate sources then they should only be a part of the folklore category. If there are, then there is no reason why it cannot be a part of BOTH WikiProjects and categories if they are found in both folklore and through purported/legitimate sightings. I would love to hear from BloodofFox on what his opinion on what should be a part of the Cryptozoology WikiProject and why.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a venue for promoting pseudoscience (WP:PROFRINGE). I get that you fancy yourself a cryptozoologist (the off-site cryptozoology wiki lobbying implies as much), but the site just isn't the place to promote claims about, say, "living dinosaurs". One foot in Young Earth creationism and a fist raised with an intense distaste for academics, today cryptozoology is about as fringe as fringe gets. No one needs to ask permission to remove obscure nonsense about how some dinosaur might be hiding somewhere when there's no reliable source to contextualize it. We've got a whole series of policies and guidelines about that (WP:False balance, for example). If you've got a particular qualm, your best bet is to air it on the appropriate talk page. Otherwise, I can only recommend that you stick to reliable sources (WP:RS). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
(sighs) That's not what I said nor what I meant. I do agree that obscure content shouldn't really be in there or any article for that matter. But more care should be made when working on controversial subjects. As to your edit, there was some reliable sources that you were removing. The working of the information might have been a little off in terms of working and neutrality and should have been reworded rather than removed entirely. I'm not biased as you wrongly claim. I am only in favor of equal and balanced coverage of ALL theories IF they are from reliable sources.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you're talking about cryptid whale, then I need to refer you to WP:SYNTH. While it's common for cryptozoologists to hold up work by biologists as essentially work of their 'own' (when trying to get people to take them seriously, they love to mention the okapi, for example), but stitching together sources that don't discuss an article's topic in an attempt to 'legitimize' it is unacceptable on Wikipedia. In the case of "cryptid whales", that means you need sources specifically talking about "cryptid whales", not a bunch of science papers from actual scientists that make no mention of the phrase (nor of cryptozoology). Zoologists are, uh, less likely to ascribe beach carcasses to whimsical ideas of sea monsters, for example. We're talking about a concept from a pseudoscience here. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
It's ridiculously profringe that there's an article called "cryptid whales." If there was going to an article on reported sightings of unknown whales, it should be something like "Hypothetical whales" and the sightings should be properly sourced instead of using unreliable fringe sources. --tronvillain (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. There's a branch of the pseudoscience apparently fixated on beach blobs (which we currently have at globster) with all sort of ideas about sea monsters and dinosaurs. This stuff has much earlier origins, of course, but the use of the term "cryptid" here is a dead give away for the pseudoscientific approach. This stuff apparently stems from the earliest layers of cryptozoology, such as Ivan T. Sanderson. And, of course, the pseudoscience dominates our coverage of the topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(sighs)... Apparently sarcasm is considered a "personal attack". So much hate and opinion for one topic and I don't understand it... Oh, well. What can you do.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Paleface Jack - As an uninvolved neutral party, I suggest you take a step back from editing any cryptobiology articles and really read through some of the comments left here linking to policies about fringe content. WP:CIR, and being unwilling to have constructive conversations with other editors who are concerned about policy is something that has lead many an editor to sanctions and/or blocks. I don't mean this to warn you in any sense, more like a friendly suggestion so that we don't lose an editor over a (relatively minor) content dispute. Nanophosis (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Already have... I tend not to edit those sort of things but lately I've noticed the edits to those kind of article which felt like vandalism. A sentiment that was confirmed by DarkKnight. But I will take your suggestion. Far too frustrating at the moment. Thanks...--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Not to get drawn into the cryptid morass, but a brief look at the article shows a link to a PDF of Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology which certainly looks like a whale-sized copyvio (and is our text copy-pasted out of this?). Someone is apparently being very naughty. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"Hypothetical whales". With that kind of title, it would probably also cover a number of Category:Controversial taxa. Taxa suggested by actual biologists or paleontologists, but with insufficient data for wide acceptance. Or Category:Undescribed species, where a species is known to exist, but never received a formal species description and is poorly understood. Dimadick (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I would support a move in this direction. See also discussion below concerning the cryptid whale article. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE policy is a violation of the WP:NPOV policy, given certain language used in the section on so-called pseudoscience. I will make my case for this below.


According to WP:NPOV, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Furthermore, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."



Next, let us examine language used at WP:FRINGE:


"Pseudoscience: Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification."

"obviously bogus" is both a subjective phrase and, if I may say so, rather un-encyclopedic. What constitutes "obviously bogus" is going to be significantly different from editor to editor, based on people's worldview and various prejudices. And consensus is not relevant here either, since WP:NPOV specifies that the policy cannot be superseded by editor consensus!

It is inherently non-neutral to label a position in a debate as "pseudoscience", it amounts to taking sides.


"Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

What 'scientific community'? Truth is not decided by majority vote or consensus; there are communities of scientists all over the world, and all over the world you have groups of scientists who disagree with other groups. Deciding that your favored group is right, while other groups are wrong, and thus are 'pseudoscientific', is a clear violation of WP:NPOV's command to not take sides and present the sides without editorial bias. The facts may be presented. The proportional acceptance versus rejection of an idea can be stated; for example, it would be neutral and non-biased to say, "the majority of scientists reject the validity of astrology", since that statement is objectively verifiable. To say astrology is "pseudoscience", though, crosses the line into editorial bias because it labels it as "false science". This same thing applies to creation science and other so-called fringe groups as well. This 'pseudoscience' policy is a clear-cut case of "tyranny of the majority" in action.


"Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy)."

Lots more biased, subjective language here! For example, it is demonstrably false and defamatory (therefore libelous) to claim that biblical creationists lack a critical discourse. Not only do they engage in peer review and publish in scientific journals, but they also meet at conferences such as the International Conference on Creationism (ICC) to discuss and debate various aspects of creation science. You are free to disagree with creation science as an individual, but as an editor, it is your job to not take sides. This is not negotiable! WP:FRINGE violates this maxim, so it needs to be tossed.


"weak evidence" -- yes, another subjective evaluation which should be left to the debaters themselves, not WP editors


"suspect theoretical premise" -- suspect according to whom? Let the debaters decide and leave your opinion out of WP articles.


For any who read this-- thank you for your time. I hope you will consider my points in a level-headed fashion, even if you may be offended by what I am pointing out.

Thanks, --Kanbei85 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Being "subjective" is not an issue at all. Anyone can claim to know the "truth", we need to use "consensus" among people known for reliability to assess what it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
According to WP:NPOV policy, being subjective (non-neutral) is an issue. This policy cannot be superseded by editor consensus.--Kanbei85 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations, @Kanbei85: you've just won a topic ban! It'll be delivered shortly. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
On what basis?@Ian.thomson:--Kanbei85 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

In point of fact, our fringe guidance is an elaboration of (at least) WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL, which are intrinsic to WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Alright, but that does nothing to address the issue. There is a blatant contradiction there, which I have just pointed out.--Kanbei85 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually it does. If you think that it's a "side" of an argument that (say) many world leaders are reptiles in disguise, you misunderstand. Fringe things are by definition outside normal discourse. It would help if you could give a specific example (i.e. in an aricle here) where you think things are being done wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
And WP:CIR. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it'd be inappropriate for a variety of reasons for me to put a link to his talkpage in that guideline... Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • 1) " "obviously bogus" is both a subjective phrase and, if I may say so, rather un-encyclopedic." What kind of encyclopedia does not explain obvious untruths and misconceptions? It would not be worth the paper it was printed on. We are obligated to point out that The Exodus contradicts the archaelogical record and that Mosaic authorship is rejected, and various other things based on the data.
  • 2) "What 'scientific community'? Truth is not decided by majority vote or consensus; there are communities of scientists all over the world, and all over the world you have groups of scientists who disagree with other groups." Disagreements between scientists are to be expected. But the scientific method requires "making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions" Ideas like astrology, creationism, or (even worse) intelligent design lack the empirical observations, and can't be verified through experimentation.
  • 3) " "weak evidence" -- yes, another subjective evaluation which should be left to the debaters themselves, not WP editors" Statements like these is why I loose faith in humanity's capacity for reason. Evidence, as in the data collected through sciences such as geology, palaeontology, and archaeology as opposed to blind faith. Dimadick (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Gish gallop at AfD

Probably of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gish gallop. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Same user over on Talk:Creation_science. --tronvillain (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The user in question has been engaging in a slow-motion POV war for years in an effort to insert a creationist POV into the project. They seem to be ramping it up lately. My prediction: we'll be seeing him at ANI soon enough. 151.103.101.244 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they're getting a bit impolite. XOR'easter (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Might I suggest that instead of WP:ANI (which is about individual incidents and typically hands out blocks) we go to WP:AN where admins consider a pattern of behavior and where a community-imposed topic bans typically happen? Who wants to do the honor? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I was in a project conference call today where we reiterated the principle that anyone who comes up with a suggestion is responsible for carrying it out... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Sort of like the Moose Turd Pie story?
Here is a real gem:[2] Which reminds me; is the regular meeting of the Echo Chamber of Smug Editors still on for this weekend?
He also tried asking the other parent here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan Sarfati --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And the AfD is now closed as speedy keep. XOR'easter (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Rather than going straight to WP:AN, I decided to give him some advice on his talk page. See User talk:Kanbei85#A word to the wise. This seldom works, but sometimes an editor surprises me. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, if it doesn't work, at least you failed at doing the right thing. And I've learned both the difference between WP:AN and WP:ANI, and the sheer amount of markup that subst'ing the "unindent" template will generate. So that much was good! XOR'easter (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
He's had a DS alert and still editwars. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Given his most recent response on his talk page, the next time he violates any of our behavioral policies or guidelines, I will take it to WP:AN, unless someone beats me to it. I gave it a fair try, but WP:IDHT beats reason every time. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks that way. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It would have been better if you had.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this Pseudoscience?

Should the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology (FPIN) be branded as pseudoscience? This award was the first annual award given for nanotechnology. Many awardees have gone on to win other newer nanotechnology prizes after winning this award. One of the notable awardees is J. Fraser Stoddart, who won the FPIN in 2007 "[for having] pioneered the synthesis and assembly of unique active molecular machines for manufacturing into practical nanoscale devices".[3] In 2013, he was the co-chair the Foresight Institute Conference. He won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2016 "for the design and synthesis of molecular machines".[4] FPIN tries to be a leading indicator while Nobel is a trailing indicator. Most of the critisim seems directed at the awarding institution, the Foresight Institute, which also was recently branded as pseudoscience. Wouldn’t awardees not list this prize in their bio if they thought it was pseudoscience? StrayBolt (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to say (now I have done a bit of digging) it seems to be a moderately respectable award that recipients are not ashamed of. Hard to see thus how it can be called a Pseudoscience.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a bit of a mystery to me why the Pseudoscience tag was placed on that article. The editor responsible did not use an Edit summary. There is nothing on the Talk page explaining why. It may be about the fact that the Foresight Institute does not really DO science, rather it notes and bases awards what others are doing. But that doesn't seem a valid use of the tag to me. I have asked that editor on his Talk page for a bit more information. HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The Foresight Institute pushes the pseudoscience version of nanotechnology, i.e. Drexlerian magical microscopic robots. I put the Arbcom pseudoscience notice on this page because it is an organisation that promotes the pseudoscience version of nanotechnology, and this prize is an attempt to manufacture respectability for themselves and their promotional aims. There is considerable debate on the prize's talk page as to the extent this even deserves to be presented in Wikipedia in the form it's being presented in. Posting this here without mentioning that context - and not mentioning your post here on that talk page - comes across as deliberately misleading and verges on forum-shopping - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone here is trying to mislead. Thank you for adding what you know. There has been no mention here yet of the article on the prize itself. I didn't know it existed. I just had a look at it's Talk page. Most of the expressions of concern seem to have come from you. Now, you may well be onto something, but please don't attack editors here who are simply asking questions. I still don't really understand the issue here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The article is not about the institution, it is about the prize, a prize that does not seem to be regarded as Pseudoscientific as far as I can see. What I do see is some publicity (including from universities whose staff have received the ward) that gives no indication is is not a perfectly respectable scientific award.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
There are two articles. One about the prize, and one about the institution. The latter is linked in the first post. This whole discussion is bothering me. A lot of ill-informed comments. Please be more careful. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I know there are two, the question is about the prize, this is what I meant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
First time adding a new section here so sorry if I broke etiquette. The above said "talk fringe" may be added to the talk page. Apologies also to those who want it as a noticeboard. Should this be discussed on the page in question or somewhere else? This item is also opposite of most posts, where I think the article isn't "fringe". The "ArbCom Pseudoscience" template looked "scary" and saw no option to disagree, but I was familiar this board. I was focusing on the FPIN to simplify the issue, but I did mention the Foresight Institute because that had been used as a reason. I don't think FI is "pseudoscience" either. StrayBolt (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
While molecular assemblers are clearly speculative, nothing currently on the Foresight Institute page appears to establish pseudoscience.--tronvillain (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Is this notice used on any other nanotechnology articles? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @StrayBolt: Not having researched this topic very much myself (my quasi-!vote in the AFD was based on the failure of anyone before I arrived to find any sources despite apparently putting a lot of effort into searching, rather than on a belief the article was pushing a fringe theory, and my recent comment on the talk page was based purely on the technicality that if we have the article there's no reason not to have a list within the article), I am not sure: can you cite a source here that implies the awardees are no ashamed of having received it? Lots of notable scientists (and artists, etc.) receive awards they have never heard of and did not actively campaign for, but didn't actively turn down, and some of them probably never give a second thought after they receive their award in the mail. The source you cite for Stoddart is Foresight, not Stoddart himself, which given that your argument appears to be based on Stoddart himself being a reputable scientist and not being "ashamed of" having received the award doesn't look good. I did a quick search and noticed that you appear to be right, but then again the CV is 27 pages long and looks pretty comprehensive -- maybe he or his secretary just tagged it on there and no one ever pointed it out that that might be a bad idea. (For all I know: again, not a specialist, and I'm trying to assume good faith on all sides here.) Given this, your OP comment in this thread really looks like you meant to mislead (both the way it is written and the fact that it cites Foresight in a manner that looks like it is citing Stoddart himself). You may wish to reconsider this going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It also here on his university profile page [5], Here his his Britannica profile [6].Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88:Here is Stoddart awarding a 2018 winner of the prize. The quotes above were "rationale" for winning by FI and Nobel, showing how similar they were, just FI did it 9 years earlier. Also, I said he was co-chair of the FI conference, that usually being a big commitment. Another winner, in his Scientific American article on "Nanotubes for Electronics", his short bio only mentions this award, "[Phaedon] Avouris, who manages the nanoscience and nanotechnology group for IBM Research, was awarded the Feynman Prize for Molecular Nanotechnology." (They aways get the name slightly wrong, that is why it is hard to find sources.) I agree that generally no one doesn't list an award; and if they have a sense of humor, even listing an Ig Nobel Prize. What is OP? Opening Position? StrayBolt (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Photos on the news releases [7] indicate that the recipients actually travel to accept the award in person. Also worth mentioning, the controversy about molecular assemblers was active over a decade ago. I'm not sure to what extent the Foresight Institute is even still pushing it. Recent RSs are needed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@StrayBolt: "OP" is internet slang for "original poster" or, less often but gaining ground from what I've seen, "original post." Your guess was not far off! I currently don't have enough knowledge to comment on the main issue that the OP brought up in the OP. Thanks for everyone's hard work involving this noticeboard in general! Geekdiva (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Geekdiva: Thanks! I eventually did figure it out from a later post here. StrayBolt (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory

I have reverted the recent removal of POV and Fringe tags from the article. While undoubtedly done in good faith, I think even a causal glance at the article shows that the issues discussed both here and on the article's talk page remain largely unresolved. The article is mostly one sided with little, bordering on no serious rebuttal to the conspiracy theories offered. Extra eye would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Jakob Lorber

SPA at Jakob Lorber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) adding either original research or copyvio. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring all warnings and continuing to add OR. Presumably an adherent. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahool

A giant (purported) Peruvian bat. XOR'easter (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Why???--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Because an ordinary-sized Peruvian bat just isn't enough. XOR'easter (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Let us not forget Bat Boy... --Guy Macon (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Ahool. Snow closed. There was a temporary redirect which was reverted, and I've deleted it as empty. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
True. :)--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Placebo

A discussion that started on talk:homeopathy has spread to a one-against-many dispute at placebo, an article I incidentally find to be rather bloated with references to woo-mongers bigging up the magic of placebo. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, looks like a lot of primary research there for a medical topic. --tronvillain (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
And a mountain of Kaptchuk (an acupuncture shill who has nailed his colours to the "unique and special harnessing of the placebo effect" mast). Guy (Help!) 00:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Afrocentrism and Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories

Undergoing a lot of editing. Mostly ok I think. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a look at one that didn't seem to be entirely supported by the added reference (the African peanut/cotton one). --tronvillain (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Just traced the translated quote back, and across three pages it had managed to lose the original source of the translation and have a few errors introduced. The original doesn't appears to support anyone finding land. --tronvillain (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about that. Currently the Afrocentrism article is little more than a puff piece; doctoring up what amounts to pseudohistory with flowery words to appear legitimate. I object to the new lede, in particular, this edit.
On top of that, we have a major POV violation (and possibly copyvio), in this edit, which also managed to screw up the whole formatting of the page, AND there are spelling/grammatical errors all over the place. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Mercola, cancer from cell phone radiation, flouride harmful

I've removed new content from the article [8]:

New content on phones: cancer risks arise from mobile phone radiation, which is increasingly supported by modern science and groups of scientists

Old version: cancer risks arise from mobile phone radiation, which is pseudoscientific

I only glanced at the article Mobile phone radiation and health, but the new content seems to be fringe. The old version seems awkward at best.

