Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

New chronology (Fomenko)

A number of changes have been made to this article by User:Cjbaiget. Some seem to be improvements, but I'm not sure about two. One is a statement by Sergey Glazyev, a dubious source at best - why should we use it? The other is:

"Nowithstanding this, some relevant figures from both the professional and academic archeological circles like Swedish archeology professor from University of Łódź, Martin Rundkvist, claim that "professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not a great science"."

This is odd because Cjbaiget's next edit has the edit summary "Source has a single author and doesn't claim to represent any syndicate of critics, nor has the credentials to do so. Erroneous and misleading use of the plural form amended." Also most of the source (and I think it's a reliable source given the author) is critical of Fomenko but you wouldn't know that from its use. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Doug and others.

About Sergey Glazev, I find it a quite relevant Russian political figure whose words can have direct consequences on the "Reception" among the public of the subject matter of the article. "Reception" is precisely the section I've added his quote, from an all-russian mainstream Newspaper.

About Martin Rundkvist quote, in the source provided you'll find mentions to other dendrochronologers.

Please I'm willing to explaing everyone of my contributions to interested parts.

Thanks, Cjbaiget (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The user today added this link, which is a blog, to the article. I do ot see how it is a RS. May be the author published elsewhere, but in the given form I am afraid it fails WP:RS. Someone needs to present them for arbiotration enforcement.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to attend some of your concerns. I was not paying attention if source was critical or favourable with Fomenko, but to Dendrochronology, which is the topic of the section where is contained. Edit summary is exactly: "Relevant opinion from an *actual active scientist and archeologist* about the reliability of current dendrochronology, to put contrast to some wikipedist's opinion based on a 13 year old publication on the paragraph above, for which I have tried an amend accordingly."

I honestly think that the previous mentioned paragraph is dismissing the evidence for scientists who dissent from some dendrochronology praxis. I can give more examples, but I don't feel that anyone is interested.

Regarding the blog, it belongs to the scientist making the claim, I just simply can't understand what could be wrong with this??

I support the arbitration enforcement proposal, to be judged by the rationale of my contributions and not from the perception current editors have of them.Cjbaiget (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Martin Rundkvist I'm not sure if the concerns come from the source provided or the scope of the assertions by him made. Another, perhaps valid but older source is maybe respected "Scienceblogs", which also has its own wikipedia article with a favorable description.

In 2010 https://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2010/03/17/dendro-dissidents the same accusation is made after a longer explaining:

"I mentioned published dendro curves. The rub here is that most dendro data are never published. They are kept as in-house secrets in dendro labs in order for these to be able to sell their services to archaeologists. So when the amateurs challenge the professionals' opinion, all the latter can reply is "We know we're right but we can't show you how we know". And that is of course an unscientific approach to the issue."

But I find the source I have provided more desirable by beign more recent and belonging directly to author, then WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, but also because accussation is reinstated with more explicit and understandable words, meaning not only that situation has worsened from his point of view, but that continuing talking about it is also more urgent.Cjbaiget (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that one professor's blog is not a good source for attempting to cast doubt on the refutation of Fomenko. It is out of place for starters and probably WP:UNDUE emphasis on one opinion. Even further under cutting the point (which attempts to under cut the under cutting of Fomenko so we're in a whirl of undercuts here) is that Rundkvist actually urges professional archaeologists to use dendro-dating. The full quote from that blog post is: Professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not great science. Field archaeologists: when you saw your wood samples for dendro, get two samples and send one to the amateur community! They practice open data sharing." the "black box" Sundkvist objects to isn't scientific quality but data sharing. The edit, therefore, is dishonest in its form and should be reverted. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but again, this section talks about dendrochronology, not Fomenko. It's also not obvious to me how using a well-defined sentence among a text is a "dishonest edit"?? that would be the case if the context took to another conclusion, which is not. Please don't accuse me of dishonesty so easily. Author has made similar claims at other places, this is the shortest and direct accusation. Please provide proof that quotes have to include entire paragraphs, which interests me the most. We are risking falling into censorship also.Cjbaiget (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cjbaiget:, it's very simple: By truncating the quote, you used it to support the idea that an expert in the field is saying dendrochronology is "not science". The very next sentence in that original statement makes it clear that the expert is saying the exact opposite thing. This is borne out by the rest of the piece. There is no conceivable way that your truncation was accidental -- it was a specific decision of yours. This is intellectually dishonest; the use a source to say something other than what the source actually says is a violation of, among other things, the WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies. I hope that explains things fully. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cjbaiget--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

References

@Eggishorn:I asked for proof that quotes have to come from entire paragraphs, not your more than questionable opinion. I have not truncated any text, I have recorded a whole sentence from it, period to period, which fits perfectly the definition of 'quote' unless you can prove otherwise, not by obfuscated elucubrations. I'm not intellectually dishonest, please don't insist on this subjective perception of yours.Cjbaiget (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course there is no 'proof' (whatever that is supposed to mean) that says a quote must consist of an entire paragraph. This does not, however, change the basic principle: when one uses selective quoting to convey an impression different than that conveyed by the entire text, it is either being very sloppy or outright intellectual dishonesty (maybe both). This does not depend on the amount used - depending on the quote, one might carry the true implession of the whole by quoting a simple phrase, yet one could also mislead when using an entire paragraph (for example, if the paragraph is presented as an intentional strawman that is then knocked down in the next paragraph). To avoid intellectual dishonesty, one must convey the spirit of the full original context, no matter how little or how much of the original text is used in the quote. Agricolae (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks. It's very obvious to me that, from the stance *attributed* to me in this trouble, I would prefer *a longer quote*, which thoroughly explained my *purported* point of view. So, being this discussion derived to intellectual honesty manifestations, please submit an amend with the whole paragraph as quote to the article. Cjbaiget (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There are multipe solutions to this: not including it as WP:UNDUE, including only the part that supports the source's conclusion, including both parts if WP:DUE and doesn't result in WP:FALSEBALANCE... —PaleoNeonate – 01:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for those relevant observations, which I find the first objective and reasonable objections to my edit. I just want to ask: Why it is necessary to raise them after a conflict about this is so heated, and not just after the edit? My guess: me not being aware of your concerns, but more importantly, opponents not applying WP:AGF to me.