New addition on fluoride: fluoride and fluoridation is harming overall health. Mercola is supportive of the lawsuit brought by six non-profits against the EPA for failure to enforce their Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) regulations based specifically on evidence of the neurotoxic effects of fluoride on the developing central nervous system.

I think his views on fluoride may deserve mention, but this addition looks to be skirting FRINGE to use the article as a soapbox for fringe viewpoints.--Ronz (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Mercola's media presence is an open sewer, clearly some of it will run into our article from time to time, and we need to take a power rod to it. Good work. Incidentally, I regularly purge links to mercola.com from other articles.  Guy (Help!) 15:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Like this? [9]
Maybe the site is a candidate for MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, exactly like that. It's been a few weeks since my last purge. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kent Holtorf

This article said "He is a board examiner of the American Board of Anti-Aging Medicine (ABAAM)" without noting that this is not a recognized board, and "[h]is practice focuses on alternative therapies that are not yet standard practice with mainstream doctors,[2] maintaining that mainstream medicine tends to be an average of 17 years behind the emergence of new and advanced treatments".

I fixed those egregious issues, but there's a lot more to do here. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

USS Nimitz UFO incident

USS Nimitz UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Radar visual reporting of a UFO during a 2004 Navy training mission, much hyped in mainstream media in 2107 2017. Some recent lobbying on the Talk page seeking to diminish/invalidate criticism by skeptics, particularly Joe Nickell, and boost/validate the narrative of proponents, namely "To The Stars Academy", a fringe advocacy group seeking funding for UFO research. This group played a significant role in fueling sensational media reporting last year, and is currently promoting a purported "classified report" about the incident. Some obvious WP:SYNTH now being edit-warred to the article [10], [11] in an effort to rebut critique by Nickell of To The Stars Academy's fringe narrative. A few more eyes appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition and SYNTH is not presumed Kintpuash (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the term the young people use nowadays is "WTF?" Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Ha. Good catch. But we'll have proof of alien spacecraft any day now (or so ufologists have been saying for the last 50 years). - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Mokele-mbembe, crypto-creationists, and mystery sources

Hello, folks. I'm putting together a rewrite of the infamous Mokele-mbembe, but I'm having some trouble making sense of the sources. For those of you haven't been involved in the recent pseudoscience cleanup efforts in these areas (articles around the living dinosaur-Young Earth creationism-cryptozoology pseudoscience circle, that is), this article may be perplexing and the topic requires a little background.

Essentially, the article is written like so many others related to it on Wikipedia: mostly in direct violation of WP:PROFRINGE. Individuals who fall out of line with the fringe view, like academics, are described as a "skeptic" and ushered into the back. Heavy emphasis is placed on "sightings", etc. Where this one differs from the usually quackery is that reliable sources on this topic in fact do exist (thus meeting WP:FRIND), but they tell a very different story than the current article does. It turns out that a lot of the material produced on this topic results from Young Earth creationist-cryptozoologist overlap, as paleontologist Donald Prothero's work on this topic illustrates (see his The Story of Life in 25 Fossils: Tales of Intrepid Fossil Hunters and the Wonders of Evolution, pp.232-234, Columbia University Press and also Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other Famous Cryptids, pp. 115-116, 262-265, Columbia University Press with Loxton).

In short, creationist groups have been funding cryptozoologist trips to Africa to find this purported dinosaur (or, if you're a cryptozoologist, a "cryptid") for quite some time now (reaching back as far as the 1980s, even). Their goal? To 'prove evolution wrong'. Typically, while well known, you won't find this less than savory fact mentioned by notable adherents of the pseudoscience themselves (but you might find a citation or two to genesispark.com from cryptozoologists, like in George M. Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology(!)). It all makes for a case book example of why WP:FRIND is so important in these corners.

This idea of Mokele-mbembe comes from somewhere, yet the ultimate source of these concepts seems pretty blurry. A lot of writers mention it comes from some kind of folk belief, but that may not actually be the case. For example, editors who have researched the history of the concept of the yeti knows that this can be a complex topic, perhaps even resulting from some kind of misunderstanding in translation, and then taking on a life of its own. Anyway, does anyone know of any solid sources on the origin of the Mokele-mbembe concept? Any specialist linguists, anthropologists, or folklorists who can shine some light on how all this developed as a vehicle for the we-gotta-find-a-dinosaur-to-prove-evolution-is-wrong crowd?

(Also posted at WP:RSN a few days ago, but also posting here since it's quite relevant to this noticeboard.) :bloodofox: (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Part of the problem with all such articles is distinguishing “folk lore” from “pop culture” and both of those from actual scientific fact. All three can (and should) be addressed in a well written article... but they need to be kept separate and clearly indentified. Not easy to do. My hat is off to those attempting the clean up. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. These topics can be tough to approach, particularly when they're flooded with fringe sources that one must first wade through before figuring out what's actually happening. We're lucky when we can find academic sources but they're usually very enlightening. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"We're lucky when we can find academic sources but they're usually very enlightening." Assuming the academic bothered to do the research. When trying to locate sources for a number of Byzantine biographies a few years back, I found quite a few texts by American university presses that had errors in the dating or location of events. In some cases they were reproducing errors by various secondary sources, without consulting the relevant primary sources. Dimadick (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I have myself encountered this. Fortunately, my experience has been that this is the exception rather than the rule. I haven't found this to be regional so much as perhaps institutional. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Cryptid whale

Currently our article cryptid whale relies heavily on pseudoscience sources. Specifically, the article is based on cryptozoologist George M. Eberhart's apologetic, pro-cryptozoology tome Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology (as @Alexbrn: points out above, the article quite brazenly also includes link to a PDF of the work, a straightforward copyright violation). In short, cryptozoologists have a long fascination with beach blobs (which they may call "globsters"). They have a tendency to identify animal carcasses that wash up on shores as sea serpents (or living dinosaurs).

To prop up the pseudoscience and general crackpottery, several sources from actual scientists who make no mention of the word cryptozoology nor the pseudoscientific concept of a "cryptid" are included alongside Eberhart's book. Considering how hostile scientists and other academics appear to have become toward the pseudoscience (cryptozoology has, for example, increasingly becomes a vessel for Young Earth creationism), I doubt these scientists appreciate this invented association. No secondary sources are provided to contextualize cryptozoologist claims (not surprising, as this tends to make cryptozooologists look, uh, less than respectable). This is classic WP:PROFRINGE stirred with a strong dose of WP:SYNTH to make it appear palatable.

While I can't guess the primary author's intent, behavior like this in is in fact common among cryptozoologists, as scholars who have studied cryptozoologists note. This would all be pretty straightforward to fix (root out anything that doesn't mention the concept of a "cryptid whale", bring in academic sources discussing cryptozoologist tendency to identify beach blubs as 'potential sea monsters'), but editing the article has attracted not only the ire of the article's primary author, but also cryptozoologists, all of who appear to be ready to edit-war to keep the article as-is. The article needs more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

wouldn’t all cryptids be fringe theories because they’re all not real? Mysterious Creatures just gives the accounts by the original ‘observers’ and then proceeds to explain it away with logical explanations (for example, it says Giglioli’s whale is likely just a genetic mutation, not that it is a proper species in its own right). However, I would see how the High-finned sperm whale section is pseudoscientific because it seems to assert that it’s 100% real, just not formally described by science yet; and the Trunko section could use a paragraph explaining globsters. Other than that, seems alright to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
First, a little background, the above editor has been highly active on cryptid whale and to date highly resistant to any changes to the article. Second, a response: No, we don't let pseudoscience advocates present their material on their own terms. When we discuss pseudoscience, we require secondary, expert sources to contextualize the material that the fringe writers are passing off as science. Academics from numerous fields — in both STEM and the humanities — regularly criticize cryptozoology as a straightforward pseudoscience, often comparing it to ghost hunting and ufology. Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting pseudoscience (WP:PROFRINGE). Cryptozoloogy and its promotion of what it deems to be "cryptids" is as fringe as it gets. George M. Eberhart, a cryptozoologist, promotes a pseudoscience. He is by no means a reliable source and should not be cited in the article. However, if we have reliable sources discussing him or the approaches and works of cryptozoologists like him, then we should include them. In short, the project requires context for quackery. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Some of the statements attribured to Eberhart have some logical problems as well, regardless of what one thinks of cryptozoology.

"Given the species' alleged size and attributes, it is extremely doubtful such a species would not have been taken (and reported) by modern commercial whalers, bringing into doubt its very existence."

In response to a single sighting in 1867. Eberhart does not seem to address the possibility that the proposed species has since went extinct. And there has been a moratorium on commercial whaling since 1982, with few countries (Iceland, Japan, and Norway) still maintaining fleets of whalers. Large sections of the world ocean no longer have any whaling activities to serve as Eberhart's source of potential data. See also the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and the attempts to ban all types of commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean, to the south of Chile's Tierra del Fuego. (The sighting which Eberhart describes supposedly occured in Chile's territorial waters.) Dimadick (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I should like to point out the anti-whalers didn’t exist in all too great numbers in 1867   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I just reviewed the article and find most disturbing amounts of WP:SYNTH. Cryptozooligist Eberhart is used as the main source for the assertion that cryptozoolgists believe cryptid whales exist. Texts written by legitimate zoologists, news reports of beached whales, and Japanese bioindustry records (none of which mention "cryptids" or cryptid whales) are used in the article — ostensibly as examples of cryptid whales (!). Seriously. Find WP:RS that discuss "cryptid whales" and illuminate what exactly cryptozoologists claim about such creatures. If no sources independent of the fringe crytozoology belief exist, how can we write an objective article about the belief? But (and I'm addressing whoever wrote this mess of an article) don't dragoon legitimate sources that never intended to support the existence of cryptid whales into an article about cryptid whales and position them as supporting the existence of cryptid whales. That's WP:OR.- LuckyLouie (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The one reliable looking source that mentions cryptozoology and "cryptozoological analysis" (though not "crypid") is "Cetaceans with two dorsal fins" (1991) in Aquatic Mammals, but one source hardly justifies an entire article with an explicitly fringe title. --tronvillain (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought that article was pretty interesting. Comparing the article to, say, Jeb J. Card's 2016 article on cryptozoology, evidently this is before the ceiling really caved in and academic tolerance ran out. Difficult to say exactly what the dynamic is there, but a bunch of cryptozoologists seem to be involved with its authorship, judging by the article's acknowledgements. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I’m not sure how much of the article is just an editor saying things and then following it up with a random source that can’t be checked   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I should very much like to fix the article but I’m not allowed to edit it, it won’t let me. It’s like I’m banned from it or something   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
If you're talking about Wikipedia's cryptozoology article, you are more than welcome to check each and every source. Depending on your location, these are all available via Google Books. The article is currently locked due to edit-warring by an involved editor. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It is slightly starting to annoy me that BOF is constantly "name calling" and attempt to delegitimize any editor that disagrees with him. Doesn't seem that professional to me. Even though Cryptozoology is a Pseudoscience, it's WikiProject was only trying to add and improve articles relating to it and not "Legitimizing it" as you claim. I am not at all stating that Cryptids exist, many of them do not, but the purported SIGHTINGS of mystery animals should be included into the WikiProject and not removed from it just because it doesn't mention the word cryptid. Cryptozoology itself is defined as "the study of hidden animals and of still unknown animal forms that have yet to be proved by science. This was later expanded to include any "out-of-place animals, and feral animals". The full definition can be found Here--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully that link was helpful... It's hard finding a detailed definition from someone that isn't a part of the pseudoscience. :( --Paleface Jack (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to with much of this, but the link you provide is to a work by Loren Coleman, who is a very active and outspoken cryptozoologist. As anthropologist Jeb J. Card and others point out, biologists in fact do what you're talking about, but they don't resort to pseudoscience. Cryptozoologists dress themselves as zoologists while raising an angry first at academics (while, say, sometimes making a buck or two in the process or shilling Young Earth creationism). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I’d like to point out again, being a cryptozoologist does not make you an unreliable source to talk about cryptozoology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
See, for example, WP:PROFRINGE. As academics note, adherents of the pseudoscience have gained a reputation for misrepresenting themselves and their arguments to make outlandish claims appear more legitimate to, for example, promote causes such as Young Earth creationism, to promote commercial ventures, or simply to make what they do appear more respectable. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop name calling BloodofFox.... Dunky does have a point though... Wikipiedia is and ENCYCLOPIEDIA not an opinions board. We just report information, not use it as a place to rant and rave about how you don't agree with one subject. If there is information that is reliable than it SHOULD be added, regardless of ones opinions/leanings. You have been very disruptive and rude to quite a few users including myself, resorting to name calling when you don'e agree with them. Please just let it go BloodofFox... For the sake of ALL of our mental health.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Might you provide a diff for this purported “name calling”? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Diff?--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:DIFF. While you're at it, there's also WP:INDENT. byteflush Talk 06:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Although the title of the page is a bit weird, mysterious whales are not just the province of cryptozoology but are part of zoology, Quoy and Gaimard and Giglioni did not identify as cryptozoologists and Bob Pitman has talked about unknown Mesoplodon species in the 1990s (Pitman, R. L., A. Aguayol and J. Urbán r 1987. Observations of an unidentified beaked whale (Mesoplodon sp.) in the eastern tropical Pacific. Marine Mammal Science 3: 345–352. subsequently described and allocated see Pitman, R. L. and Lynn, M. S. (2001), BIOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS OF AN UNIDENTIFIED MESOPLODONT WHALE IN THE EASTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC AND PROBABLE IDENTITY MESOPLODON PERUVIANUS. Marine Mammal Science, 17: 648-657. doi:10.1111/j.1748-7692.2001.tb01010.x). The problem here is the title of the page (replace "cryptid" with "mystery"?). If you are going to claim Quoy and Gaimard and Giglioni are cryptozoologists presumably because of their insidious apparently pseudoscientific observations(fancy suggesting in the 19th century that there were unknown species of whale, what a bunch of crazies!) you have to also include Bob Pitman one of the foremost marine mammalogists in the world as one too. See the problem with labelling all of cryptozoology, pseudoscience? It is hardly consistent to say if cryptozoologists speculate about unknown species of whale, it is pseudoscience, but if zoologists do it is science. P'raps it is time to stop the anti-cryptozoology witchhunt and have more nuanced articles?Tullimonstrum (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow! I never thought about it that way before. I agree with you Tull. It's time to stop the witch hunt and just have articles with reliable sources no matter what side they're on.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nice strawman - no one claimed that Quoy or Gaimard or Giglioni were cryptozoologists, so the argument doesn't follow. The problem is the appropriation of things like reports of unknown whales by pseudosciences like cryptozoology. You have an article (or a section of a cryptozoology encyclopedia) called "cryptid whales", then you scrape together any and all reports of unknown or strange whales, and presto, those reports are all now "cryptids." --tronvillain (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hardly a strawman, the lead of the page says cryptid whales are things claimed by cryptozoologists. The next few paras say Quoy and Gaimard and Giglioni claimed they exist. Therefore presumably the naive reader is meant to think they are cryptozoologists. Now if you want to get rid of the ridiculous lead sentence, fair enough. Perhaps "There have been claims of unknown species of whales reported by zoologists and others throughout history." would be accurate. Tullimonstrum (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's a fine quote that fits this situation: "Cryptozoology purports to be the study of previously unidentified animal species. At first glance, this would seem to differ little from zoology. New species are discovered by field and museum zoologists every year. Cryptozoologists cite these discoveries as justification of their search but often minimize or omit the fact that the discoverers do not identify as cryptozoologists and are academically trained zoologists working in an ecological paradigm rather than organizing expeditions to seek out supposed examples of unusual and large creatures." (anthropologist Jeb Card, more at Cryptozoology#Reception_and_pseudoscience). Sound familiar?
Wikipedia isn't the place to pass off cryptozoology as zoology. Cryptozoology speculation about beach blobs as sea monsters next to serious discussion among zoologists about undiscovered species is simply not OK. You've made your position on cryptozoology clear in the past — you've lobbied against the numerous academics out there describing cryptozoology as a pseudoscience before — but if you're going to edit these articles, you'll be saving yourself a lot of trouble by observing WP:PROFRINGE. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
From the *Skeptical Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience* (edited by Michael Shermer the famous pseudoscience apologist!) "Cryptozoology ranges from the peudoscientific to the useful and interesting depending on how it is practised". which seems pretty NPOV and a sensible tone for the cz articles on Wikipedia.Tullimonstrum (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
We have an avalanche of academic sources flatly referring to it as a pseudoscience (and rather strongly, no doubt in part due to all of the Young Earth creationism connections and because, as Card puts it, "cryptozoologists often show their disdain and even hatred for professional scientists"). Like I said, we're well past this point. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
But those associations, if strong, which I am not sure about, it would not make cz pseudoscience. I am also not convinced having a definition which says "if self-described cryptozoologists do X it is pseudoscience but it isn't if zoologists do X where X is the same activity" makes logical sense and it would not have been a defensible position in my old philosophy of science 101. More importantly you are cherry picking within sources. Abominable Science concedes there is valid cryptozoological research (although cz is mostly rubbish) and Sharon Hill says the same see https://www.csicop.org/sb/show/cryptozoology_and_pseudoscience and there are academic zoologists publishing cryptozoology in peer reviewed mainstream zoology journals (and they identify it as cryptozoology e.g Paxton, Naish etc. ). Indeed almost most of the detailed skeptical refs qualify the pseudoscience association, but we are moving off the topic of cryptid whales. My point was that the (vast) majority of "cryptid whale" species ("mysterious" would be better IMO) have been proposed by mainstream naturalists (Giglioli, Quoy and Gaimard, Sibbald, Pitman), not cryptozoologists so the current lead is just inaccurate. It also means that, using your own argument, Bloodofox, that the topic is now science so all is well. Tullimonstrum (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
In that article Sharon Hill also says I prefer another term for pseudoscientific en­deavors: 'sham inquiry.' Cryptozoology typically qualifies." And Abominable Science says "If its adherent want cryptozoology to be taken seriously as a true science, rather than as a pseudoscience or "sham inquiry," they must have to begin to play by the rules of real science." Some scientists may very occasionally describe what they're doing as cryptozoology, and some "cryptozoologists" may occasionally do actual science, but the overwhelming evidence appears to be that cryptozoology as a whole is described by relevant experts as a pseudoscience (or a euphemism for pseudoscience). And yes, the existing lead isn't entirely accurate, but that's at least partially a product of the article title and the cryptozoology books being used as references. --tronvillain (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone either put this article up as an AFD discussion or improve it? All I read is endless complaint on both sides and deletions with reverts. I thought we were supposed to work on consensus here. The article as it stand is pure speculative fringe. I think it could stand some more sourcing but seriously, there is not actually any reputable scientific sourcing about this. At best it is folklore. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I would support this article as a delete at AfD. I have been unable to find significant coverage of cryptozoologist takes on beach blobs or mystery whales in independent sources. If we can muster up enough non-pseudoscientific sources, that might also make for a "mystery whale" article (or whatever it may be called).
As for the "endless complaint on both sides" you mention, keep in mind that much of what you're witnessing is cryptozoologists — some of them organizing off-site — expressing displeasure at encountering Wikipedia's pseudoscience guidelines and policies for the first time (the project lacked from an early date, for example, folklorists, a presence that would have counteracted this influence). A few cryptozoologists on the site are quite openly doing as much as they can to maintain Wikipedia as a platform to promote the pseudoscience. As scholars note as a major aspect of the subculture, some of this passion may stem from Young Earth creationism or commercial interests. It's typical pseudoscience push-back but a lot of articles are meanwhile benefiting from the scrutiny. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Whether Cryptid whales exist is totally irrelevant. They are the subject of controversy and reports, and have been for a very long time. We have an article on Water Babies, and there lack of existence does not bespeak that article as being a "Fringe theory." All articles can be improved, and no doubt this one should be. AFD under those circumstances is a waste of everyone's time. That is enough to keep the article in Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The link you've provided is a redirect to a disambiguation page. We cover folklore topics all the time if there are reliable sources on it (WP:Folklore is a great resource doing great work). However, pseudoscience — in short, frequently quacks and crackpots passing their obscure work off as science, often to attack, say, mainstream understanding of science — is another matter entirely. See WP:PROFRINGE. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd look for some sourcing on this but I have too many irons in the fire at the moment to really dig in quite yet. Perhaps I'll circle back and take a crack at it at some point. T o your other point, yep, the crypto folks are super resistant to reasoning (as most proponents of various pseudosciences are in my experience). You've clearly encountered them. I like the folklorists much better. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Our world wide readership has many needs, not just taxonomy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
"frequently quacks and crackpots passing their obscure work off as science". Some of it is science and some is high quality research whilst not science is certainly good history of science. Look at the paper by Raynal and Silvestre on the cryptid whales page. Raynal, self describes as a cryptozoologist. Now you might not like the papers conclusions but you cannot say it is sloppily researched or badly written and it is published in a peer reviewed SCIENCE journal. I think some of you are confusing the cryptozoology of bad tv programmes and online articles with SOME of the written stuff which is actually of pretty good quality. Also cz is not a profession of belief. Blodofox keeps on calling me a cryptozoologist but I just think it is an interesting topic but I don't for a moment think any of the classic cryptids exist. Wikipedia cannot just ignore high quality sources because editors dislike the allegiances of the authors. Oh for the record I am not part of any cryptozoology wikipedia conspiracy which I have never heard about. Anyway since when did skeptics believe in conspiracies?Tullimonstrum (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course, that was in 1991. Still, you inspired me to look him up: Michel Raynal, a... French computer scientist. Huh. --tronvillain (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Not the same guy. But if you want more recent peer reviewed stuff here is some. https://doi.org/10.1080/08912960902830210, https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00630.x, anh.2005.32.1.1 I think the authors of these papers might be justifiably upset if you refer to them as "pseudoscientists". Tullimonstrum (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
That's absolutely the same guy. --tronvillain (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I've met him (the cryptozoological one), it is not the same guy! If you don't believe me, check the computing one's publication list.Tullimonstrum (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
No, you're right. I was misled by one of his other articles. Also, this, where Loren Coleman accidentally lists him as having a PhD in computer science instead of biochemistry --tronvillain (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC); edited 15:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, here he is. So, a cryptozoologist educated and employed in unrelated fields who managed to get into a mainstream publication back in 1991. --tronvillain (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
That page on the Cryptowossname has beee visited four times today. One was you, two were me. Who was it? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Would love to hear about all this "some of it is science" from the cryptozoology circles. I believe the academy would as well, as that might yield some kind of, say, institutional recognition of cryptozoology. The closest thing to any institutional support for cryptozoology I'm finding today is Young Earth creationism textbooks aimed at private schools presenting stuff by Coleman as anti-evolution ammunition ([12], still looking to see exactly what these say). As for off-site cryptozoology organizing and general complaints, you can find some of it simply doing an off-site search for my user name and cryptozoology related-keywords. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll begin by addressing LuckyLouie's issue that "Cryptozooligist Eberhart is used as the main source for the assertion that cryptozoolgists believe cryptid whales exist". However, Eberhart's book that lists "Giglioli's Whale" (which Eberhart calls "The Magenta Whale") does not substantiate that Eberhart believes in its existence. I hope you realize this.

The original paragraph did not say Cryptid whales were cetaceans "claimed to exist by cryptozoologist". Before this edit it just said "sea creatures claimed to exist", so in plain reading the reader would see this as claims being made by earlier naturalists such as Giglioli and Sibbald. Not cryptozoologists.--Kiyoweap (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I mean, this is one of the linchpins of the argument of this being pseudoscience: the pretense that every cryptid that Ebert et al. talks about, they are claiming they have proven the existence of. If it were true, I agree that would be enough to call them fringe, without further elaborating. But it is a lie.

Therefore you need to illustrate by actual specific examples of what pieces of pseudoscience are being used, portrayed as definitive scientific proof. I am not seeing any of this here or in the Cryptozoology article.

Another pillar of Bloodofox's claim is the constant association he tries to create with Young earth creationism as if these notable cryptozoologists are steeped deep in its belief. He mentions it 6 times in this thread, clearly overkill, an additional 2 times elsewhere on this noticeboard, in Talk:Cryptid whale as well.

A third is his notion that an "avalanche of academic sources flatly referring to it as a pseudoscience". If that were true he should not have to refer to this Jeb J. Card figure, who seems to be a relative non-entity, four times in this thread. He should be able to quote from a variety of figures of higher esteem and standing, here or in Cryptozoology. It is a grossly inflated claim.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

While most academics ignore pseudosciences, those who have bothered to comment on cryptozoology have some harsh words for it, some of which we outline at Cryptozoology#Reception_and_pseudoscience. I'd say there's enough there to qualify as an 'avalanche', but your rock measurements may vary. "This ... figure" and "relative non-entity" you refer to is one Jeb Card at Miami University's Department of Anthropology ([13]), and his work in question happens to have been published in 2016, making it one of our most recent sources on the pseudoscience (WP:FRIND and all).
Where cryptozoology is mentioned nowadays, it's increasingly because of its strong associations with Young Earth creationism and for, say, misrepresenting itself to the public as a science. Paleontologist Donald Prothero has probably been the most vocal about this, especially in regard to Mokele-mbembe and so-called "living dinosaurs" (both popular topics among the crypto-creationist set reaching at least back to creationist-funded missionary/cryptozoology/let's-try-to-prove-evolution-wrong trips evidently as far back as the early 1980s). But we've also got other recent WP:FRIND-friendly figures discussing this topic on the article (Cryptozoology#Young_Earth_creationism).
As for your statement that I "lie", before continuing further down that path, I recommend reviewing WP:AGF and WP:No personal attacks. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
So the short answer is no. You can't name an "avalanche" of people besides this Card person, and Prothero who flatly refer to crytozoology as pseudoscience. Card being newly published, well, we don't engage in "this rookie gonna be MVP some day" predictions. If this author is not currently a frequently or significantly cited source on this topic, the source should not be given the WP:UNDUE prominence you have given him. This WP:FRIND argument is also very weak as well. The person has obviously taken sides on this, so we don't treat this as a great source because he is somehow "independent" and uninvolved.
As an example, we might give more weight as added opinion the input from previously mentioned "Darren Naish", as he is cited in the Loxton & Prothero book and all. But perhaps you don't want to legitimize Naish because he tends to show more sympathy. Truth is, the amount of WP:CHERRYPICKING you engage in is quite serious, and you are not doing WP:NPOV editing.
Yes I do realize Prothero is a leading critic of cryptozoology. And I see Prothero does call it flat out a "pseudoscience" here[14] where he displays the good taste (sarcasm!) to lambaste Roy Mackal upon learning of his death. However you know very well he is a proponent at one end of the spectrum. Quote: "Daniel Loxton is quite sympathetic to cryptozoology; Donald Prothero is much more critical", from Abominable Science.[15]
And I don't see the famous cryptozooligist Mackal's Mokele-mbembe expedition connected to creationists. The connection is with this obscure creationist monster hunter William Gibbons, isn't it? --Kiyoweap (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
You know, you don't need to write entire essays in talk page edit summaries.--tronvillain (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The "avalanche" would be, as I pointed out before, this entire section: Cryptozoology#Reception_and_pseudoscience. Take your pick. Of course, there's plenty more that we can (and I eventually will) add as time permits.
As for Card, it seems like you have a bone to pick with his academic work. Perhaps you should message him and take your concerns up with him directly. Or maybe Miami University. Enjoy. On the Wikipedia side of things, Card's work falls perfectly in line with WP:RS and Wikipedia isn't a balanced field for pseudosciences: see WP:FALSEBALANCE along with, say, WP:PROFRINGE or WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Or just WP:RS. Basically, as you're aware, adherents of pseudosciences and fringe topics don't call the shots here. Academics don't get herded into the background to be dismissed as "skeptics" and crackpots and quacks don't get to define their own terms. In turn, Wikipedia isn't the world's leading dispenser of flat earth propaganda and doesn't read like a Young Earth creationism textbook. It's also not trying to convince you that there's a sauropod in the Congo and that evolution is a damnable lie. Behold the beauty of WP:FRIND.
Since we're on the topics of Prothero and Mackal, there's a section in the same work about Mackal's "credentials" (such as p. 12), and some discussion about Mackal's connection to Young Earth creationist and missionary Eugene Thomas, who guided and interpreted for Mackal on "expeditions" in Congo and who went on to baptize cryptozoologist Gibbons in the late 1980s (in the Congo, of course) (p. 292). Gibbons would go on to produce a lot of cryptozoology material and launch plenty more "expeditions". As far as I can tell, he's still at it today. Along with Gibbons and crew, there's plenty more about it in Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science!, alongside other writings by Prothero and crew.
All that said, bumbling around in the Congo to find an antiquated notion of a dinosaur and thus finally prove those accursed experts wrong (while now and then being taken advantage of by locals) is without question deep fringe stuff. But fortunately for those of us writing these articles, at least it's often funny. Of course, none of this is anymore out there than, say, Coleman and Clark's entry on neanderthals in their Cryptozoology: A to Z.
Between you and me, I just don't think academic embrace of cryptozoology is coming anytime soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that it has to be me again who points out that this is a noticeboard. Noticeboards are for posting short notices, and maybe a few comments to the short notices.

Should this discussion not be on, I don't know, Talk:Cryptid whale? Or Talk:Cryptozoology? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Marios Kyriazis

The main author of this article is user:Mazkyri, an obvious name match for the subject. As usual with any content related to life extension, the article heaps fulsome praise on the subject but with a dearth of sources outside the walled garden of anti-ageing quackery. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Radionics

I just cut out a bunch of "this traces back to ancient Greece" twaddle. I would appreciate someone looking over my (un-)work. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I rescued a reference that was linked elsewhere.--Auric talk 19:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Foundation for Thought and Ethics

Potentially of interest to the community: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Thought and Ethics. XOR'easter (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the big day is finally here!

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/711049/end-of-world-rapture-june-21-2018-summer-solstice-earth-bible-apocalypse-jesus

Enjoy! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You can tell it's true because my nosey Christian neighbors were nowhere to be seen this morning. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I predict a recalculation soon.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah... but that begs the question... do you know where was he texting FROM? 🧐 Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
[16] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
lol. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"I don't care if I can't take it with me, he's diminishing my property values!" Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

And the silly tabloid makes a major error in the first paragraph of the text "The Rapture is an event many Christians believe marks the return of the son of God – and all the believers will disappear from Earth up to Heaven in the "twinkling of an eye". "

The Rapture as a concept is held by only a minority of Christians, and the popularization of the idea is largely credited to John Nelson Darby (1800–1882).

Back in the 2000s, comic book writer Chuck Austen wrote an X-Men storyline concerning the Rapture, and attributed the concept to the dogmas of the Catholic Church. The story was largely ridiculed in Internet comic-book websites, because Austen had a very poor understanding of the Rapture, that most people supporting the concept are Protestants, and that Catholic teachings on "prophetic" books have nothing to do with Dispensationalism. See here for more conversation on the topic: https://comicdomwrecks.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/top-5-chuck-austen-x-men-moments/ Dimadick (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a chat site. Please try to keep stuff on topic.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not a chat. This is about the misconception that the Rapture is a widely held or particularly old belief of Christians. It is neither, just another minority view. Dimadick (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Many does not mean most.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: - the solstice was at June 21, 2018, at 10:07 UTC so you posted it too late for the Future Predictions so now it has to go in the very long section of Past Predictions. Has the next "End of the World" prediction popped up in the "Daily Whatever" or do they limit them to once a week?

Looks VERY much like a chat to me...--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, we already know that 42 is the answer, so we can expect this to happen the moment someone figures out the question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
No, that's wrong. Somebody has to figure out the question first. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
They clearly don't, else the mice would have been out of a job. Although, there is -I am given to understand- a certain bowl of petunias whose thoughts at a particular moment might be germane to the subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This short discussion is far more noticeboard-y than all those long pages above where you, Paleface, and others try to argue for your own standpoints on the subject of whether cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. The news it points to could conceivably lead to WP edits by people who want to include the news in some article, and a few snarky but informative comments are tradition on this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

a few snarky but informative comments are tradition on this page To be fair, people getting all bent out of shape and upset over said snarky comments is just as much of a tradition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's pedants like you that are the cause of it all, getting your hammer and trousers mythologies mixed. Hmmmph. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm the cause of a lot of bad things, I'm afraid. Many of them of involved mixed up trousers. Hammers frequently appear. It's madness, I tell you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Mušḫuššu

Mušḫuššu is an entity from the Babylonian record. It turns out that over the years the being has become a topic of interest to Young Earth creationists, cryptozoologists, and other related pseudoscience adherents. As the article has recently seen a cleanup by myself and others, it could use more eyes, especially until it gets a solid rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Dispute at Suicide of Vince Foster

There is a minor edit war at this article that might fall under this noticeboard's purview. I have no clue about the subject in question but maybe some editors with more knowledge could keep an eye on it. Regards SoWhy 12:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

sovereign people reality

200+ years ago, "sovereign" people was a common term and is still in current law. Now some people consider it a "fringe" idea and a theory, not reality. So does time change a topic from normal to "fringe"? I say 'no". Rgojoey (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

200+ years ago, "sovereign" was a term just for Heads of state, not for the common people.
Sovereign citizens make claims regarding law that only they recognize (both currently and historically). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Even if that was a common term hundreds of years ago it would still need to be proven that the use of the term was discussing the same principal that the Sovereign citizen movement advocates.--76.65.41.59 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it is perfectly possible for an idea to fall out favour all the way from mainstream to fringe. It was perfectly sane and respectable to believe in Phlogiston, Humorism and the Geocentric model while those theories seemed viable. Then facts were discovered to show each of them to be a mistake and people modified their views accordingly. Anybody believing in them now is deeply into fringe territory. This contrasts with the various sovereign citizen claims, such as the one they pasted up on a big billboard in my home town saying "It is illegal to use a legal name."(1) Such expressions are timeless and unalterable. They can not become any more or less fringe as time moves on. They are perpetual and perfect bollocks. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It is also fairly common for the meaning of a phrase or symbol to change over time. "Gentleman" once meant "land owner". "Awful" once meant "that which inspires awe". "Faggot" was a cigarette, "Making love" was kissing, and the Swastika was and still is a symbol of divinity and spirituality in India. None of this changes the fact that if someone wears a swastika armband and says that faggots are awful, everyone knows exactly what he means. Likewise if someone is talking about not being subject to taxes and uses the term "sovereign". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The SovCit world view is analogous to the creationist/creation science world view although they have more direct and current examples that their views are incongruent with the reality of the world they live in. The belief that if one utters specific 'secret' phrases one will compel the government or its agents to do or not do some thing is (a word which would be considered a diagnosis). Dealing with SovCit views from an in-universe perspective is not possible from NPOV and any source which attempts to do so is unreliable. Such a source would essentially posit that our society is governed by a body of spells rather than of laws created, interpreted and applied in a rational manner, by rational people, for the purpose of regulating society.
The actual beliefs of the SovCits and their ilk are only relevant here for purposes of illustration. Giving any validation or indication that those views are anything other than bat-shit would be both irresponsible and a violation of NPOV and FRINGE. Jbh Talk 00:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Fluoride

Fluoride poisoning theorists say: yes!