Now, I just want someone please explain to me, and sorry but this is the only place I can realistically expect an answer: how previous paragraph to which my edit was trying to complement, achieves conformancy to WP:UNDUE, WP:DUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE... etc?Cjbaiget (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump 2024: The World After Trump

A new film about that will happen if Trump isn't re-elected. I wouldn't post it here if it hadn't suggested that the AntiChrist will come, and that's surely fringe. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

So, Americans soon have to choose between Trump and the Antichrist? That's a really difficult decision. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Turns out it's just a YouTube video and its website and Facebook page are begging for sponsors to pay for screenings, see Talk:Trump 2024: The World After Trump. I don't see notability myself. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It will most likely become more than just a YouTube video if it hasn't already. Paul Crouch Jr. is perfectly capable of ordering a run of DVDs and selling them online and in Christian bookstores, of buying time on religious cable channels, and of arranging screenings at fundamentalist churches. All standard marketing for videos of this nature, and not in any way an indication of notability. Basic principle: if you can buy it, it isn't evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I look forward to the review of this on God Awful Movies. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• As a general point, this hints at at a growing problem whereby if some fringe folk can get a film/documentary made, then by dint of its notability it gets into Wikipedia where then a "synopsis" can be used to deliver a fringe payload. We saw this recently with an abortion docudrama ISTR. It may be good to have something in the fringe guidance about this. Alexbrn (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I think most of these issues are dealt with deftly by WP:NFILM which has stricter standards of notability than WP:NFRINGE even. It may be worth putting in a little crosslink to WP:FRINGE in the WP:NFILM description. I doubt anyone would mind if it is straightforward and brief. jps (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have AFD'd it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Sources shown: Washington Times and CBN news which seems to be Christian Broadcasting Network "at the forefront of the culture wars since the network’s inception in the early 1960s". Looks like a Deep State production promoted by very fringy outlets. . . dave souza, talk 14:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't bold enough (but also have not had the time to look for more sources yet), but when I saw NWO predictions and "political documentary" my impression was "propaganda film"... —PaleoNeonate – 19:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That's just what they want you to think!   :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

And don't forget the glasses, for tinfoil hats only help so much, —PaleoNeonate – 14:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You had me at "written and directed by John Carpenter, starring Roddy Piper"... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Li-Meng Yan

I wasn't sure whether to post this here or on BLPN, I decided to post it here but would urge editors to remember this is a BLP. Anyway I'm concerned that the article Li-Meng Yan seems to be getting into coatracking territory at it has a lot of info on a pre-print. While this pre-print has apparently generated a lot of media attention including comments from notable experts I'm unconvinced we really need to cover that level of detail in a biography. I guess it was has received enough attention that it probably should be mentioned, and we obviously also have to reflect the fact it's thoroughly rejected, but I would suggest maybe 3 or 4 sentences at most. How do others feel? Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Is she notable for anything else aside from the Pre-Print? Might be worth taking the article to AfD and merging the pre-print content to Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Accidental_leakage_theories. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 12 § Li-Meng Yan ← previous AfD, for reference. Hit the DataflowBot top 20 articles by edits and editors for this week, and has been in the top 1000 views for at least the past week. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Antivax article

• The Anti-Vax Movement’s Radical Shift From Crunchy Granola Purists to Far-Right Crusaders

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

While I am not surprised that already extant anti-intellectualism and distrust of government have allowed the far right to recruit and radicalize previously liberal-leaning subculture members, how does that concern Wikipedia? We already have rules in place against the promotion of pseudoscience. Dimadick (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page, "Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories." General knowledge about the direction the antivax movement is taking is certainly a discussion related to a fringe theory, and knowing the above will be helpful to editors who are working on improving our antivax-related articles.

Might I suggest a better tactic? If you don't think someone should be talking about something, wait a bit and see if the discussions dies down. Jumping in and telling other editors what to do is likely to result in a longer discussion about the topic that you think other editors should not be allowed to discuss.

In my experience, the most effective way to not talk about something is to not talk about it. Also in my experience, the best way to avoid reading comments that you think other editors should not be allowed to make is to simply stop reading mid-sentence as soon as you figure out what is being discussed and skip to the next section.

Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read and respond to any comments on this noticeboard, so if you feel that your time is being wasted, you only have yourself to blame.

If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away their keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that User:Dimadick was attempting to stop this conversation. He did ask a legitimate question, specifically whether this widely reported trend will affect the way fringe topics are summarized on Wikipedia. My own personal belief is that we will come under greater pressure, as reflecting a NPOV position on fringe topics will be seen as a politically left bias. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That has been happening for a while. Users who want to keep NPOV are, according to their antagonists, dogmatic, materialistic, left-wing, globalist, Jewish, Reptiloid pharma-shill proponents of scientism. Also Islamophobic, anti-Hindu, anti-Christian, and so on. But the left-wing part has become more common, with the sane wing of the Republican party shrinking more and more. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting to see how a bunch of previously unrelated ideas have become tied up with right-wing politics. I've been tracking Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist) and Kate Shemirani: Steele started his life as a anti 5G woo-hoo merchant. Shemirani was previously a "natural nurse" who railed against "toxins" in the atmosphere. At a protest last weekend, both were echoing right-wing style political talking points. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it is interesting. I wounder if the far right will take up any other traditionally left-wing fringe theories such as GMOs, people without specific medical conditions being harmed by peanuts or gluten, power lines causing cancer, etc. It has been my observation that those who embrace one fringe theory tend to embrace multiple fringe theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"It has been my observation that those who embrace one fringe theory tend to embrace multiple fringe theories." RationalWiki has an article on the topic, called Crank magnetism.:

• "Crank magnetism is the condition where people become attracted to multiple crank ideas at the same time. Crank magnetism also denotes the tendency — even for otherwise "lone issue" cranks — to accumulate more crank beliefs over time. You know that old saying about not being so open-minded that your brain falls out? People with crank magnetism didn't pay attention to that. Crank magnetism is an important stepping stone on the path towards being wrong all of the time. Its opposite is the stopped clock (which is when otherwise overly credulous people actually find some crankery that they won't believe in, and may even actively denounce it)."
• "The physiologist and blogger Mark Hoofnagle, writing in the Denialism blog in 2007, coined the term "crank magnetism" to describe the propensity of cranks to hold multiple irrational, unsupported or ludicrous beliefs that are often unrelated to one another, referring to William Dembski endorsing both a Holocaust denier and one of Peter Duesberg's non-HIV weird theories. He has also coined the phrase "magnetic hoax" in relation to hoax claims that attract multiple crank interpretations." Dimadick (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether this is a result of crank magnetism or not, it is very interesting that conspiracy theories seem to be merging with right-wing politics to a greater and greater extent. There are lots of reliable sources (including the one Guy Macon provides) which are documenting this trend. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoke at a rally in Berlin where the biggest political presence was the hard right AfD party (no... not that AfD). jps (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Not an RS but fascinating thorough article just published on Medium attempts to form a narrative around the trend: How America Became The Land Of Conspiracy Theories. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Crank magnates get everywhere, as discussed in Lewandowsky, Stephan; Oberauer, Klaus; Gignac, Gilles E. (26 March 2013). "NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax". Psychological Science. 24 (5). SAGE Publications: 622–633. doi:10.1177/0956797612457686. ISSN 0956-7976. – which got a lot of crank pushback, some of it discussed at Moyer, Melinda Wenner (1 March 2019). "People Drawn to Conspiracy Theories Share a Cluster of Psychological Features". Scientific American. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0319-58. Retrieved 21 September 2020.. . . dave souza, talk 19:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Not everyone is an American, we we should not wp:soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Not just the US, or even the Americas, it's US as well – "'Quite frankly terrifying': How the QAnon conspiracy theory is taking root in the UK". the Guardian. 20 September 2020. Retrieved 21 September 2020. (actually The Observer). . . . dave souza, talk 19:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Even in the past, the association between the left wing and antivax beliefs was pretty much a mirage. Antivax lunacy was a bipartisan thing, even if the prominent image of it among a certain class of pundit was very crunchy-granola. XOR'easter (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

List of people who have learned Transcendental Meditation

List of people who have learned Transcendental Meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can anybody explain why we have that article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Because someone made it, and as long as it isn't a cross-categorization or content fork, a well-referenced list will almost always survive an AfD based on WP:ILIKEIT arguments alone. Agricolae (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have learned Transcendental Meditation. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Gunung Padang Megalithic Site

26 citations to fringe authors, Kenyon, Childress and Hancock. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

In my limited experience, if it uses the term "megalith" it's a magnet for fringe. Can't we blacklist Hancock, or does that only work with websites? GPinkerton (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Any source can in principle be deprecated for being without redeeming value. This happens with websites because they come up frequently, but I don't see any reason why the same logic wouldn't apply to a book, a fringe-produced TV documentary, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hancock is as WP:Reliable as Natural News, or the Mail on Sunday. He's cited lots. Gosh. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia

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

Holding, carrying, and bearing a sword without being armed — is this possible?

Dispute has arisen over whether Ali Erbaş, state-owned high priest of Erdogan's government Diyanet and well-known pro-fringe activist, was "armed with" a sword while preaching the first caliphal sermon (khutbah) in the Justinianic cathedral since its appropriation by Erdogan and reconversion into a mosque. Apparently, it's possible to merely possess and publicly show off a weapon at a ceremonial event without the weapon being a weapon and without the person so armed being, well, armed. No-one appears to dispute that the man carried a sword and that the sword was a revival of the mediaeval tradition of delivering such sermons armed as a symbol of Constantinople's conquest by the righteous, predicted by the Prophet Himself (no less). I know not what to do. GPinkerton (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The article does not say he was not armed. The decision between "holding a sword" and "armed with a sword" is a style question. I don't think this is a fringe issue.

"Armed with" implies that he intended to use the sword for violence if he deemed it necessary. But if you hold a sword in the context of a ritual, calling you "armed" is weird. When the Queen of England anoints knights, she uses a sword for tapping them on the shoulder, but nobody would say she is "armed". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The article until today very much did say he was "armed with". In point of fact there has not been a "queen of England" for several hundred years, but the British monarch's bodyguards, the Yeomen of the Guard are described as "Armed with a sword and an ornamental partizan" despite there being absolutely no expectation that violence would ever ensue. I dispute that is is a necessary condition for application of the word "armed". Ceremonial arms are arms and bearers of them are necessarily armed. I disagree that the queen is not armed when dubbing new knights; the parliamentary serjeant-at-arms is also armed with a mace and is described as such in reliable sources. In this case, the sword (unlike the impractical mace, a real weapon) is not there to imply future violence, but explicitly to commemorate the violence whereby the building became a mosque; the preacher referred in his diatribe not only to Mehmed the Conqueror's Conquest of the city now called "Conquest" in Turkish (i.e. the old city of Constantinople) but to Alp Arslan's victory at the Battle of Manzikert. Quite apart from that, Ali Erbaş is a well-known extremist, both in his directives mandating holy wars against "Turkey's enemies", and his social commentary. GPinkerton (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that in Iran, the sermon is delivered by imams armed with the armed forces' standard-issue automatic rifle. Even in the context of weekly ritual, a machine-gun is a weapon just like a sword. GPinkerton (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not say that the article does or did not say he was armed, I said... oh read it yourself.

Still not a fringe issue. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Who else thinks that the Mustafa Kemal Atatürk article should be renamed "Whirling Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Hob Gadling on this - I can't imagine someone writing "The queen approached Andy Murray armed with a sword". For me 'armed' definitely implies intent - I can arm myself with a pointed stick if I intend to poke someone in the eye, but we don't routinely say that anyone carrying wood is armed. I don't know enough about the case in point to say whether 'armed' is a word I would use in that context, but I can imagine a reasonable and good faith objection to the word being used, and I don't see this as a fringe issue. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Comparison with a pointèd stick is a false equivalency. A stick may be a weapon or not, depending on context. A sword is a weapon in whatever context it is brandished, and anyone bearing one is armed. The American Bill of Rights does not enshrine the "right to bear arms" only when expecting to use them. If an American is "armed" according to his constitutional right, does that mean that that "definitely implies intent"? Certainly not; It means carrying a weapon on one's person, nothing more. The fringe element is Erbaş's own ideology, which centres on holy war against the Kurds/Syrians/anyone Erdogan disagrees with and manifests itself in himself claiming the mantle of the caliphs of yore, including the practice of delivering the Friday sermon in the caliph's mosque armed with the "weapon of the day". (Hadith records that the Prophet himself used sometimes a staff, other times a bow. It's this that drives the Iranian interpretation that the Islamic armies' frontline weapon of choice should accompany the sermon, in modern times an assault rifle.) GPinkerton (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the content issue, I think you're on slightly shaky ground reverting people and telling them to gain consensus - looking at the talk page, I see someone else questioning the use of the word 'armed' there, and nobody but you arguing for its inclusion - I'm not sure that you have consensus yourself for that word, and I would caution you against reverting again should someone else change it. This discussion should probably be happening at the article's talk page though, rather than here - Erbas's ideology doesn't really make this a fringe matter if we're just discussing which word is best to use. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen the pro-fringe edits those same editors have made? The talk page requires input from editors who are not trying to push Erdogan's government ideology, namely that the building was "purchased" from its original owners, that an armed khutbah is necessary and traditional in the building, that the 15th-century will of Mehmed the Conqueror supercedes the law of the Turkish Republic, that someone actually forged Attatürk's signature and the father of the nation never really wanted the place to become a museum, and so on. The special pleading is really quite extraordinary. The best word to use to describe the event is dependent on the events in question and the fringe ideology of the men behind them, that is, the ruler-by-decree and his high priest. And I have not reverted "people". I reverted an editor who is changing the wording without consensus, per WP:BRD. GPinkerton (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm taking this to the article talk. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Welteislehre