2600:1010:b149:71e0:463:2c:4c65:6dbf (talk · contribs · WHOIS) "exposing corruption in Wikipedia" by adding unsourced fringe theories to Fluoride [17] [18] TeraTIX 13:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"thus a primary weapon to continue the enslavement of humans." That's some grade-A stuff, right there. We have a True Believer of the highest order on our hands. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Our IP editor also had a go at MMR vaccine controversy, since reverted. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that. I've compiled a list of the stuff he/she believes. He/she believes that fluoride cannot be found naturally in water, Wikipedia editors are trying to deceive and brainwash people, fluoride is put in water to poison and control people, plants do not absorb fluoride, fluoride does not prevent tooth decay, dentists are in on the conspiracy, coconut oil is perfect for keeping your gums healthy, teeth heal themselves, our entire skeletons completely heal themselves every ten years, the only studies done on fluoride for the teeth were by an aluminum company, selling fluoride is a form of genocide, Nazis used fluoride in concentration camps, the use of fluoride in water is illegal, fluoride is used to harm the pineal gland (which is apparently your third eye) to stop you from accessing limitless hidden senses, films are trustworthy sources, alternative medicine isn't pseudoscience, the MMR vaccine causes autism, Wakefield worked on the MMR vaccine, vaccine are poisonous, vaccines are not mainstream, the levels of sometimes toxic things in vaccines are dangerous, stories on an anti-vaxxer website are trustworthy and are evidence against vaccines, and there is a giant conspiracy by the government, pharmacies, and places that offer free flu shots. Wyrm127 (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I shall keep those things in mind as I go about my daily business today. HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Just... wow. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 11:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Well he seems to have lost interest now.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
He did warn us about the enslavement of humans, I guess. Maybe they came to get him. HiLo48 (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
This thread is an affront to Gingers everywhere. Strike the oppressor!! um. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I am a proud ginger. Anyone want to make something of it? Also, Wyrm127, you forgot to mention that brain cells retract like turtleheads near mercury. I found that one more than a little bit unintentionally humorous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the IP for 72 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring. I didn't block their range, as they have so far only used this one IP, but I'd appreciate an alert in case anybody notices further disruption at the same articles from other IPs beginning with "2600:1010:b149:71e0". Bishonen | talk 15:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC).
    Verizon Wireless... that's a damn big range. It would be best, if he pops up again, to semi-protect his articles of interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Set protection to PC1 for a month. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
A bit of an overreaction to my mind.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Been a bullshit magnet since forever, but I'll think it over. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 4 July 2018 (Uand

Wyrm172 I don't appreciate your attitude of snark and the op was correct about SOME things. Films can be a good source of information, a lot of alternative medicine isn't pseudoscience even by wikipedias insane definition as it is WIDELY practiced and taught in many respectable colleges in the east. Vaccines can cause Autism, and some stories are true. This attitude is exactly what is wrong with wikipedia and why new editors numbers have been dropping off for the last ten years

Fringe theory of the month: Jesus used cannabis oil to perform miracles

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/713292/jesus-christ-cannabis-oil-miracle-weed-bible --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cuz, ya know, Judaism totally preserves a wide variety of cannabis related traditions. Facepalm Facepalm Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 39#Holy anointing oil and cannabis for what may have been our first visit to this, but is surely not going to be the last. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Past lives regression

Uh Oh, somebody got butthurt. Time to shut it down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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.

In case anyone wants to discover their past lives.[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 04:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

1863 BCE seems oddly specific. Wonder how Arondra established that date with a current calender conversion? This review of the work is pretty entertaining, too bad it can't be used. However, an appropriate citation for this derivation that appears to have been published might be. Kintpuash (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I used to believe in past lives regression, but that was in a previous life. This time around I don't. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

HA! My mom loves this crap. She owns most of the books Weiss has written. I've actually read Many Lives, Many Masters and can say with certainty that it's a load of hogwash anecdotes about his "patients" dreaming and talking to him while they were half-conscious - much like I do before going to sleep, except he writes it down and tries to convince them it was all real. Probably charges a ton for it, too. Kinda makes me sick to think that my mom and so many others truly believe the dude. Nanophosis (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually past life regression is an interesting subject in that you can subject yourself to it and get a result out the other end. Whether that result is valid or meaningful (that is, whether your hypnotic ravings represent an historically-verifiable past life) is something rarely addressed, however.
I always wanted to try it myself just to compare the sorts of things I imagine while awake to the things I'd imagine under hypnosis.
My wife jokes that I was a crow in a past life. I joke that I was an ordinary guy who drowned in a vat of melted cheese, since I haven't ever been able to swallow the stuff since I was a baby. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually... Stories of past lives have been tested, and found very consistently to be highly improbable or characteristic of imagined stories. There are links to where the work's been done here. Sorry I don't have time to pick them out and give more accurate summaries: I'm about to walk out the door. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, that link fails to mention Ian Stevenson, a former reincarnation researcher on whom we have an article. I remember being fascinated by his book Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation many years ago. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
That's not surprising. There are so many MD's who've randomly decided to "study" reincarnation that one begins to wonder if there's some causal link between the practice of medicine and belief in past lives. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it would be neat to undergo the hypnosis just to see what it's like. Still, I probably won't ever do it unless offered to me for free because I've been to a lot of new age types with my mother (astrologists, palm readers, psychics etc.) and WOW do they charge a hefty fee. Wouldn't wanna spend that much just to try something I don't find meaningful or even fully believe in. Nanophosis (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Being a skeptic, I've heard my fellow skeptics argue frequently that hypnosis doesn't exist. Without exception, every time I've pressed them for an explanation I get "It's just the power of suggestion".
To which, of course, the appropriate response is the implied facepalm. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Some anecdotes about the "power of autosuggestion": under some circumstances, weed smokers believe their tongue to be firmly stuck to their palate after realizing that it's sticking (actually only slightly sticking because of mouth dryness). In this case there's a psychotropic reason for sensations to be amplified, however. But similarly, in a "hypnotist's" show audience, the entertainer will make people perform a few tricks like placing their fingers in particular positions then attempting to convince them that the hypnotist's power is the reason they can no longer move a finger (in actuality it's just a position making it very difficult). After a few such tricks, in another position they should be able to move it, some people will still believe they can't; then those are the targets for more tricks to make a funny show... Similarly the effects of gravity and fatigue can be used to make someone believe that the hypnotist is the cause they can no longer keep a limb up, attempting to make them surrender more and more, etc.
This has little to do with false memory construction under hypnosis, but I personally find plausible that in some states, some highly suggestive people form false memories (and much from suggestions of the "hypnotist" who may not even be aware that they're greatly influencing their experience, and from what they expect (like the belief that a dream is from a previous life)). But yes, I know, citation needed... —PaleoNeonate – 03:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
As a long time weed smoker (since retired) I can honestly say that I've never so much as heard of that before, but I damn well know what I will be suggesting to some of my friends who never dropped the habit next time they complain about cottonmouth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
—PaleoNeonate – 07:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I remember reading Richard Feynman's autobiography (the first book I think, Surely You're Joking), in which he described his experience being hypnotized on stage. He convinced himself it was just a trick, he's in full control, he wouldn't be affected. He remained lucid and alert. The hypnotist told him to go back to his seat via a circuitous route all the way around the auditorium before he sat down. Feynman resolved to walk straight to his seat, and tried to, but found himself doing exactly as the hypnotist suggested. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
That actually sounds familiar, but it's been decades since I read Joking. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not a chat site. If this is not a discussion of making changes to an article then it's going to have to stop.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe it, but I kind of agree with PJ on this. Though, FTN has always been like this, so... meh. =) (I must've been a party-pooper in my past life.) byteflush Talk 02:10, 8 July 2018 (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.
I would only like to add this: although we digressed, the original intention was to bring attention to the articles. Thanks to JzG: Many lives is now a redirect and the neutrality of the Weiss article has been improved. —PaleoNeonate – 07:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Chaos Magic

Currently the lede of chaos magic says "Often referred to as 'success magic' or 'results-based magic', chaos magic emphasizes the attainment of objective results over the symbolic, ritualistic, theological or otherwise ornamental aspects of other occult traditions." Then there's a section that says "Chaos magic grew out of the desire to strip away all of these extraneous elements, leaving behind only the techniques for effecting change; hence the emphasis is on actually doing things – i.e., experimenting with different techniques, rather than memorising complex rules, symbols and correspondences – and then retaining those techniques that produce results" To me, this looks like the definition of a fringe theory. And then we have spinoff pages like Servitor (chaos magic), where we are making statements in Wikipedia's voice like "When a complex of thoughts, desires and intentions gains such a level of sophistication that it appears to operate autonomously from the magician's consciousness, as if it were an independent being, then such a complex is referred to as a servitor." Is this a topic that can make claims about the state of the world and use labels like "results based", but somehow not be subject to fringe guidelines? --tronvillain (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not saying it is "results based" it is saying it claims to be. That seems to be perfectly acceptable (after all it is what it claims, it may not be true, but that would be for the article to make clear).Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we can report the claims of homeopathy and dowsing and so on, but shouldn't making claims like "results based" make fringe theory guidelines applicable? --tronvillain (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
This reminds me of wikipedia's wrestling coverage. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Only if we say it Wikipedias voice that is the case. If we merely state they claim that it is results based no I do not see how this does violate Fringe. It is the basis of their system of magic, they experiment and use what this think works (based no doubt, in my experience, on some very subjective data). Sure we have to be careful how we word it, so as not to imply it is factually accurate. But just reporting it is what they think is not problem.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Surely "chaos magic emphasizes the attainment of objective results" needs to be reworded then. It pretty clearly implies that objective results are obtained, as does "and then retaining those techniques that produce results." --tronvillain (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but as that is not the whole sentence context comes into it. I gt jittery when people argue and use only partial quotes (without making that clear).Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
How is it not clear that those are partial quotes? --tronvillain (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
And how is the complete "Other magical traditions like Wicca, Qabalah or the Golden Dawn system combine techniques for bringing about change with 'beliefs, attitudes, a conceptual model of the universe (if not several), a moral ethic, and a few other things besides.' Chaos magic grew out of the desire to strip away all of these extraneous elements, leaving behind only the techniques for effecting change; hence the emphasis is on actually doing things – i.e., experimenting with different techniques, rather than memorising complex rules, symbols and correspondences – and then retaining those techniques that produce results." any better? It's still claiming to produce actual results. --tronvillain (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
It is not clear they are not, which given the context (they are only comparing it to other magical traditions, and thus are only claiming they are more results based then those), it is not wholly clear that is is saying it is result based. In the same way I might say "unlike other cheeses Stilton is nice", this may not be an objective fact but it is not a fringe theory. Thus withing the context of this forum whilst I might agree that the claim is not objective within it's context it may well not be fringe.
And that is not the same passage, it does not even contain the word "objective".Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's the complete passage from the second quote above, and as you point out is simply claiming to produce results rather than the "objective results" from the lead. Anyway, perhaps with a few tweaks it's not fringe, but I hope you can see why I'd think making claims about producing real world results would push it in that direction. --tronvillain (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I think I already answered that, I do not think it really did do that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be resolved by judicious editing... for example: instead of saying: “... chaos magic emphasizes the attainment of objective results...” we could say “... chaos magic emphasizes the attainment of (what are perceived as being) objective results...” or something similar. I think the goal is for the reader to understand that any “results” don’t have to BE real... the important thing is that the results are BELIEVED to be real by practitioners. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Slatersteven tweaked the lede to "Often referred to as 'success magic' or 'results-based magic', chaos magic claims to emphasize the attainment of objective results over the symbolic, ritualistic, theological or otherwise ornamental aspects of other occult traditions." I suppose I could just ask for clarification of exactly what that is supposed to mean over there. Maybe "success magic" and "results-based magic" isn't claiming to produce real world results. --tronvillain (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this article, I'm seeing a lot of red flags. This includes the intro that you're highlighting. For one, the article's sourcing is very poor (the article almost entirely relies on works by adherents or pop culture stuff from non-academcs) and much of the article appears to be written from a more or less emic perspective. Chaos magic is indeed fringe stuff, and I wonder what scholars have to say about the topic. Have you checked around for peer-reviewed items? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Badly sourced it is. Much bullshit I smell. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm familiar with Chaos Magick although I didn't follow its development in the last decade. I remember that it was very pseudoscientific, using mathematical formulas and diagrams, etc. The system is as simple as one wants it to be, since practitioners can create their own dictionary and symbols, vs for instance using the extended qabalah numerology etc. There are a few basic "laws of magic" they believe in. They consider this a type of optimization over the mysticism of previous western magic currents (hence the "results based" claims; this is similar to for instance software development fashions like "agile development"). What would be interesting would be finding a source which describes it as pseudoscience (which it definitely contains), basically a non-partisan one... —PaleoNeonate – 17:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Other terms that may help when searching: "syncretism" and "comparative", since it borrows basic principles considered common and important from various traditions... —PaleoNeonate – 17:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Check out the appeal to quantum mechanics here by Peter J. Carroll, apparently a relatively prominent figure in-bubble. Or wow, his website: "Of course in a probability based universe such as this, some things remain more possible than others. Fortunately we can precisely calculate how much probability distortion a given act of magic will produce using the following equations of magic: [equations here]." --tronvillain (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi guys. Full disclosure: I've substantially rewritten and expanded the chaos magic page over the past month or so, so I am biased here. But here's my two cents: chaos magic is based around the belief that there is no such thing as objective truth. So I don't see how it's possible for this to be classified as pseudoscience, which consists of truth statements that are not supported by science. The entire thing is based around the idea that none of it is objectively real. Yes, Peter J. Carroll uses scientific-looking equations and so on. But he also uses rituals that invoke the fictional characters of HP Lovecraft -- and does both of these things under the explanation that "belief is a tool for achieving effects".[1] To take those things out of context perhaps makes them seem like pseudoscience. But within the framework of chaos magic, it's clear they are a form of game being played with different symbol systems. As chaos magic states, Carroll also advises assigning beliefs like "atheism" and "fundamentalist christianity" to the sides of a die, then randomly adopting them for a set period of time to see how it affects your psychology. Everything is done under the banner of "none of this is real/objectively true, we're just pretending that it's true temporarily, because that's what all occultism is anyway." So I don't see how it can be classed as pseudoscience. Rune370 (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You may be right. However, we need to be drawing from reliable sources on this like any other topic. No doubt there are academics discussing topic out there somewhere. Per, say, WP:FRIND and WP:PROFRINGE, we need to be hunting these sources down and building articles from them to replace what we have now. As with so many similar and related topics, it's almost never as simple or as straightforward as adherents present. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Liber Kaos was indeed one of the books I had on the subject (which was very influential for the movement). It's however a primary source in this context. —PaleoNeonate – 04:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought the point of this discussion was to establish whether chaos magic is pseudoscience. Do you mean the assertion I just made -- that chaos magic is not supposed to be taken as objectively real -- needs to come from a source outside of chaos magic? Rune370 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not clear that claiming "there is no such thing as objective truth" should make something exempt if it also claims to have effects. If chaos magic is not claiming to actually have effects in the world, that's fine, but that should be a lot more apparent than statements like "chaos magic emphasizes the attainment of objective results" or ""chaos magic claims to emphasize the attainment of objective results" currently makes it. An emphasis on obtaining objective results would appear to be the opposite of claiming there is no such thing as objective truth. --tronvillain (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tronvillain:.I agree with you, the page is too vague on this point. But I think you have to understand that we're dealing with a worldview where the adherents don't believe in an objectively existing, external material world.
I'm sorry if this is me putting words in your mouth, or reading too far into your comments, but I think a lot of your hostility comes from your belief that chaos magic is claiming to be able to influence an external, physical world? And if that were true, then I agree it would be pseudoscience.
But this isn't being claimed. But, neither are they claiming that there is an external world that they can't influence, if you get my meaning?
I think at the very heart of chaos magic is this "radical agnosticism" -- saying "we just don't know" to all truth statements. So, to ask "are they claiming to be able to influence the physical world or not?" sort of misses the point.
To be honest, I've tried to make this clear from the page, and if it's not clear, then I've failed in that aim, and someone needs to go through it with a fine tooth comb to (a) clarify that, and (b) make sure everything's written from a neutral point of view. I'd love to have a conversation about all of this. BUT, the aim here, in this discussion, is to determine whether or not chaos magic is pseudoscience, yes? And I think it's not, and the "fringe theory" tag should be removed. If the page itself isn't written well enough to convey this, then that's something that needs to be addressed, but probably a discussion for elsewhere? Rune370 (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Just a quick comment... I have no idea whether chaos magic qualifies as “pseudoscience” or not... but something can still be a fringe theory without being pseudoscience. “Fringe” is broader. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
True. Some parts of the fringe theories page put a lot of emphasis on pseudoscience, but it encompasses other things. --tronvillain (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Blueboar: My understanding of a fringe theory is that it's a scientific or academic explanation for something that departs from the standard explanation held by the majority of scientists or academics. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories, for instance, states: "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."
Something cannot be fringe purely by virtue of being non-scientific. Religious ideas, for example, are not fringe. The reason that I've focused on "pseudoscience" in this discussion is because Wikipedia:Fringe_theories gives pseudoscientific subjects as an example of things which are fringe. Since it's fairly clear to me that chaos magic is not making an attempt to describe an established phenomenon via some alternative explanation -- it's its own thing, with its own concepts -- it doesn't seem to fall under the heading of "fringe theory" unless it's inherently pseudoscientific. But that's just my viewpoint. Rune370 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