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

Historical part has recently been cut down because of missing sources. Maybe someone here has the sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have any of the three books cited in the removed section, but I have a few that mention the Welteislehre, pretty much always talking about its enthusiastic reception by the Nazis, so I think this certainly needs to be discussed in the article. Brunton (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I just read an earlier version of this article, but I had thought there was for Nazism some attractive connection between the myths of the icy origin of the earth and the cold-hearted, pale-eyed, platinum-haired Arctic Hyperboreans of long ago, who were of course the relations of the Nordic herrenvolk and by no means related to the lesser folk of sweatier, more indolent climes. I'm afraid I don't know the sources, but there's surely a link with the wider Nazi occultism (mine-)field. GPinkerton (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The part of the history section that was removed was about the reception of the theory during the Third Reich, and actually included a quotation pretty much to that effect, but it was unsourced. As far as I can see it’s the lack of sourcing rather than the actual content that is the problem. Brunton (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

More Ayurveda / Siddha medicine woo

I have to attend a real-life commitment. Could someone please look into the following?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shilajit&curid=4632952&diff=980663459&oldid=979938374

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:MEDRS. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Vernon Coleman

There are signs of edit warring at Vernon Coleman. The subject is a British former medical doctor best known for his self-published books which make a number of fringe-sounding claims. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Edward Sidney Hyman

• Edward Sidney Hyman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stumbled on this bio of a doctor which makes the bold claim that "Diseases that are thought of as distinct and unrelated such as hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, dermatomyositis, nephrosis, glomerulonephritis, lupus erythematous are variants of a single disease stemming from the same bacterial cause." The article attributes several other inventions and discoveries to him but it is all referenced to primary sources (his own papers and patents). I think this could use more eyes (and possibly an AfD). Spicy (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Now AfDed. Agricolae (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not a valid response to an article that is well-sourced and demonstrates compliance with notability criteria. His late-career ideas of a purported "Systemic Coccal Disease" may well be fringe but that is no more grounds for deletion than it would be grounds for deleting Linus Pauling for advocating Vitamin C megadosage or Peter Duesberg (perhaps more analogously) for his HIV denialism. We lapse into AfD too quickly as a facile response to legitimate fringe concerns. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

An article that only cites the subject's own publications, as is the case with this one, is not in compliance with notability criteria - read those notability criteria again and note that the word 'independent' is prominently featured. Agricolae (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to jump in and agree with Agricolae here; literally every source currently cited in the article is authored or co-authored by the article subject. That, to me, fails notability. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You're telling me you think that Nature isn't independent of Hyman? That Lancet isn't independent? That the succeeding authors that cite him aren't independent? I'm fairly sure those are and that any definition that attempts to exclude them is ad-hocism that is not a general AfD or notability standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources are written or co-authored by him, there's not even an independent obituary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying that authoring articles in those publications doesn't make him per se notable--rather, we should be looking for a secondary source that says, in essence, "Dr. Hyman is important because he published in these important publications." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

(e/c)We are telling you that anything Hyman writes is not independent of Hyman - that his papers were published indicates that the editors/reviewers found their subject was (at least nominally) notable, but does not demonstrate that the person who wrote the paper is themselves notable. As to succeeding citations, there is not a single source in the entire article that Hyman didn't write himself, so again no notability is demonstrated. There is nothing ad hoc about this. It is right there as a basic criterion for notability of a person, that they received significant coverage in multiple independent (of themselves and each other) sources. Those most basic criteria fail to be met by the article as it currently exists. In short, we need a reliable source about Hyman written by someone who isn't Hyman, and there is a stark absence of such a source in the current article, which only cites things he himself penned. Agricolae (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been hanging around AfD for literally years and I've never seen journal articles published in major journals called not independent or not notable. The journal articles are not, and never have before in my experience, been treated as sources about the article subject. If you want to talk abou basic criteria, please re-read WP:NACADEMIC. By the very fact that this person has published in those journals they satisfy the standard which specifically calls out this type of evidence of notability. I honestly don't get this level of resistance other than as an attempt to purge a fringe proponent against the policy as written. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

To help me understand better, could you specify which of the 8 criteria of WP:NACADEMIC are fulfilled here? I would be grateful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

And no, simply having published in Nature and Lancet is not one of these notability criteria for academics. Agricolae (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument that "The journal articles are not, and never have before in my experience, been treated as sources about the article subject" because in this case they are being used as sources about the subject; they are the only sources for the subject's entire biography (well, except for the parts that are unsourced). It is true that for academics we accept being cited by other researchers as evidence of notability and that we are more lenient on the need for independent sourcing than we are with other categories of biographies (we allow faculty bios, obituaries from affiliated organizations, etc.). But even if it's decided that notability is satisfied, there are issues with WP:OR, WP:DUE and WP:MEDRS when an article is based solely on the subject's own writings.

Someone's own papers and patents cannot be used to say they were the first to discover or invent something; that would require an actual review of the literature. If the only sources available are the academic's own publications, how can one decide what is and is not sufficiently important to include in their biography? Without a secondary source that puts his life and work into context that is just engaging in OR. And finally, a medical claim is a medical claim regardless of whether it is in a biography or a "proper" medical article, and case reports and research studies from decades ago cannot be used to make claims about the causes or mechanisms of diseases in Wikipedia's voice. Spicy (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Journal articles published in major journals can be evidence of notability. They are not, however, the kinds of serious, in-depth reliable sources we need to write a biography necessarily. jps (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this entirely. While the articles, to me, suggest notability, they fall short of establishing it by themselves. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

GMO discussion at NPOVN

Editors at this noticeboard may like to be informed of and weigh in at this discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Genetically modified food controversies. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The other multiverse

Editors at this noticeboard may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (religion).