As someone who is completely unfamiliar with this subject matter, Chaos Magic sounds like an abstract version of Wicca#Eclectic_Wicca. FWIW, Wicca is not under the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, rather WikiProject Religion/New religious movements. Within the lede is the following citation: Clarke, Peter Bernard (2006). Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Psychology Press. pp. 105ff. ISBN 978-0-415-26707-6. This source identifies Chaos Magic as the same category, that it is a new religious movement? If so, I believe your perspective holds merit. The editor of the work was affiliated with Oxford and King's College. Kintpuash (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Fringe simply means “on the edges” or “outside the mainstream”. Any field of study can have its fringe theories... the type I am most familiar with are pseudo-historical fringe theories... but there are others types as well. This could be a fringe religion. My point is that the term “fringe” may apply, even if the term “pseudoscience” does not. Blueboar (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Blueboar: The guidelines at Wikipedia:Fringe theories seem fairly clear that they cover fringe theories within fields of study -- a theory being an explanation for a set of observed facts. For example, they state: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." (my emphasis).
You sort of say this yourself, when you say "Any field of study can have its fringe theories", but then you go on to say "This could be a fringe religion". Religion isn't a field of study. Theology would be the relevant field of study, in which there are both orthodox and heterodox ideas. "Jesus was the son of God" (mainstream, despite being non-scientific) vs. "Jesus was actually an alien from outer space" (fringe).
In order for the guidelines to come into play, we have to have both an identifiable mainstream viewpoint (smoking causes lung cancer, the holocaust happened) and viewpoints that depart from that mainstream view and are not widely accepted (lung cancer is caused by TV signals, the holocaust didn't happen).
So it's not clear to me that we can say "this topic is fringe" or "that topic is fringe" unless there is an identifiable field of study, with an identifiable mainstream view.
When it comes to chaos magic, there is no attempt being made to explain anything. Quite the opposite -- the entire thing is based around an extreme agnosticism: the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth. Given this, I personally don't agree that chaos magic is a religion. How can you have an agnostic religion? But, just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that it is a religious movement. Then what is the identifiable mainstream view that chaos magic is departing from? What is the phenomenon being described in both mainstream and non-mainstream ways? What is the field of study? What is the object of study? Rune370 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course, aspects of religion can fall under fringe, such as young Earth creationism, faith healing, archaeology and the Book of Mormon, and so on. Basically, where religion crosses into other fields of study. --tronvillain (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah, totally. But that surely is where people hold fringe beliefs that depart from the scientific explanation, that they believe in for religious reasons? They're fringe within scientific fields, not religious fields. Rune370 (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said I am not sure this is a Fringe issue, but then to what degree are modern magical "traditions" religions as opposed to systems of believe or philosophical concepts. In the case of Chaos magic the claim that it is "results based" (and thus (in a sense) empirically based) as well as its reliance of maths (although many other magical traditions (I.E. ones more then 100 years old) often relied on mathematical equations and even astronomical observations) does shift in into the realms of Pseudoscience. I think however we may need an RFC on this to attract the attention of the religion taskforcers.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Actually, I've already responded to the use of maths in chaos magic above, if you take a look.
I'm not sure I've ever seen any chaos magic writer other than Peter J. Carroll use equations, so I don't think that's representative of the tradition as a whole, and Carroll uses these equations under the ultimate banner of "nothing is objectively true, this is all a game being played with symbols, and belief in it is arbitrary" -- alongside rituals that invoke fictional characters like the characters of HP Lovecraft or Terry Pratchett.
On the subject of whether chaos magic is a religion, I've certainly seen some anthropologists or cultural theorists who have discussed chaos magic alongside new religious movements. But I don't think this is an appropriate classification, given that chaos magic is based on agnosticism.
Plus, I can't find any source that actually describes chaos magic as a religion. It's discussed in "Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements" here -- https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DouBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA105 -- but it's not described as a religion. The same is true of the "Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements" here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WA12nHRtmAwC): it says chaos magic is "a modern tradition of magic". "The Watkins Dictionary of Magic" describes it as "a contemporary branch of magic" (here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FQ52Xjh1_hYC).
I don't think just being discussed in a book on religion is enough to classify it as a religion, if that book doesn't explicitly describe it as a religion -- given that the tradition is inherently agnostic.
On the subject of "results", I think that only qualifies it as pseudoscience if the writers are explicitly claiming that they can cause something physical to happen through psychological means (or something similar). I think, in context, it's clear that chaos magic texts are saying "if you do some things, from some occult traditions, something will happen -- but occultism is also full of a lot of bullshit and religious nonsense. So let's experiment with all different techniques, and not commit ourselves to any explanation -- perhaps it's all just placebo effect and psychology, perhaps spirits and demons are objectively real, but we're maintaining a position of total agnosticism on all of it."
Right? So when they say "results", that encompasses things like entering into a trance state from chanting a mantra, and so on. That doesn't classify chaos magic as pseudoscience. It would only be pseudoscience if chaos magic were saying "these techniques can do things that science says is physically impossible, via means not accepted by science". And that isn't the case. Rune370 (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The fact that it's discussed in two works on new religious movements does rather suggest that it's viewed as one, unless you can cite a passage where they make it clear that it is not actually a religion but is only being covered to avoid confusion with "real" religions (as happens with Freemasonry).
Agnosticism doesn't disqualify something from being a religion, unless one assumes religions have to have an orthodoxy similar to the Abrahamic religions. A number of eastern religions more or less teach that if objective truth exists, and if it can even be experienced, it still can't be communicated. Many shamanistic and folk religions are unconcerned with philosophical truths and just want to ensure a good crop or cure sickness. While these religions might try to provide philosophical or cosmological explanations for why their stuff is supposed to work and sincerely believe in them, the amount of syncretism indicates that they don't claim to have the Truth. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: I take your point about agnosticism, but I think it places chaos magic in a grey zone. There's no clear-cut definition of what constitutes a religion anyway, so I don't think this can really be settled. However, I don't think having a "chaos magic" entry in those dictionaries is enough to say "yes, it's often viewed as a religion", because they have entries on many concepts or movements that are merely related to religion, like "deconditioning" or the human potential movement.
Most anthropologists draw a distinction between religions and magical traditions that are related to religions. For instance, Haitian Vodou is a religion, while Hoodoo (folk magic) is a related magical tradition that goes hand-in-hand with it. There are folk magic practices in Catholicism or Tantra, and so on. My personal view is that chaos magic is properly viewed as a movement within occultism, or within the occult subculture, and I'm sure I could find plently of sources to back that up. But I'm sure there are others who have described it as a religious movement or a form of religion, and I think for the purposes of this discussion I have to accept that that's a valid perspective.
Still, I think this issue of classification is running off at a tangent to whether or not chaos magic is pseudoscience. See my comment below. Rune370 (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "If objective truth exists at all, it is practically unknowable" is a philosophical position that, while not always popular in the west, is not all that fringe. "There is no objective reality and because of this I can achieve empirical results using techniques that have been scientifically proven to not affect the material world" should probably qualify as pseudoscientific, but science-minded mainstream academia has either yet to notice chaos magic or else doesn't see a need to dismiss it. It's possible to argue that that's not a fundamental tenet of chaos magic, and I'm sure I could lay my hands on a chaos magician who only affirms the possibility of purely subjective psychological results or teaches that the emphasis on results is intended to result in doubt in one's own perceptions with the goal of Śūnyatā, but the second line of the article doesn't specify what sort of results are intended.
Because of a lack of sources, I kinda feel like all we can do is heavily attribute claims to the point of borderline sarcasm. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Right, so this hinges on exactly what is meant by "results". But I think it's more complex than your statement about achieving "empirical results using techniques that have been scientifically proven to not affect the material world" implies.
I think it's fair to say that most chaos magicians are not purely talking about triggering results that happen entirely within their own minds, like entering into a trance state (although "results" does encompass this). They are talking about causing changes to occur within their own lives, like becoming wealthier. But chaos magic is based on taking an agnostic position regarding the means by which that change occurs.
So, taking wealth as our example, Carroll talks about using rituals to influence your own subconscious attitudes to money, personifying negative attitudes to wealth as "demons", then banishing them. I quote: "it is essential to seriously examine all negative thoughts and feelings about money and to exorcise them. Most of the poor people who win in lotteries, and only the poor regularly enter them, manage to have nothing to show for it a couple years later. It is as if some subconscious force somehow got rid of something they felt they did not really deserve or want. People tend to have the degree of wealth that they deeply believe they should have. Blue magic is the modification of that belief through ritual enactment of alternative beliefs." From Liber Kaos.
Can you classify that as pseudoscience? It's just a sort of self-hypnosis, using ritual implements and symbols as props.
I think the article needs to be clearer on this point. But by talking about "results", writers on chaos magic are saying "experiment, try and change things in your own mind and your own life, and retain only those techniques that do actually result in changes", but that goes hand in hand with "maintain total agnosticism towards the means by which these changes are occurring". So I don't think, at any point, anyone is claiming that it's possible to cause material change "using techniques that have been scientifically proven to not affect the material world". Rune370 (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Is that the sum of all Chaos Magic?, one book. I do not think (given it's nature (and yes I have known some practicing chaos magicians who did try to achieve real world results (and used to tell you about it, and I would argue that the Likes of Andy Collins may well be considered chaos magicians as well) that by its nature you can emphatically say what chaos magic is, or even what it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, to your "is that all, one book?" comment, I would say: I'm only one human being. I was just providing an example, I can't comprehensively draw from all published books on chaos magic at the drop of a hat. I don't think chaos magic is reducible to psychology, so I'm sorry if I've inadvertantly given that impression. My point is that chaos magicians maintain an agnostic position towards what these "results" are or how they are brought about, saying "perhaps it's psychology, perhaps all of this is a dream and that's how it works, perhaps demons are real and they did it, perhaps it didn't even happen and it's just coincidence, perhaps it's placebo effect, perhaps it's autosuggestion, etc., etc." The important thing is that no claim to objective reality is being made, therefore chaos magic is not claiming anything unscientific, therefore it shouldn't be viewed as pseudoscience -- although it is inherently non-scientific. Rune370 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Pseudoscience states: "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method."
Chaos magic definitely does not follow the scientific method. But the thrust of my argument is that it does not make any claims about objective reality. Therefore it cannot be pseudoscience. If the article currently makes it seem like chaos magic does make such claims, then the article is deceptive, and should be rewritten -- "objective results" is a poor choice of wording, for example.
Is there anyone who disagrees with my logic here? A worldview based on a radical agnosticism towards objective truth cannot be pseudoscientific. Rune370 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would note that the gigantic diagram that starts off by showing Egyptian religion, Babylonian religion, Daoism, and Sufism all branching off from tantra is definitely fringe material, and probably not even worth keeping as a demonstration of what Peter Carroll thinks. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Given the lack of page numbers I would be willing to doubt that the diagram is accurate; either it ought to appear in the work, or it can be excised as a work of editor synthesis. Mangoe (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
That isn't relevant to the discussion here, which is to establish whether or not chaos magic is a fringe theory. By all means, let's discuss that at Talk:Chaos magic. But let's prevent this already lengthy discussion from branching off into a thousand irrelevant tangents. Rune370 (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The argument about whether or not chaos magic is pseudoscience or fringe or whatever kind of seems like a red herring. Magic is not real, but it involves a lot of concepts and people that are going to be notable enough to have articles, and those articles need to be held to the same standards as every other article: the sources need to be independent, the tone needs to be neutral, and the language needs to be precise. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% about the sourcing, the tone, the POV of the article. But that's not the purpose of this discussion. This discussion is to establish whether or not the guidelines concerning fringe theories apply to the chaos magic page. Discussions concerning all else on the page belong at Talk:Chaos magic, not here.
I'm going to say this very tentatively, but it seems like my two main arguments stand: firstly, chaos magic is based around a radical agnosticism towards objective truth -- that is its central tenet -- and therefore it cannot be pseudoscience. And secondly, the term "fringe theory" can only be applied in academic or scientific fields of study in which there is a mainstream explanation for a particular phenomena, and other, non-mainstream, contested explanations -- and this is not the case for chaos magic. For that reason, I'm going to remove the "fringe theory" tag from the top of the article, and summarise my reasoning on the talk page. Any further comments concerning the POV of the article, the sourcing, etc., should, in my opinion, be made there. Rune370 (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Or, failing that, since JzG has reverted my edit with the comment "Debate still underway on that, with majority support for fringe", can anyone provide a logical argument for why chaos magic meets the definition of either a fringe theory or pseudoscience? Rune370 (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, magic is a fringe genre in itself (with few believers)... and so, as a sub-set of magic, it qualifies as fringe. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
But I thought we'd been over this already? The fringe theory guidelines specifically state that they apply to fields of study, in which there's an identifiable mainstream view. You're talking about a colloquial use of the word "fringe". Can you point to something in the guidelines that supports your interpretation that anything outside of mainstream culture comes under the Wikipedia fringe theory guidelines? Rune370 (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Let's try another line of reasoning here. The "fringe theory" tag at the top of the article states: "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view". How are we supposed to improve this article? What is the mainstream view that we're supposed to be giving appropriate weight to? Regardless of whether you think this is a fringe theory or not, surely the aim is not to have a massive tag slapped across the top of the article. So what do you want here? What are we supposed to be giving more weight to? Rune370 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
That's an easy one (or two).
they apply to fields of study, in which there's an identifiable mainstream view - such as philosophy, physics, mathematics and everything derived from those fields? This is not Plato's Cave, it's screaming "Nothing is real, so let's fuck everything up, since it's not real anyway". Seems fringy, at the very least. Stuff exists, stuff is real, that's an identifiable mainstream view.
What is the mainstream view that we're supposed to be giving appropriate weight to? ... What are we supposed to be giving more weight to? - we need less in-world prose and more academic research on this social phenomena. Since you care about this article, perhaps you could point us in the right direction and find a few sources? byteflush Talk 00:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Byteflush: Yeah, "seems fringy" -- I think that's what every commentator here is picking up on. Your bullshit sense is tingling. I get that. This is clearly a topic that deserves skeptical attention. But I still don't think "fringe theory" is an appropriate tag to have slapped on the page, because it isn't a theory. Why don't we just move this discussion to the skepticism wikiproject, or some other more appropriate place? I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes here and go "guys, this is 100% legit". But it's not an attempt at science. It's not a theoretical explanation for anything. Of course it's not Plato we're talking about here, it was started by some English guys in the 1970s. But that still doesn't make it a fringe theory.
Thank you for actually engaging with me, instead of just ignoring my attempts to build a logical argument and reverting my edits, but with respect, you still haven't answered my question. I genuinely don't understand how this is a fringe theory, with an identifiable mainstream theory that the page needs to give more weight to. What is the mainstream theory that we need to be talking about in more depth? Physics? All of science? "Less in-world prose and more academic research" -- thank you, that's useful, and I will endeavour to do that. But that doesn't give me a mainstream theory to give more weight to. If there isn't a mainstream theory, then surely "fringe theory" is not an appropriate tag? Rune370 (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, this is taking up enough of my life. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that the consensus here is that I am wrong, and that the main issue with the chaos magic page is not the POV, not the quality of the sources, but that it presents a fringe theory, and that the solution is therefore to give proper weight to the corresponding mainstream theory.