Unserious side question: If all the parallel universes are part of the multiverse, then what entity contains all the multiverses? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... It's trying to combine Religious cosmology (which needs work), Plane (esotericism), and some similar articles like Heaven, but using a term from science/sci-fi that... just doesn't quite fit. Those religious cosmologies wouldn't view those places as other universes but as a broader part of the existence (which the observable universe would only be a small part of).

And multiverse ideas usually use the term "multiverse" to describe the collective universes. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Fringe theories about the president and Covid-19

Areas to watch: Misinformation spikes as Trump confirms COVID-19 diagnosis --Guy Macon (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, White House outbreak of COVID-19 is 10h old, so a "Conspiracy theories about..." article is way overdue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about the White House outbreak of COVID-19 - what, still red? Material would be there. 1 2 3--mfb (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Visible Ink Press

The publisher Visible Ink Press claims that In our 28 years, we've published nearly 400 titles and currently publish about ten titles a year. All have been exclusively references [2]. However, this seems to include titles such as "The Illuminati: The Secret Society That Hijacked the World" [3], "The Government UFO Files: The Conspiracy of Cover-Up" [4], and "Lost Civilizations: The Secret Histories and Suppressed Technologies of the Ancients" [5]. Any idea how to address this from an WP:NPOV on the article page? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki:, I'm wondering why we need an article about them at all. Of the seven sources in the article, I see 3 self-references, two directory entries, an interview with the owner in industry press, and a one-paragraph notice in an independent RS. Looking for other sources brings up booksellers and more directories and some passing mentions but nothing actually about the company. I'm tempted to AfD this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If a minimum of WP:OR is allowed it'd be possible to include links to [6] and [7] with a mention that they also publish books about conspiracy theories. On the other hand, I fail to find independent sources discussing Visible Ink Press, I instead find book directories and stores that include books by that publisher. —PaleoNeonate – 06:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Political ponerology

I noticed this article after seeing this edit.[8] The book in question is published by Red Pill Press, clearly a fringe publisher.[9] The introduction is written by this fringe writer.[10] She's mentioned in Thomas French who wrote about her and her website is an EL there. She's used as a source for Theodore Illion who claimed to have discovered an underground city in Tibet and in Succubus.

Back to "political ponerology". There's in article in Psychology Today by Steve Taylor (author) which briefly mentions it as an example of "pathocracy" and another in Sri Lanka's daily business paper.[11] It's also mention in Salon[12] and that article seems pretty convincing evidence that it's not fringe.

So, should it be cleaned up and also restored to Ponerology despite its intro by a kook? Doug Weller talk 10:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Mika, Elizabeth (2017). "Who Goes Trump? Tyranny as a Triumph of Narcissism". In Lee, Brandy (ed.). The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) just a bare mention
• Hughes, Ian (2017). Disordered minds : how dangerous personalities are destroying democracy. Zero Books.
• Andregg, Michael (2015). "EVIL IN CIVILIZATIONS AND SOLUTIONS". In Celinski, Marek J. (ed.). Crisis and Renewal of Civilizations. Nova. One of the pioneers in this area was a Polish survivor of Nazi Germany, then Communist occupation, named Andrew Lobaczewski. But his book on Political Ponerology is very difficult to read. It claims to be a product of a larger group of mostly Eastern European scientists who struggled to understand totalitarian systems with deep roots in that region that resulted in so much killing during the 20th century. So they were highly motivated, but much of their original material was allegedly lost. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Not much to inspire confidence, nothing in academic sources so far. fiveby(zero) 16:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If sources are difficult to find that criticize his view that biology was a main factor, it's likely undue, especially if it's sourced to primary Łobaczewski material... —PaleoNeonate – 16:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That Salon author Paul Rosenberg saying "A long-suppressed book, published just over a decade ago" is a red flag, when it was published 1984, 1985, 1998[13], and 2006-2013[14]. Suppressed usually just means ignored. fiveby(zero) 16:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Watering down MEDRS - proposal suggestion

Watchers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Biomedical Sciences: An idea to identify acceptable primary research for citations (in addition to citing reviews). People who watch this page may wish to comment -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce

• Edgar Cayce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nascent iodine (dietary supplement) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I left the Cayce article unattended for a few months (Watchlist too long), and POV edits crept in. I reverted some, but the article would probably profit from more eyes. Also, Atomidine (or rather, the article it redirects to, Nascent iodine (dietary supplement)) seems to be in need of work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Love Jihad conspiracy theory

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

Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory alleging that Muslim men target women belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love. High-quality reliable sources, including academic publications, describe Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory.

The Wikipedia article on Love Jihad, for some time, did not explicitly label Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory, which caused the article to be in violation of WP:PROFRINGE. I have attempted to address this in Special:Diff/978047396/979186634 by adding the conspiracy theory descriptor to the first sentence, but the remainder of the article (particularly the example farm in the "History" section) still portrays Love Jihad as a plausible theory, rather than a confirmed conspiracy theory.

One solution is to introduce more content cited to peer-reviewed academic sources rather than relying solely on popular press. This would provide the appropriate weight to the scholarship that counterbalances the sundry unconfirmed allegations that are reported in the media.

If you have any other suggestions for improving this article, please feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 23:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If you're in the mood for some humor, see this Twitter thread. Click "Show this thread" at the bottom to see the entire thing. — Newslinger talk 23:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I never knew there was such a thing as a "Lutyens lifestyle" ... until today. GPinkerton (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I remember of this article, although I've not been patrolling it recently. It used to always accumulate news with editorials to suggest that it's an actual thing. —PaleoNeonate – 14:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is a disaster, and I have never really found the time to clean it up. Unfortunately, the media has thrown the term around in cases that do not meet the definition as presented (for instance, forced religious conversion after marriage), and presenting that material in a manner compliant with NPOV will take some work. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Jihad (3rd nomination). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleting the article would resolve the WP:PROFRINGE issue, but I'm uncertain about whether this is possible under the general notability guideline. Another option would be to draftify the article until it's up to par. I'm also fine with improving it in article space, gradually replacing the existing content with new content supported by higher-quality citations. — Newslinger talk 18:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was closed with no consensus. I've started a new discussion at Talk:Love Jihad § Academic sources to continue article development. — Newslinger talk 04:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Rustam Fan (talk · contribs · count) has removed the conspiracy theory descriptor from the article in Special:Diff/979473860, causing the article to violate WP:PROFRINGE again. The discussion is at Talk:Love Jihad § Lead. — Newslinger talk 03:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

In my mind a "conspiracy theory" is a story of powerful, shadowy figures manipulating events to hide the TRUTH. Something you can have a laugh about and mostly harmless to all but the gullible. Seems like unfortunate wording as "harmless" does not apply. I'm not well informed on the subject, but WP's coverage of Hindutva and the BJP looks simply inadequate. fiveby(zero) 14:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

With a Press Freedom Index ranking of #142 (out of 180 countries), the state of the Indian press is not exactly ideal. When academic sources are available (as they are for this topic), these sources can address the deficiencies in the coverage published in the popular press. — Newslinger talk 15:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Academic sources do not adequately address current legal proceedings on active cases of alleged love jihad, but instead focus on the narrative of right-wing groups. Consider the work of David Strohl, and Tyagi and Sen. It is debatable whether academic sources can address these deficiencies currently. This article’s focus seems to be heavily on what Hindu groups in India consider love jihad to be and their perceptions. Rather the framework should focus on whether forced conversion is a reality or not. As such, the term ‘jihad’ in this context needs discussion, which is currently lacking (and if it is lacking in general, that should be spelled out in the article). There is also a heavy focus on perception in India but not much mention of forced conversions of Hindus in other South Asian nations, especially women and how it relates to this topic. The motive of the alleged forced converter is key, as it will determine whether or not this is a hoax. Liberalvedantin —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Academic sources from reputable publishers are considered the most reliable sources. The highest-quality reliable sources (including academic sources and news sources) describe "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory, so the Love Jihad article does as well. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to try to prove whether a theory is credible or not; that would be original research. — Newslinger talk 15:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Changes at Orgone

Can anyone have a look at this change of content, tone and source at Orgone, accompanied by this wall of text on the talk page? - DVdm (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

While the IP does a surprisingly good job at sussing out the various arguments in the Talk page history, and their appraisal of the overall content is pretty reasonable, I think they are giving too much credibility to one-off primary sources to rebut the pseudoscience label. The lack of comprehensive, independent, peer-reviewed research is a testament to the idea's lack of validity and experimental rigor and its consequent dismissal by later generations of scientists. It was a brief money-making curiosity rooted in an ultimately pseudoscientific theoretical foundation. That's all. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The IP first needs to respect WP:BRD and WP:PA. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Joelle and Hob, thanks for comments and restore. - DVdm (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Tuberville

There is a discussion between me and Korny O'Near and how to describe US Senate candidate Tuberville's position on climate change (only God causes climate change/nobody will be able to feel it in the next 400 years), Talk:Tommy_Tuberville#Content_sourced_to_InsideClimate_News_should_be_restored. Editors here may be interested. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

‘So Frustrating’: Doctors and Nurses Battle Virus Skeptics

[15] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hinduphobia in academia

I discovered this (and related page Hinduphobia in Academia) while doing new page review. It's unclear to me whether Hinduphobia is a legitimate, recognized term, as all the sources seem (as one might expect) POV-pushing. Would appreciate any guidance on this. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow, those are really two separate articles with the exact same title save for capitalization. At least one has to be a WP:POVFORK. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on the timing, this article looks like an attack on the academic sources cited in the Love Jihad article. See #Love Jihad conspiracy theory for details. — Newslinger talk 10:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduphobia in academia. jps (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Abbas ibn Firnas as a pioneer of aviation

The lead states, with sources (2 the same person) that he was a pioneer of aviation, yet the article casts strong doubts on the story of his alleged flight. This doesn't make sense and I'm not convinced that the sources are adequate. Maybe I should go to RSN, but this seems more of a fringe issue. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

See also: Hezârfen Ahmed Çelebi, also an "aviator". GPinkerton (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I've been meaning to try to improve it, but it hasn't happened yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I just reworded the start to reflect what is in the sources. A couple of the sources look to be good, especially the article in Spanish from the 1960s but I don't suppose it's easy to access. There's nothing intrinsically weird in the notion that a 9th century polymath might have had a go at a bit of hang-gliding with limited success. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, GPinkerton, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Itsmejudith: This is what Lévi-Provençal mentioned in his Encylopaedia of Islam (2nd edition) entry, "He was even a distant precursor of aviation, thinking out a sheath furnished with feathers and mobile wings; had the courage to put it on, to jump from the top of a precipice and to hover in the air for a few seconds before falling—escaping death by a miracle." -TheseusHeLl (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@TheseusHeLl: feathers and mobile wings that's not aviation and flying like that only works in cartoons and the myth of Daedalus and Icarus. It would be charitable to call it gliding rather than outright falling. This no more a precursor to aviation than were Da Vinci's unbuilt and unflyable machines. GPinkerton (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that's your pov. If a reliable source like EI2 and a reliable medievalist like Lévi-Provençal said that "He was even a distant precursor of aviation", so this view should be represented in the article. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The difference between falling and flying is very slight, but noticeable at the end. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Lost in the mall technique

Lost in the mall technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The criticism seems fringey to me, but I am not a psychologist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The authors of the criticism papers were inserting their papers into the article. [16]. jps (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin

David Ray Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Griffin sent a representative to argue for him to remove the "conspiracy theorist" label, and the representative has asked why all the people who watch the article are not coming to discuss him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians

I part-rewrote the lead to Persecution of Christians to attempt a more neutral tone, but the body of the article, especially the post-Cold War section, could use its sources examining and its tone in places distanced from its subject. The introduction of that section starts with some commentary from neutral observer Benedict XVI (ret'd), and ends with a conclusion that uncritically backs the ex-papal claim Christians are (win?) "the most persecuted religion", (prize at the) 2019 (awards?). GPinkerton (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be a much more neutral to move the article to Treatment of Christians. Of course it's possible to find examples of Christians being persecuted, but I don't there's any way we can have a neutral article by cherry-picking just those examples. This article has got to be a POV fork of something. Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