I am at a total loss as to what the relevant mainstream theory is. So please, can I get some help on this? Can people just pile on, over the next two or three days, and identify the relevant mainstream theory for each section of the article? Then I can rewrite it, giving proper balance to the mainstream view, and we can get the tag removed.

But please, please, please, do not say something along the lines of "well, really the issue here is that we need academic sources", or "the wording needs to be more neutral", because that is a tacit admission that "fringe theory" is the wrong tag, identifying the wrong problem.

So, here are the sections:

  • Beliefs and general principles
    • Results-based magic
    • Belief as a tool
    • Magical paradigm shifting
    • Kia and chaos
  • Practices
    • Gnostic state
    • Sigils
    • Cut-up technique
    • Synchromysticism
  • History

What mainstream theory am I supposed to give more weight to in each bit?

JzG, Tronvillain, Blueboar, Byteflush -- can I get your help on this? You've all been relatively vocal that this is a fringe theory. At the moment it feels like I'm trying to have a debate, and I'm just shouting into the wind. Can you help me identify the solution to the problem you've identified, please? Rune370 (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok... let me clarify: first there is the mainstream view that magic (as a religio-philosophical “belief system”) is bullshit. Very few people believe in magic, so magic qualifies as fringe belief. We can start off with that.
Then there is the “in universe” mainstream view (ie the mainstream view of practitioners of magic as a belief system) that Chaos Magic (as a sub-belief) is bullshit. Few practitioners of magic believe in Chaos Magic. So ... chaos magic is a fringe belief within a broader fringe belief. In short, it is fringe of the fringe.
Once that context is established in the article (probably in the lead) we can then move on to give a more detailed explaination of what practitioners of chaos magic believe. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Blueboar, BINGO. Thank you. Some constructive engagement in a discussion at last. The page Magic (supernatural) gives a brief discussion of the term "magic" as used in anthropology. So, would it be acceptible to put something like that near the top of the article, maybe in the "terminology" section, and reference it in the lede in some way? As much as I appreciate you providing your interpretation of the mainstream view, I don't think the article should say "the mainstream view is that magic itself is bullshit". Rune370 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I assume you want it to directly state that the existence of magic is not supported by science, or maybe something to do with magical thinking in psychology? Rune370 (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've taken all of your recommendations on board, and I've added some new material to the top of the article, in an attempt to give more weight to the mainstream view. I've tried to address the mainstream view of magic historically, theologically, anthropologically, psychologically, and within the occult more generally, and only then moved on to the perspective of chaos magic itself. In your opinion, does this address the issue, and is it now appropriate to remove the fringe theory tag from the top of the page? I've put a more detailed comment at talk:Chaos magic. Rune370 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Carroll, Peter J. (1992). Liber Kaos. Weiser Books. ISBN 9780877287421.

Fringe at Pharaohs in the Bible

And some OR. User:Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau is adding, under a sentence on Freud. "That is a typical "fringe theory". However, Champolion and Fabre d'églantine also adopted that fringe theory with more guesses than arguments. However, in their best-seller book Secrets of the Exodus, the two French egyptologists Messod and Roger Sabbah based on various intercultural comparisons to affirm, like the three preceding persons, that the Hebrews originated in the faithful of Akhenaten.[1] Desroches-Noblecourt, the curator in the Egyptian department of the Louvre, also underlined several similarities between Egyptian culture and the Bible.[2]"

and deleting

Additionally, the historical Pithom was built in the 7th century BC, during the Saite period.[3][4]

which also made a bit of a formatting mess.[19] He was reverted by User:A. Parrot and by me twice today. He's been blocked for editwarring in the past.

This seems to be a combination of original research and fringe. I haven't been able to find out the credentials of the Sabbah brothers (Amazon just says " brothers and the descendants of a long line of rabbis and chief rabbis" but did find a translation of a review in Figaro.[20] - Jean-Marie Tasset seems to write mainly on art. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


Sorry about this deletion: "Additionally, the historical Pithom was built in the 7th century BC, during the Saite period.[3][4]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Tasset is the author of several books, see his bibliography. Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. As I thought, he writes about art. Not Egyptology. Since the editor in question has raised the issue of Desroches-Noblecourt, the problem with that simply that raising the question of similarities isn't related directly to the article. Their specific comments might be useful somewhere else of course. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Tasset is a journalist who made a summary of Secrets of the Exodus. The issue is that that book makes, as Tasset explains, a great many comparisons between both cultures: Judaic and Egyptian. Since the whole demonstration of the Sabbahs is that both cultures are exactly the same, then, the great quantity of similar comparisons added by the famous Egyptologist Desroches-Noblecourt cannot be ignored.

Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau: What conclusion did Desroches-Noblecourt draw from her comparison between Egyptian and Israelite cultures? If she did not argue for a direct relationship between the two, as the Sabbahs do, then mentioning the similarities she wrote about alongside the Sabbahs' arguments is WP:Synthesis, which Wikipedia articles should avoid. Please read that page for further information.
As for the fringe-theory problem, the majority view in biblical archaeology today is that the Israelites originated in Canaan, and the question of what, if anything, inspired the Exodus story is up in the air. From Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? (2017 edition) by Lester Grabbe: "Despite the efforts of some fundamentalist arguments, there is no way to salvage the biblical text as a description of a historical event… This does not rule out the possibility that the text contains a distant—and distorted—memory of an actual event. Some feel that the tradition is so strong in the Bible that some actual event must lie behind it, though it might only be a small group of (slave?) escapees fleeing Egypt (a view long and widely held)… Yet others point out that there is no necessity for assuming there was an exodus in the early history of Israel" (pp. 97–98). One of the prominent scholars to maintain that the Exodus narrative is largely true is James Hoffmeier, who also wrote a book titled Akhenaten and the Origins of Monotheism (2015). Yet there he argues that if Atenism influenced Israelite monotheism in any way, the connection was indirect. He also points out that Atenism didn't gather many adherents and did not last. "Akhenaten must be considered the founder of Atenism. However, his monotheistic religion lacked a committed group of disciples or followers who carried on the tradition, copied, compiled, and canonized his teaching for future generations. Egypt was clearly not prepared to give up its gods for the One, and officials like the priests Meryre and Panehsy, and high officials like Ay and Horemheb, must have realized that they were swimming against the current, and so abandoned Aten, opting for Amun-Re and traditional religion" (p. 264).
Finally, although it's not easy to find a detailed description of the Sabbahs' hypothesis online, the top review on this page at Goodreads says the Sabbahs argue that Akhenaten's followers were sent into exile in Canaan after his death, led by the future pharaohs Horemheb and Ramesses, who are the inspiration for Moses and Aaron. Try arguing that to an Egyptologist and you'll be laughed out of the room.
Freud's book may be worth mentioning in pharaohs in the Bible (though I am not arguing that it is worth mentioning) because it was the first to put forward the notion that Israelite monotheism derives from Atenism. It is important because it was influential, not because it has any scholarly credibility today. If Freud is mentioned, the article text should make that clear. Recent popular fringe theories based on his argument don't belong in the article at all. A. Parrot (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I've been reverted for a 3rd time by this editor who had been blocked for editwarring before. This time he's added even more POV/or:
Thatis a typical "fringe theory". However, Champolion and Fabre d'églantine also adopted that fringe theory with more guesses than arguments. However, in their best-seller book Secrets of the Exodus, the two French egyptologists Messod and Roger Sabbah based on a great quantity of intercultural comparisons between Judaism and Egyptian culture to affirm, like the three preceding persons, that the Hebrews originated in the faithful of Akhenaten.[5] Desroches-Noblecourt, the curator in the Egyptian department of the Louvre, also underlined several similarities between Egyptian culture and the Bible: beard growing as a sign of mourning, and the practice of anointing kings. She quotes various similar terms, phrases, and proverbs, and indicates the great resemblance between the history of "Joseph and pharaoh’s wife" and the Egyptian tale of "The two brothers".[6] The most fascinating proof of the identity of Akhenaten's Egypt and the Bible of Moses brought by Desroches-Noblecourt is the fantastic discovery of the Ten Commandments in an Egyptian tumb, a discovery that was smothered because it undermines Zionism.[7] Finally, a very obvious proof that Moses was an Egyptian pharaoh (Ramses Ist, a Sabbah thesis) lies in the Book of Deuteronomy: “Moses called the whole of Israel and told them: “... I had you walking for forty years in the desert... so that you should learn that I, the Eternal, am your God!” Deuteronomy 29: 1-5. Obviously, only an Egyptian pharaoh could speak like that. Actually, that so-called fringe theory has become so convincing that it constitutes a great danger to Zionism; indeed, it proves that the Hebrews were Egyptians, not Israelians. It is obvious that the doggedness of the adversaries of the Sabbah is merely political and not scientific."
Doug Weller talk 04:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I've reported him at 3RR. He reverted twice a few days ago, 3 times last night, and tells me "I'm afraid you are not qualified to remove Deroche-Noblecourt's findings from a commentary about Freud's allegedly fringe theory.". I don't want to go over 2rr. Doug Weller talk 05:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I reverted him again. Not sure if that violates something in WP's intricate norms about content disputes, but that stuff does not belong in an article. His latest additions to the disputed text show stronger signs of biases he's exhibited in the past, namely hostility to Zionism and circumcision. Incidentally, I tracked down the statement by Desroches-Noblecourt that he cited ([21]; see page 15). All she said on that topic is "On retrouve par exemple la référence précise aux dix commandements à l'époque des pyramides", or "We find, for example, precise reference to the Ten Commandments at the time of the pyramids". I'm not sure what she meant by that—it can't be hard to find parallels to the latter commandments in Egyptian wisdom texts, some of which used to be dated to the Old Kingdom, but an Egyptian version of the first two commandments is pretty well unimaginable. In any case, that offhand remark doesn't support the passage that Bertaux-Navoiseau uses it for: "the fantastic discovery of the Ten Commandments in an Egyptian tomb". A. Parrot (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
No, you're ok. He just reverted you so is now at 4RR. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
And he's used the article talk page - here's part of his argument: "Mr Weller is a Zionist Jew who does not want Zionism be undermined by the immense discovery of the Sabbah brothers that Akhenaten and Abraham are the same person, a discovery that is now also proven by the famous Egyptologist Desroches-Noblecourt. This makes wikipedia a political organization!". Doug Weller talk 08:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Reverted by a 3rd editor, blocked for 3 months for editwarring and personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Given the user's constant comments about Zionism, I would guess he/she is a supporter of Anti-Zionism and quite vocal about it. Is this not covered by Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia: "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (i.e. engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia" as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"... when their words or actions indicate a longer-term motive inconsistent with "here to build an encyclopedia")."?
Yes, I'm pretty sure that description applies. I have no doubt that if he comes back to Wikipedia after his block expires, he'll be back on his crusade. A. Parrot (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sabbah M. and R. London: Thorsons Ltd; 2002. New York: Helios press; 2004.
  2. ^ Christianne Desroches-Noblecourt The fabulous heritage of Egyp pp 181, p 187, 183, 188, 246-47, 198-99. Paris; Telemaque: 2004
  3. ^ I Will Show You: Essays in History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller, Sheffield Academic Press, 1997, p. 261–262, ISBN 978-1-85075-650-7,[1]
  4. ^ Long, V. Philips; Neils Peter Lemche (2000). Israel's past in present research: essays on ancient Israelite historiography. Eisenbrauns. p. 398. ISBN 978-1-57506-028-6.
  5. ^ Sabbah M. and R. London: Thorsons Ltd; 2002. New York: Helios press; 2004.
  6. ^ Christianne Desroches-Noblecourt The fabulous heritage of Egyp pp 181, p 187, 183, 188, 246-47, 198-99. Paris; Telemaque: 2004
  7. ^ Christianne Desroches-Noblecourt. Le Figaro Magazine. May 13, 2005, n° 18902.

Rupert Sheldrake

Recent POV edits that may require some attention. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Skylab mutiny

This is only borderline as to our interests, but the upshot is the claim that the astronauts of the Skylab 4 mission basically took a whole day off. Actual transcripts of transmission show it didn't happen, but since they are Official (and, well, as primary as sources can get) we have one hardhead who insists that we have to say it happened. Discussion both on the talk page and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Skylab_mutiny. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If the reliable sources call it a "mutiny" then that needs to be said. If it clearly wasn't a "mutiny", then just attribute the claim. I've been watching this on and off for several days now, and frankly, the hard-line positions taken by both sides are ridiculous. It clearly wasn't a mutiny in the sense that any reasonable person would understand that word, but it also just as clearly has been called a mutiny by the RSes, because calling it a mutiny made for good headlines and a fun read. Also: Don't cite the headlines or title of a source for anything. Cite the body. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, the main issue is whether it even happened. Solid evidence rather than secondary accounts say that they accidentally were out of contact for an orbit, not a day. there is a big problem in this sort of thing with assigning newspaper (and popular mags from ostensible authorities) with a great deal more accuracy than they really possess. Mangoe (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
One of the astronauts involved claimed they took a "day off" in an interview cited by one of the sources used to support that claim, so... None of us know what happened. But clearly something happened, so just go with what the sources say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Manual lymphatic drainage

I have a COI regarding the above. My Ankles no longer exist, and have become Cankles (Cankles = merged Calves and ankles) and the article seems to hint that the featherlight touches practitioners employ actually does some good. Eyes? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

There definitely are more effective manual drainage techniques...[Humor] If there is not enough participation WT:MED may be another good place in this case. —PaleoNeonate – 17:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Update on YouTube feature linking to English Wikipedia articles

Hi all, Wikimedia Foundation staff have been working with YouTube to learn more about the feature (called information panels) developed by their team which will link to Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica articles from videos about conspiracy theories on YouTube. This announcement was first made in March of this year, and the feature will be rolled out starting this week. (This was previously discussed onwiki here, here, and here, amongst other places). We wanted to let folks know about the rollout and share more information about articles that may be impacted by the new feature. We have been supplied with a list of the initial English Wikipedia articles that they are going to be linking to. Those articles are: Global warming, Dulce Base, Lilla Saltsjöbadsavtalet, 1980 Camarate air crash, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Kecksburg UFO incident, and MMR vaccine.

The Foundation staff who are in contact with YouTube about the feature spoke with a handful of admins leading up to the rollout. From those conversations, we do not anticipate this will create a substantial increase in vandalism on English Wikipedia, but we will be monitoring this with the YouTube team. If you have any questions, concerns, or notice an increase in negative behavior on those articles, please let me or GVarnum-WMF know.

You can find an overview of the announcement from YouTube in this section of their latest blog post. We will update you here if we have more new information. Cheers, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I do love optimism.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Ugh, maybe we should work to improve the quality of Kecksburg UFO incident which is right now a bit of a mess. jps (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Dulce Base needs work, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Remind me to add all vaccine related pages to my watchlist. "We do not anticipate..." being famous last words. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I completed some cleanup of the Kecksburg incident: [22] jps (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned up Dulce Base and c/e'd the lead of Kecksburg UFO incident, but the body still has some 2007-era pro UFO argumentation in it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Update - Kecksburg UFO incident is now more fully cleaned up and improved. Citations could use some work, tho. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes we were discussing it on the Skeptic page, we need one central place to do this, otherwise we are going to duplicate and step on each other. I propose HERE on FT as it has more activity. Apparently we just had a look at MMR. How do you all want to proceed? Sgerbic (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
If this thing takes off (I have my doubts), then we will probably need to start a whole new project space to organize so as not to overwhelm this noticeboard or WT:SKEPTIC. My inclination is to take a piecemeal approach for the time being. jps (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a wikiproject would be useful to help coordinate this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
WT:SKEPTIC being less busy and within the scope, could also be a candidate for what we'd consider noise here (at least temporarily, if we find another noticeboard or Wikiproject becomes necessary, we'll certainly create it)... —PaleoNeonate – 17:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Another for the Darkside

After Gwen and Goop, are we about to have another one go to the darkside? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Creationism

I take umbrage to saying biblical creationism is fringe as it has a large following LordFluffington454 (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