There are "Persecution of X" articles for all the major religions, including Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, etc. Do you think those articles should also be moved? Persecution of Christians is an observable and verifiable phenomenon, and has been for millennia, and of course it's possible to write an article that describes the phenomemon in a neutral way. And the fact GPinkerton is raising this at FTN, suggests that he believes the persecution of Christians is a fringe theory, which itself would be a fringe theory. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It implies no such thing. I have identified quite clearly what I think one of the fringe theories is. I don't think there's any benefit in moving the page. GPinkerton (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was very obvious. But now GPinkerton has probably been added to the list of persecutors of Christians, together with Nero, Diocletian, and Richard Dawkins. Because "persecution of Christians" is defined by some as "any type of disagreement with a Christian". That is at the base of the fringe theory in question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Persecution happened in the past and still exists at some places and times, the issue with this kind of article is indeed that there also exists a persecution complex causing a tendency to accumulate irrelevant material. The solution is to only include obvious examples that are mentioned in reliable sources and to avoid apologetic ones... Free expression, the separation of church and state and criticism of religion is out of the scope (except of course where totalitarian/radical actions prevent expression, like imprisonment or more; then one should also take in consideration if it's "Christianity" or particular groups or individuals and why, i.e. Christian terrorism and abuse by individual members or leaders, like fraud and sex crimes, exist). —PaleoNeonate – 15:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

To call it a POV fork, you would need to find the other prong first. No, this is a legitimate article. The book series Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, which has looked at another side of Christianity, is legitimate, so this is too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"To call it a POV fork, you would need to find the other prong first." There is a partial overlap with the Christian persecution complex. Dimadick (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• There are problems with that article, including large chunks of text primary-sourced to Christian advocacy groups. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Was Trump "potentially infectious" on October 10 (the day of his balcony speech)?

On White House COVID-19 outbreak, I added mention of the White House rally on October 10 where Trump spoke unmasked to a 2,000 person crowd. I characterized his status as "potentially infectious" based on The Independent. NYT goes even further, saiyng "might be contagious to those around him".

This change has been objected to, because "President Donald Trump’s doctor said Saturday the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus." I have argued we should include the Oct 10 event along with the doctor's claim, but that suggestion has been rejected. Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer is WP:FORUMSHOPPING because he didn't get his way at Talk:White House COVID-19 outbreak#Edit request: Oct 10 event where the consensus was overwhelmingly against his change -- mainly because he tried to insert a claim that "According to medical experts, Trump was potentially infectious during the speech" when the attached source said "President Donald Trump’s doctor said Saturday the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus". There are no fringe theories involved in any of this and thus this section should be hatted as being completely off-topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources agree Trump may still be infectious. Sources:

• WaPo headline: "Trump says he’s not contagious. Health experts say that’s not certain." source
• Snopes/AP: "Trump Still Contagious? Experts Say It’s Impossible to Know"President Donald Trump said he doesn't think he's contagious anymore, but medical experts say that's impossible to know. "source
• "Trump flagged by Twitter after tweeting false claim that he's not contagious and is now immune to COVID-19" source

COVID denialism falls squarely within the rubric of FRINGE. Feoffer (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is speculation by people who have not examined Trump about whether he is infectious. The best source about that it here:[17] but speculation that the actual MD who performed the tests is wrong is not "COVID denialism" nor is it a fringe theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Native white Australians

Would welcome any input on this from the fine people at FTN. It looks like a WP:POVFORK of Currency lads and lasses, but I'm not sure. (I posted at WP:AUSTRALIA as well.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Looked like it was an attempt at writing an article like Old Stock Americans as it pertains to "Nativism" like American ethnicity....however the concept is not developed at all in the article and uses a loose connection to the term.--Moxy 🍁 15:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We already have Anglo-Celtic Australians and European Australians, which is surely plenty. GPinkerton (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Moxy, GPinkerton, redirect now removed … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Put up for deletion or merger of about 10% of content?.--Moxy 🍁 04:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Honestly not sure. There is indeed a book apparently about the subject, but all other uses of the term in reputable scholarship seem to be generic/non-technical uses from which WP:SYNTH would be the only way to build an article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

New York Times article on overcoming anti-vaxxers

First lesson: Don't say "anti-vaxxers". In all seriousness, the Vaccine Confidence Project is not just an exercise in double-speak but one in information delivery. That is something we should be good at. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, Nah. Just ban them. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Food aid and overpopulation

I'm not sure what to make of Aid#Food_as_a_means_of_increasing_carrying_capacity_and_undesirable_population_growth. (Or, rather, [18], as I have at least temporarily removed the relevant content.) It looks either WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTHetic, but at least some of the sources do seem to have been legitimately published. Would appreciate any comments (and apologies for spamming FTN lately). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Last time I checked the idea that there isn't enough food to feed the world's population is a fringe view, and the idea that food distribution is often disrupted in an attempt to commit genocide by starvation is mainstream.

Genocide by starvation does reduce global population, but then again so does thermonuclear war and plague -- heck,[19] every serial killer and suicide cult are doing their small part to reduce world population. The idea that this is a Good Thing is about as fringe as it gets. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No that's wrong, overpopulation is a serious problem and consideration of it is not fringe. Any relationship to food aid is obvious nonsense though. GPinkerton (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy said that the idea that starvation, thermonuclear wars, plagues, serial killers and suicide cults are good things is fringe. Not that consideration of overpopulation is fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

What Hob Gadling said. Just because something is a real problem. that doesn't mean that every proposed solution to it is good. The logical progression "Something must be done about overpopulation. Genocide by starvation is something. Genocide by starvation must be done" is flawed.

It turns out that there is a solution that doesn't involve murdering millions of innocent people:

"A broad consensus has developed over time that as incomes rise, fertility tends to fall. There is little debate about the causal relationship between rising prosperity and declining fertility. Generally speaking, there has been a uniformly high correlation between national income growth and falling birth rates, and between family incomes and fertility. Economists and demographers for the most part agree that important ingredients of improved living standards, such as urbanization, industrialization and rising opportunities for non-agrarian employment, improved educational levels, and better health all lead to changed parental perceptions of the costs and benefits of children, leading in turn to lower fertility. In other words, there is no longer much debate about whether or not improved economic conditions, whether at the family level or at the societal level, lead to lower fertility."

Source: Population, poverty and economic development Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2009 Oct 27; 364(1532): 3023–3030.[20]

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump administration political interference with science agencies - notice of requested move discussion

FYI, there is an ongoing requested move at Talk:Trump administration political interference with science agencies. Input welcome. Neutrality^talk 18:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Relatedly

Criticism of the British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) now exists and appears pro-fringe. Gupta, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens all rife, with a for-and-against layout and Screaming Lord Sumption going unopposed. Some apparent attempts to smuggle the Mail in through third-party sources. Worth looking over; it certainly needs overall improvement. GPinkerton (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I have blanked and redirected it back to the main article, as it would be a blatant POVFORK. Alexbrn (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Surely the correct main article is British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic GPinkerton (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes that would be better. Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Anatomy of a COVID-19 Conspiracy Theory

‘Film Your Hospital’ – The Anatomy of a COVID-19 Conspiracy Theory

Key quote: "The pandemic has fuelled at least ten conspiracy theories this year. Some linked the spread of the disease to the 5G network, leading to phone masts being vandalised. Others argued that COVID-19 was a biological weapon. Research has shown that conspiracy theories could contribute to people ignoring social distancing rules."