(moved from Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories as it was misplaced). —PaleoNeonate – 12:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter if it has a large following,. what matters is what percentage of people believe it. I am led to believe that less then 50% of Americans (which make up thew bulk of biblical creationists) it, so as a percentage of the worlds population?, I am gona say enough to make it a fringe view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 13:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It’s a LOT less than 50%... even in America. definitely on the fringe. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wrong standard. WP:FRINGE is crystal clear: "The term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Not the opinions of the general public. The opinions of scientists.
The only percentage that matters is the percentage of physicists who believe the creationist claims about the speed of light, the percentage of astonomers who believe the creationist claims about how far away the stars are, the percentage of geologists who believe the creationist claims about the green river formation and the grand canyon being created in less than a year, the percentage of paleontologists who believe the creationist claims about humans and dinosaurs co-existing, the percentage of biologists who believe the creationist claims about evolution, the percentage of linguists who believe the creationist claims about the tower of babel, the percentage of geophysicists who believe the creationist claims about there being enough water to cover the highest mountains and the ice ages never happening, the percentage of veterinary scientists who believe the creationist claims that lions used to be vegetarians, the percentage of nautical engineers who believe the creationist claims about the construction of the Ark, the percentage of logistics experts who believe the creationist claims about the time and manpower it took to keep the animals on the ark alive (including one animal who only eats the living leaves of one species of eucalyptus) and how kangaroos got from Mt. Ararat to Australia without leaving any trace outside of Australia -- the list goes on and on.
There isn't a scientific field where even one percent of the scientists in that field believe the creationist claims about their field of study. In fact, if a creationist has a degree, it is almost always an engineering degree. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I realize by your "policies" you are correct however I suggest the policy is incorrect because it ignores the fact that hundreds of millions of people believe in it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source for hundreds of millions?Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
One problem ... there are not “hundreds of millions” who believe in biblical creationism. At most, it might have one million believers (and that is being generous). When compared to the BILLIONS who DON’T believe in biblical creationism, there is no question that it is a fringe belief. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I suspect that a great many Christian believers in creationism think that it is much more mainstream within their religion than it actually is because specific religious voices that they listen to represent it as such. Major Christian groups such as the Catholics, the Anglicans and the Lutherans reject creationism and that is more than half of the world's Christians right there, before we even look at any other groups that may be for or against it. I suspect that the number of believers is quite a bit more than one million (mostly in the USA) but not enough to overturn its status as fringe. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Yup, creationism is rejected by most mainline protestant denominations and a good chunk of the traditionally evangelical ones, as well as the Catholic church (source). The most recent polling from Gallup places support for creationism in the general public at around 37%, so closer to "one hundred million" rather than "hundreds of millions". That aside, Guy Macon is correct that none of this matters for determining whether it is WP:FRINGE from a scientific standpoint. For scientists, it's about as clear-cut as you can get: 98% of scientists polled by Pew agreed that humans evolved over time. Nblund talk 19:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
(Agreeing) AND ONLY THE SCIENTISTS MATTER. THAT'S HOW WE DEFINE "FRINGE". SEE WP:FRINGE. NOBODY CARES WHAT THE PUBLIC THINKS. THAT'S NOT HOW "FRINGE" IS DEFINED. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi LordFluffington454, go easy on taking umbrage; it can damage your liver, and cause excess bile. Creationism is a broad term, and covers multiple differing theistic beliefs, but "biblical creationism" tends to refer to pseudoscientific young Earth creationism which lacks any credence in mainstream theology and scholarship, let alone any scientific credibility. In Wikipedia terms, it's fringe in the assessment of published expert opinion, and the numbers of "believers" has no relevance. . . dave souza, talk 17:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Try this. Go up to someone who says he is a creationist and interprets the bible literally. Ask him if he honestly believes that the story about the rib is something that actually happened. Roughly 5% of the creationists will say yes. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
That's all wrong because it was a tree —PaleoNeonate – 17:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Be nice.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you do anything on this notice-board other than complaining about the way others use it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Edward Bach, bacteriologist?

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

Was Edward Bach a bacteriologist? The only indications I could find that this was so were some websites that claimed because he was an advocate for the germ theory of disease, he was a bacteriologist. I can't find any evidence that he actually did any baceteriology research, but I may have missed something.

[23]

jps (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's frequently claimed from inside the walled garden of homeopathy, but I can't find any independent sources confirming it with a quick google search, unless you count this write-up in The Sun (the American Magazine, not the British newspaper). I'm not sure that qualifies as an RS, though. The Sun is best known for short fiction and topical essays, not fact-based reporting, so I doubt they have any reputation for fact-checking. Inside the garden, see [24] for where the Bach Center claims he was a bacteriologist and a pathologist who did some vaccine research. See this google scholar search: There's nothing peer-reviewed ever published by Bach on the subject, even though he was around long after the advent of peer-reviewed journals. I suspect WP should probably remain silent on the issue: sources asserting he was aren't reliable, and reliable sources don't mention his specialty. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
He seems to have been an assistant bacteriologist at the University College Hospital... before resigning to work at the London Homeopathic Hospital.[1] --tronvillain (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
It does appear that the claim that he is a bacteriologist is mostly limited to websites inside the homeopathy/alt-med "walled garden" as stated above. But there is at least one mainstream source that also refers to him as a bacteriologist (specifically, this link from Cancer Research UK). IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 15:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, found his obituary in the Lancet: "He was for a time demonstrator of bacteriology at University College Hospital and casuality medical officer, and at the London Temperance Hospital he was casualty house surgeon. He later became bacteriologist to the London Homeopathic Hospital."[2] --tronvillain (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Good work, guys. @ජපස:, that looks like 3 RSes to me (maybe 2, I'd have to look into the book further). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The book seems to be written by a homeopath. --tronvillain (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, they're like weeds; they just get everywhere and they're a pain to unroot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
As it turns out, Bach did have a few papers: [25] [26] [27] [28] Must have been published just after he left the University College Hospital. --tronvillain (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Weird, they didn't show up in google scholar. Fucking google, man. I'd take a good old fashioned library search engine over it sometimes... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
This is not an uncommon problem using Google Scholar when searching for papers published a long time ago, as is the case with this guy. The "solution" is to search for the author's first initial, not their first name (though obviously then you may get a bunch of false positives, though this can be mitigated by adding their middle initial). IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The other solution when looking for anything biomedical is to search PubMed. Agricolae (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wood, Matthew (2000). Vitalism: The History of Herbalism, Homeopathy, and Flower Essences. North Atlantic Books. pp. 186–187. ISBN 978-1-55643-340-5.
  2. ^ Staff writer (19 December 1936). "Edward Bach, M.B. Lond". The Lancet. 228 (5912): 1492. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)82157-1.

NeuroQuantology

There is a minor content dispute about the criticism of this journal. Input is appreciated to improve wording and sourcing. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Flat earth

A related article, Myth of the flat Earth in Middle Ages was recently renamed, another editor contests it (I'm not sure if the move was justified). Another relevant article, Flat Earth has a merge tag at the top to a red link. There are likely other related articles. It would be nice to see what's up and find out the proper presentation/splitting, considering the relation to modern fringe flat-earthism. —PaleoNeonate – 17:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It really needs to be a split along the lines of Modern flat earthers despite science / historic flat earthers due to lack of proof. As they come from two very different starting points. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Just reverted a major change in Conspiracy theory

Which I suspect may be reinstated. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

sigh, added to watchlist. Changing the entire meaning of conspiracy theory to mean 'unjustified attack on people skeptical of the government line' does seem to be well out of what is acceptable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory gets a lot of angry edits from people who are resentful that their pet belief is dismissed as a conspiracy theory. It should be on everyone’s watchlist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory of conspiracy theory coverup... —PaleoNeonate – 01:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
It's the coverup of the conspiracy theory of conspiracy theories coverups that we should be worried about. Wake up, Sheeple! byteflush Talk 02:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems like the entries on Carlos Castaneda (and the related articles Don Juan Matus, Tensegrity (Castaneda), and Cleargreen) need additional eyes. They have a number of WP:FRINGE and unreliable sourcing problems, and several portions seem to be written by "true believers".

For background: Early reviewers seem to have regarded Castaneda's early books as largely legitimate ethnography, and he received a PhD on the basis of the research he supposedly conducted on Native American Shamanism. However, subsequent work strained credibility and eventually went off the deep-end with full blown claims of shape-shifting and psychic battles with witches. By the time Castaneda died he was running a cult and selling new-age seminars for $600 a person. All of the books are now widely accepted to have been fabricated, and no one believes that this is an accurate depiction of Toltec religious beliefs. See: here, and a longer article from Salon here for more details. Any help is appreciated. Nblund talk 15:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I have the impression that some of the articles (see Template:Carlos Castaneda) should also be merged in one main article, or at least fewer articles. —PaleoNeonate – 13:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Cleargreen Incorporated is a pretty clear merge with Tensegrity, though Tensegrity itself might be a merge with Castaneda. --tronvillain (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree regarding the merge, and I would lean toward putting Tensegrity, Cleargreen and Don Juan Matus in to the article on Castaneda since all three subjects are unlikely to be notable on their own. I didn't see Toltec (Castaneda), or recapitulation, but those both seem like outright deletions to me. Is there any better way of doing this than starting 5 separate merge/deletion discussions? Nblund talk 16:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
You could always just do a bold merge on those two - they're obviously necessary and appropriate. A WP:MULTIAFD seems likely to conclude with a redirect anyway. --tronvillain (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nblund: I say go ahead and merge those as you see fit. I trimmed some really frivolous puffery from Carlos Castaneda: "... worlds which lie outside the perceptual paradigm of the vast majority of human beings on this planet" - laugh. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I also agree about bold work, if it's contested then we can use more formal processes. —PaleoNeonate – 17:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

These are all redirects now to Castaneda article. The only cited information was on Don Juan Matus which I have moved to main article. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

University of the People

There's an RfC at Talk:University of the People where two editors with a long history of edits promoting the subject, are the only ones commenting. I think this needs more eyes. The government of South Africa has released a statement calling UoP fraudulent, and these editors insist this is original research, synthesis, they ran out of gas! they got a flat tire! They didn’t have change for cab fare! They lost their tux at the cleaners! They locked their keys in the car! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole their car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN’T UoP's FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD! Guy (Help!) 11:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You should probably read the actual statement. I'd never heard of this school before, but the document from the South African government is very clear. It says there's a university impersonating the University of the People that goes by the same name and is fraudulent. It also says this: Meanwhile the Department has been in contact with the authentic University of the People (UoPeople) and has determined that the institution is duly registered and accredited by the relevant US authorities. And this: However, due to the fact that UoPeople has no legal or physical presence in the form of operation sites in South Africa, the university is still considered unlicensed to operate in this country.
I don't think there's any reasonable reading of that document that comes out saying the University of the People discussed in the article is fraudulent. There's another university operating under that name in South Africa that is conning people, and they issued a warning about it. Since they brought it up, they also took the opportunity to let people know that the legitimate institution, though accredited in the US, isn't licensed to operate in South Africa. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, good spot. We have had years of spamming of this place. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Commented on the related issue that I dont think it should be excised from the article, just re-worded to make it clear there is an imposter using the same name. Its certainly valuable information to anyone in S.Africa to prevent them being taken in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD round two for Abhas Mitra

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhas Mitra (2nd nomination).

This subject has been discussed from time-to-time in the past on this board.

jps (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

New York Times article on Ancient Aliens

See [29] Doug Weller talk 19:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Terry Nichols

Our friend User:TotalFailure was busy recently in this article, and while I'm not terribly familiar with the material, the nature of TF's editing of late and the title of one section that he added give me pause. It would be helpful if someone were to check it out. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

TotalFailure deleted my warning about adding crap, and continued to do so. I have blocked the user until we get tot he bottom of what's going on there. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I see a lot of cleanup ahead of us (or whomever) as he made a lot of changes that need serious review if not knee-jerk reversion. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:PRODIGY

Thanks to @Mangoe: we have the first draft of a possible guideline for prodigies. A notice was posted to WP:BLPN but only gained the response from @GRuban: and is now archived. Since many of the issues showed up on this noticeboard as well, I thought I'd let y'all know. More input would, of course, be appreciated.

User:Mangoe/Prodigy.

jps (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Meh...seems like a deletionist's wet dream. If we all just follow WP:GNG, everything should be fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Too many people aren't qualified to follow it, and besides, these articles almost always involve BLP issues. Mangoe (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@A Quest For Knowledge: It doesn't hurt to have specific notability guidelines for topics that keep coming up and where applying GNG is not entirely clear or combines with other things like BLP. I think it's off topic for this noticeboard, but Mangoe's proposal is quite sensible. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Rus' people

Two users are systematically promoting the anti-Normanist fringe theory (two topics at the bottom of the talk page).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m assuming you’re referring to as one of those users, and @Alarichall: as the other. I’d appreciate if you didn’t misrepresent me, especially without a ping. Fortunately I’m a regular here and therefore saw this.
Second, I haven’t dug into this topic enough to comment one way or another on what’s going on here, but I’m aware that debate among scholars on this topic exists (or has existed), and that nationalist factors also plays a role.
Finally, WP:LEAD is not an optional guideline, and attempts to wiggle around it aren’t going to end in the wiggler’s favor. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I refer to the two of you. The scientific debate on the topic existed in the 10th century and has been resolved by the 20th century. Concerning WP:LEDE, I am perfectly fine with the summarizing there the content of the article. However, this guideline does not really encourage us to add to the lede false statements which contradict to reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
For my part, I don't think I'm trying to promote a fringe theory. I'm just suggesting that a page that mostly comprises a report of a historiographical debate should recognise that debate in the header. (And fix some other issues.) But of course I'd welcome other editors assessing the points I'm making on their merits :-) Alarichall (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Considering the material that Hall has dug up to date, this does not at all seem to be the case, actually. Turns out that this isn't fringe territory. I was aware that there was some debate here, but not to what extent. And we always summarize article contents in the lead, regardless of your opinion of the topic.
I get that there are factions out there—to this day—that deem Slavs to be some kind of subhumans, and then there are factions that deem them to be some kind of master race or whatever. Exactly how this plays into debate among academics today is unclear, but your claims of fringe seem to be premature if Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia says "The origin of the word Rus’, which does not occur in Old Norse sources, and the ethnic group(s) to which it referred have been the subject of much debate. That there was a significant "Scandinavian" component in Rus’ is indicated not only by written sources, but also by the bilingual names of the waterfalls on the river Dnieper, one group of which is most easily explained as deriving from Old Norse", as Hall points out. As Hall says, this is indeed a highly cited and highly mainstream reference work in ancient Germanic studies.
I'm guessing there's some political aspect at work here with the group of editors attempting to bury these reference work and claim the debate 'over'. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Without going into detail. The lead is a summary of the body and fully a half of the article is about the Norman/Anti-norman contradictions. That should be reflected in the lead - to the extent a notable fringe theory should be. If a fringe theory is given too much space in the body that is a different problem altogether, but currently the lead does not accurately reflect the body of the article as it is currently written. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    I do not think anybody opposes amending the lede mentioning the fringe theory.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    Its a spirited debate certainly, but even from looking at the article its not exactly unexpected. Its a fringe theory because its not widely accepted (and historically nationalistic on both sides), its not fringe because its complete woo. Alarichall above has stated "I'm just suggesting that a page that mostly comprises a report of a historiographical debate should recognise that debate in the header." which is what I was responding to. If thats not what people are objecting to, what is? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
People are objecting to representing the debate (which was sorted out a hundred years ago) as smth which is still an issue for academic community (which is what this IP edit which I reverted and with which the last discussion started) stated [30].--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
If there are peer reviewed RS that still disagree about it, then its not settled. Have any been presented? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
No, I do not think we have any modern peer-reviewed RS disagreeing on that.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Funny, if it was "sorted out a hundred years ago", then why would these sources be discussing an ongoing debate, or discussing the topic of consensus? Consider the quote from Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia above. For more sources discussing this topic, see Hall's posts on the relevant talk page: Talk:Rus'_people#Surely_the_debate_about_Rus'_identity_deserves_clearer_acknowlegdement?. Something fishy is going on around this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
In the meanwhile, Alarichall proposed wording for the lede which is acceptable for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

UFO reports from antiquity

I just removed a bunch of stuff that was, as far as I could tell, original research. Post hoc claims of UFO sightings need to be sourced and explained clearly. This had not been done.

I could have messed up.

Help is appreciated.

jps (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Some of the entries you removed were explicitly labelled a "UFO sighting" in the source. I suggest you self-revert and go through one by one. For example, the very first entry removed (the "Fiery discs" over Egypt) was a good one. But the Nuremburg and Basel sightings from the 16th century were both explicitly described as UFOs by multiple sources reliable enough for that purpose. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Tend to agree with the above, it is not OR if it is sourced, we can argue over the sources, but not the idea that the ed made it all up.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Anything I did wrong, I do apologize. This looks like it is not confirmed. So consider this starting the "one-by-one". jps (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't have access to the work cited, but given the title, I would presume that the word "UFO" never appears in it. So it looks good, but I can't verify. Also, Kudos for taking criticism so well; many editors would not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
My what a little wikibreak can do for my attitude! Thank you for the compliment. Thank YOU for the help! I think it's important that this list of reported UFO sightings be well-researched and not just WP:IINFO. In that vein, what about this removal? jps (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

List of reported UFO sightings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apologies, I forgot to link. jps (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No apparent mention of UFO's, no clearly identified claim that the vision was a "craft" or explicit reference to it moving about. So the source doesn't call it unidentified, doesn't say it was flying, and doesn't make clear that it was an object. I'd say this was a safe one, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
For the record, you can presume that I agree with you on whether any entry you go back over is OR or not without asking specifically. I can't speak for other editors here, but I've generally trusted your judgement for some time now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Can someone else PLEASE put this page on their watchlists? It's being spammed and it needs a lot more cleanup. [31] jps (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the end the world -- again.

Super blood moon APOCALYPSE: Bible prophecy predicts End of World just ‘DAYS away’ --Guy Macon (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

For the Daily Star that's not actually a bad article. While clearly written in a numerous way, it includes pretty much all viewpoints, the scientific explanation etc Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at BLP

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#The_intersection_of_BLPSPS_and_PSCI Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ibrahim ibrahim

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim ibrahim. Ibrahim's books are fringe and self-published, one of the names of the "publishers" is MagnetElectro. He's active right now promoting Ibraham's works. (I guess it's possible the editor isn't the author, so I've asked him.) Doug Weller talk 18:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
He's the author.[32] Bishonen | talk 21:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC).

Maxwell's zombie

I stumbled on an article at Maxwell's zombie which looks kind of fringey, and possibly not even notable enough to merit an article, but I wasn't too sure. Folks here might be interested. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The article was created by a SPA that always cites the same people. That's a good reason to doubt notability. Geogene (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxwell's zombie is open for business. Mangoe (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Slavic paganism, Slavic folklore, and Slavic mythology

Currently Wikipedia's coverage of Slavic folklore courses with fringe stuff. For example, until recently Slavic folklore redirected to Slavic paganism (I created the former recently). Slavic mythology still directs to Slavic paganism. Of course, myth is a folklore genre that is not restricted to the pagan period, and Slavic mythology is in no way synonymous with Slavic paganism, anyway. Additionally, it happens that Slavic mythology and Slavic paganism are in fact very poorly attested in the historic record, with far less to draw from than, say, the historic Germanic corpus. However, you wouldn't know it from Wikipedia's articles, which attempt to present a synthesized, holistic view of historical Slavic paganism.

It seems to me that a lot of potentially nationalist fringe theories currently run wild in these corners, conflating theory and fact at every corner. Any idea what do about this? Slavic folklore and ancient Slavic studies receives little attention in Western academia, but sources like Puhvel's Comparative Mythology might be good places to start, and if nothing else, these corners need far more eyes. Pinging editors working in related corners: @Katolophyromai:, @Iryna Harpy:, @Alarichall:. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've never worked on Slavonic stuff professionally until my recent encounter with Rus' people, but there's clearly a lot of work to do here. I've taken on a couple of quite different bits of reviewing lately, but will try and work my way round to this over the next month and at least start to get a purchase on it. Alarichall (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bloodofox: I think the problem here is less a matter of "pseudoscience" per se and more a problem of omissions and misrepresentations, many of which may not necessarily be deliberate. The fact that "Slavic folklore" used to be a redirect to Slavic paganism is probably just the result of laziness; it looks to me like Amcaja (the original creator of that redirect) simply created it because he or she did not feel like writing an article on the subject. He or she may have even been planning to come back at some point and write it and just never got around to it; we cannot know. "Slavic mythology" it seems, was originally the title of the article now entitled "Slavic paganism", but the page was moved to "Historical Slavic religion" and then, from there, to "Slavic paganism". That is the reason why "Slavic mythology" redirects there.
As for the Slavic paganism article, I will say that it actually appears to be good in terms of writing quality and it is actually quite well-sourced. However, I cannot help but immediately notice that the vast majority of recent edits are from a certain user named Eckhardt Etheling, who, as of 28 June 2018, has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Aethelwolf Emsworth. This is what the article looked like as of 17 July 2017, on the last edit before Eckhardt Etheling starting editing there, and this is what the article looked like as of 9 April 2018, upon Eckhardt Etheling's last edit. As you can see, it looks very different; he basically rewrote the whole article. Now, incidentally, he made a large number of major improvements in terms of writing quality, citations, and images, but I suspect he also introduced most of the bias that you have been noticing. I have a sneaking suspicion that the person operating the account of Eckhardt Etheling is probably a practitioner of Slavic Native Faith, which would account for why he would want to make Slavic paganism seem better attested than it really is.
As for Puhvel, I have a copy of his Comparative Mythology and I have used it as one of my main sources for several articles. I am not sure anyone can ever have too much Jaan Puhvel. His brilliant scholarship aside, the way he writes is simply glorious: chock-full of exquisite words and expressions that somehow (at least to my ears) come across as playful rather than imposing, like a strangely intellectual kobalos taunting Heracles in rhythmic verse as he anachronistically riverdances away. His chapter on "Baltic and Slavic Myth" talks a great deal about the problems and limitations of that particular branch of mythology. Slavic mythology, however, is not my area of expertise and I am busy working on other articles at the moment, so I will probably not be of much further help cleaning up those articles at the moment. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
See this conversation on Echhardt Etheling's user talk page in which he states that he is not a practitioner of Slavic Native Faith and I apologize for making hasty assumptions. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Miracle of the Sun

Miracle of the Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Repeated removal of criticism from lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist

Proposed revisions of the BLP of Alan Sabrosky are under discussion at the article's talk page. Sabrosky is a former academic and proponent of 9/11 and antisemitic conspiracy theories. His page was recently kept as no consensus, with the decision coming after a long discussion on the grounds that he once held a named chair at the United States Army War College. It is not clear why he left this enviable job at a relatively young age. The current discussion is about the weight to give his fringe theorizing in a revised version of his page. I think it would be useful if editors with experience in 9/11 conspiracy theories would weigh in. thank you, E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Book reviews in non-RS that argue favorably for fringe theories

There's a content dispute on the Dinesh D'Souza talk page[33] over whether we should cite favorable reviews by Rush Limbaugh and a Moonie Times op-ed writer of a D'Souza book which asserts similarities between the Democratic Party and the Nazi party platform of the 1930s. Historians overwhelmingly reject the thesis of the book,[34][35] yet non-experts such Rush Limbaugh and Moonie Times op-ed writer Michael Taube support the thesis of the book. Per my understanding of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE, we ought not cite non-expert minority opinions on matters that diverge from mainstream scholarship, as it gives readers the false impression that there is an on-going debate about the veracity of the claims. Perhaps you can add some clarification on this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

We can say they said this, not that it is true. Also it is a widely publicized view [36], [37], [38], [39].Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
It's a ludicrous claim, I suppose we could attribute it to Limbaugh as a notable crackpot but the Washington Times is not reliable, per numerous prior discussions, so the opinions of its columnists are ignorable. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if the source is reliable because reviews are always inherently biased opinions of writers who review and criticize books, music, films, and other forms of expression for a living. Reviews are not meant to be fact-based, they are meant to be opinion. We post them all the time. In the article in question, these reviews are about books, therefore the normal rules re: bias and "fringe" do not apply. WP:COMMONSENSE needs to be applied here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The idea that all reviews are created equal is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You can't possibly be serious. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've seen anyone post on Wikipedia in a long time. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • These reviews are discussing the accuracy of the thesis: Everything he says here is accurate and There is not the slightest, tiny sliver in which this could be even somewhat accurate are statements of fact, not subjective opinions of the reviewers, and should not be placed next to each other as if they carry equal weight. –dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviews, as a rule, are only as good as the reviewer, so reviews of specialist non-fiction material in MSM are, as a rule, worthless unless they've called in an expert. There is also a timeliness issue in that reviews of novel claims pretty much fall under WP:NOTNEWS, since they are capturing initial reactions rather than the conclusions of long-thought-out consideration and discussion. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

Some forum shopping appears to be going on in relation to this article (pointing at the current dispute at its talk page), so I'm also posting a notification here for balance. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Appears some people have a confusion between facts and opinions. [40]. jps (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

UFO Phil

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

Article loaded down with WP:SENSATIONAL sources resulting in WP:UNDUEly bloated coverage of comically ridiculous fringe claims, thanks to many IP edits over time likely made by the Los Angeles-area actor who portrays this character. Obviously, the gimmick is all about maintaining the illusion that UFO Phil is a real person and not a character/performance, but IMO, it's now crossing the line into misusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. If the character were to be treated as a real person, it would be subject to WP:FRINGEBLP. If the character were to be treated as a character, it would be subject to MOS:FICT. I'd be curious to know what others think. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This indeed looks very promotional. The very first sentence of the article contains the phrase "cult legend". Definitely needs a closer look. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a misuse of Wikipedia. Suggest delete. jps (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I updated the talk page AfD tag, there were multiple discussions closing as delete, but one closed as keep. I'm not sure if it'd pass another discussion, maybe worth trying. If it does, we'd have to trim or rewrite it and keep it watchlisted... —PaleoNeonate – 20:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I have never heard of him, but a 2011 article from the Huffington Post simply describes him as a "comedy songwriter and filmmaker". RationalWiki describes him as "an over-the-top parody of a UFO believer and alien abductee played by actor Rick Still." See here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/UFO_Phil

  • "Los Angeles based actor/songwriter Rick Still created the UFO Phil character sometime in the late 1990s as a one-off radio prank, but soon discovered that his character's career had more chance of success than his own. He's since built a thriving cottage industry masquerading as Phil. Part of the schtick is pretending "Phil Hill" is a real person and not a fictional character. Still pursues various comic strategies designed to sow confusion, such as having "Phil" claim he's being stalked by Rick Still who's trying to steal his identity, making sure fans can't compare photos of the actor and the character, and even publishing fake birth certificates for "Phil Hill"." Dimadick (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, this article has grown since I was here last in 2007, when his single aired on The Art Bell Show--Auric talk 00:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Lotta IP edits over the last half dozen years. He's even got a promotional link to Wikipedia on his website. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to put this up for deletion. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFO_Phil_(3rd_nomination) - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
And the socking has begun. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Yep. They're multiplying. Think it's time for a CheckUser request? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
So far they are more bumbling than disruptive. Maybe wait until they total 3 or more? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
FYI: He is canvassing on Twitter ((archived tweet} for people to help stop AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC Announce: Should the EmDrive be labeled as Pseudoscience?

Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster#RfC: Should the EmDrive be labeled as Pseudoscience? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Donovan Courville

Article about a fringe amateur Egyptologist's ideas with no independent sources. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donovan Courville. jps (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Steven Goddard

In the vein of articles about people using aliases.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Goddard.

jps (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Spencer Proffer

Hello,

Recently, two false claims were made against Spencer Proffer on his Wiki page. The false claims are the second (Admits to making false claims) and third (Settles for fraud) section of the page. Please have these sections deleted as there is no factual evidence of either of these claims.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.36.97 (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2018‎ (UTC)

This really belongs on the WP:BLPN. That article needs quite a bit of work, I would say. jps (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Both those sections have sources, which amounts to "factual evidence".--Auric talk 13:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Craig Loehle - climate change skeptic/denier with no mention of that

Lead used to call him a global warming skeptic until an SPA arrived and removed it. I'm wondering if this guy is notable. I did find this Guardian article. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Tried my best, but it isn't much. jps (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
He's really not notable other than for being a "skeptic." This is a perennial issue: scientists who reject the established findings of their field are by definition a small minority, so they seem more prominent than they are. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

What standard would you all say makes a denier notable for being a denier? WP:FRINGEBLP would generally argue that as long as there are independent sources on a person, they're notable. I'm a bit uncomfortable with that. jps (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it may be time to bite the bullet and ask for a community consensus to delete. jps (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medawar zone. jps (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Astronaut confirms aliens!

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/08/10/astronaut-claims-witnessed-organic-alien-like-creature-but-nasa-is-denying-it.html

As a heads up, this Fox "news" item will probably be causing issues in multiple places across the encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Why is it that every UFO or alien sighting is never backed up by clear unambiguous photographs taken by multiple witnesses? You'd think after all these years, we'd have photos of ONE such sighting in existence. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Or alien meat. Oh, maybe they're not made out of meat... —PaleoNeonate – 21:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Well I know how to solve this. Make it so that 90% of the population is constantly carrying around a small digital camera. No way would the aliens be able to avoid them all. We could make the cameras so that they make phone calls and play angry birds in order to encourage people to buy them and carry them around all of the time. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
And how about some software so they could self publish the high quality photos to the whole world in seconds? HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
[ec] Yup. That would do it all right. Statistically, if when less than 1% of the population carries around a low-quality camera you get hundreds of blurry still photos of something, then changing that so that the vast majority of the population carries around high-quality cameras with image stabilization, auto focus, and video capabilities, you would see a lot of photo evidence -- if the thing being photographed exists. Look at how few videos or even still pictures of police abuse were published in the 1960s compared to today. The abuse was always there but the cameras weren't. If UFOs were real we would see a similar abundance of photographic proof. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
And just to make it interesting how about some graphics software to convincingly alter photos so you can’t tell real alien photos from fake ones? (cue complaining about chit chat on notice boards) - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Except you can tell real photos from fake ones made with available software. (I am sure that av convincing fake can be made by an expert in such things).[41][42][43][44][45] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

foxnews.com/science. Clear. jps (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel sorry for the astronaut. He has to report anything he sees floating around in case it is something important that has fallen off the spacecraft, which could be deadly dangerous, and what does he get for doing his job properly? His words twisted round into this dumb circus. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
So did he JUST report seeing something, did he use any words like alien?Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Leland D. Melvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Auric talk 11:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Hometown boy makes good. Though we moved away long before he entered NASA (or middle school, for that matter). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Bat Creek inscription

Since I seem to be the "enemy " here, with the suggestion that I might be misusing my tools, I'd appreciate it if others could deal with this. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Still could use some help in an argument about using Jason Colavito. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ilchi Lee

The first article has been subject of undisclosed paid edits from a PR agency (already banned), probably from others too. It is full of fringe theories using Ilchi Lee's organizations as the main source. Here is an example I have just removed ([46]):

Lee's Korean Institute of Brain Science (KIBS), which was granted UN ECOSOC "roster consultative status" and Lee's International Brain Education Association (IBREA) report that Lee's programs not only help children develop better memory and concentration but also certain supernatural abilities (or Extrasensory Perception - ESP) due to "Heightened Sensory Perception," as their studies find that children could identify colors, shapes, and letters while blindfolded. - although this ability was found by KIBS to diminish significantly with less ambient light and greater filtering of the viewed material. While Lee asserts that these findings are based on cognitive neuroscience, mainstream neurologists generally regard such conclusions as strongly lacking in scientific support.

Both articles would benefit from a review. Thanks. --MarioGom (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Prana

I realized that the article has neutrality (and likely source quality) issues and started a thread at Talk:Prana#Neutrality. I'll try to return to it, but input and help is always welcome. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed a lot of cruft in that article. [47] More needs to be done. jps (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Moses (TV programme)

Ran into this article after I saw this edit. The lead starts "Moses is a British documentary programme that chronicles the life of Moses using scientific and contemporary historical evidence." Which to my mind is saying that you can actually do that because he's a real historical figure for which there is evidence. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Problem is it is (almost) what the BBC says, it is based on science. There is however an issue with the idea it proves Moses life, it seems to make claims about the inspiration behind it, not that it is true.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Theosophy and science

Article written by a Theosophist who has created many other pro-Theosophy articles on Wikipedia. A scan for his username on the archives of this board reveals users discussing his edits in the past on several occasions. From first look the article may look ok and fool users as the article creator is an expert at layout and referencing material, especially Russian sources, but on investigation about 80% of the sources are fringe Theosophy sources. Seems a very unbalanced article to promote Theosophy as having valid scientific ideas. Also bad quote mining of James Jeans in the "Theosophy and physics" section and other dubious material.

Same editor has written many other promotional Theosophy articles like What Are The Theosophists?, Occult or Exact Science? etc 80.225.31.28 (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm an issue with those book articles (i.e. Esoteric Buddhism (book)) is that they're mostly sourced to the book in question (resulting in editor interpretation in the article), with few independent reviews (although there appear to be some cited). This also makes it difficult to evaluate their notability, since we expect that to be demonstrated using independent sources... —PaleoNeonate – 03:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I had a look at Occult or Exact Science and the elaborate reference structure almost seems designed to obscure that none of the references appear to establish a two part article in a theosophy journal as notable. I have a few more references to sift through and a little more external searching, but then it's probably off to AfD. --tronvillain (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occult or Exact Science? --tronvillain (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This is very bad, it may need administrator intervention. SERGEJ2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It looks to me like someone is using Wikipedia as a soapbox by writing cliffnotes. jps (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This is really a form of long-term abuse. I don't know that we're equipped to be able to handle this morass. jps (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Per the username and Russian sources, I suspect that this user is associated with the Russian Theosophy society [48]. This user sometimes cites the The Theosophical Review, a Russian Theosophy magazine as source of information. This could be possible paid editing. Same user has also created Christianity and Theosophy and many others.
One other thing I have noticed is that SERGEJ2011 has been citing the Theosophy wiki on Wikipedia as a valid source. For example [49], [50], [51] are cited on the Christianity and Theosophy article. The way the articles are written does indeed look notelike, like a dumping ground for Theosophy research. It is possible these articles are being copied from somewhere else. 80.225.32.189 (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
To be honest this does not look notable either The Esoteric Character of the Gospels, but there would be too many to afd (there are 5 others like this), the whole thing is really quite bad as you say. How can this be resolved? 80.225.32.189 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Thought-Forms (book) is equally terrible, mainly based on the book with some unreliable sources thrown in, although there may be some reliable sources there as well. Maybe most of these need stubbing? Doug Weller talk 12:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
You can actually nominate an entire bundle of articles for deletion, as per WP:MULTIAFD. I could in theory just add whatever we think is likely to be deleted to my AfD I guess? --tronvillain (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
This is worth looking at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clairvoyance (book). As one editor there noted, a lot of his sources are not actually about the subject of the article, ie a book, but about the topic of the book, etc, without mentioning the book. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Also Talk:K.H._Letters_to_C.W._Leadbeater which became a redirect. --tronvillain (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking here, the user appears to be translating their own work from the Russian Wikipedia - I left them a message about attribution. The relevant pages should probably have the {{Translated page}} template added. --tronvillain (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_61&oldid=1088113762"