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Did the Maya meet the Vikings? A Yale professor seems to think it's likely

Really embarrassing as I'm a Yalie. Valerie Hansen [21] Doug Weller talk 10:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Do we have sources saying this? I have not read the book.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Just skimmed a bit and yes, the author really has sunburnt Norsemen in the Yucatan, as proven by some watercolour paintings of some 1000-year old paintings which can be construed as showing yellow-haired people (and not just Mayan artistic convention) and a boat with planks, which apparently is unthinkable to a civilization that can build buildings much higher and grander than the Vikings ever did. GPinkerton (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If we find sources, we can add them into the article about her.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

She's a historian of China. An awful warning to what's happening when you succumb to the pressure to write popular books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs)

Well, sure, but lots of academics put out theories of various kinds in their books and writings. It seems to me that is an essential part of both the scientific and history-writing process. Other intellectuals and academics will deal with such, and provide subsequent evidence for, or counter-evidence against, such theories. Personally, I have no idea whether there might be some historical "evidence" of a Viking boat getting down to the latitudes of the Maya. But I sure wouldn't think that someone's embarrassment at being a fellow of that university would be relevant. Wikipedia should just be following that which is verifiable. We don't really do very well at discerning "truth." Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

ALLATRA

New article on some sort of NRM. Looks fringe but what do I know about this sort of thing. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced from the article that it's notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I have pruned some of the dross (much self-sourcing) but don't read Russian or Ukrainian so can't establish whether the remaining sources are RS or not. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Jeremy Griffith

We have an article for this guy Jeremy Griffith whom I suspect is some kind of quack/fringe scientist. His website www.humancondition.com just screams SCAM to me. His article here is completely uncritical of him and feels like it was written by a paid stooge. I would like somebody to take a closer look at this, I don't trust it. Kurzon (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

He is far from being a household name, but he is known in Australia in certain intellectual circles. The article seems ok to me and covers the territory. Probrooks (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kurzon: Looks like yet another fringe scientist, with a fawning Wikipedia article based way too much on editorializing around primary sources. Although one decent source - a review in the Sydney Morning Herald - is cited [22] none of its extensive criticism makes it into our article. Funny that. Perhaps Doug Weller might know more ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the article talk page the article was edited extensively by a paid sock farm who seem to have inserted a lot of the promotional material into the article.

I'm also slightly suspicious of Divinecomedy666, who's contributions seem to suggest a single purpose account focusing almost exclusively on Jeremy Griffith and anthropology. This same user has previously made a number of edits where they have inserted very promotional material about Jeremy Griffith into a number of related articles: [23] [24] [25]. It seems they have a conflict of interest with the article's subject? 192.76.8.82 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Worth watching, and this edit[26] to Roger Hallam, which is still in the article, is a bit troubling. It was discussed at Talk:Roger Hallam (activist)#Holocaust comments and POV but that discussion fizzled out, and the latest discussion on the XR site is this. You wouldn't know from our article Extinction Rebellion that there had been any problems. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I had added the reference to the SMH article that was critical of Griffith's work. I would have added more extensive discussion of the criticisms - but I was also criticized here for soapboxing and posting too much on certain anthropological theories. Therefore I thought if I elaborated on the criticisms of the Griffith article that would be taken as further soapboxing. So someone has said the material from the SMH article (which is critical of Griffith) should have a greater presence on his page - while someone else said I am posting too much on one topic and potentially soapboxing. These mixed messages are a little confusing - some clarification would be appreciated so I know the parameters and accepted protocols for making edits. I intend to make some editions to Jordan Peterson's Wiki page based on recently released research in evolutionary anthropology and Jungian studies. I hope this is not deleted for "soapboxing" - but that I can also receive critical feedback if anything I do is inappropriate. Divinecomedy666 (talk)

Brandenburg stone

I've just reverted some pov, but it still has fringe nonsense in it from Blackett and Wilson and Lee Pennington. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

How can you doubt, when a community college creative writing instructor has "endorsed claims of the artifact's ancient Welsh origin"? fiveby(zero) 19:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears that there is a small sock farm inserting fringe nonsense into a number of related articles, e.g. Iolo Morganwg : [27], [28], [29] and Coelbren y Beirdd : [30], [31] 192.76.8.82 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Great Barrington Declaration

• Great Barrington Declaration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An open letter from anti-lockdown proponents, that appears to have received a universal raspberry from mainstream scientists. Add to that a rumour doing the rounds that the declaration's true greatness is being censored by Google, and we have a rich fringe cocktail. Editing seems to be hotting up so could probably use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

New additions need reviewing. GPinkerton (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts named for bogus signatories are now quibbling over the presentation: the apparently non-fictional User:MadScientistDoctor and the definitely real and entirely not at all fake User:DoctorBananarama22. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You're going a bit overboard here, read the comments by James Naismith: At one level this declaration is a statement of a series of scientific truths and as such is non-controversial...That said, the declaration omits some rather critical scientific information that would help better inform policy makers...It is absolutely proper that scientists offer their best advice to government, especially perhaps, when that advice differs from the mainstream, as this does...Humility and willingness to consider alternatives are hallmarks of good science.[32] This is not "a bunch of rogue scientists...analagous to vaccine denial, climate denial, creationism, etc." fiveby(zero) 19:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The content of the actual Declaration is not important; it's the diverse traction it's received in fringe quarters and the predicable furore over the "let-anyone-and-his-dog sign the damn thing" attitude to the "expert" signatories and the mutually exclusive (ir-)realities inhabited by a Guardian journalist and former Daily Mail's political editor-at-large and far-right Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice's girlfriend-journalist. GPinkerton (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, see also Project Steve. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Big if true: Koch brothers nefariousness again: Ahmed, Nafeez (2020-10-09). "Climate Science Denial Network Behind Great Barrington Declaration". Byline Times. Retrieved 2020-10-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) GPinkerton (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Open letters are meaningful when the people signing them are meaningful. When the letter writers crow about the sheer number of signatories, that's a huge WP:REDFLAG, Project Steve. jps (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Uhmm, of course it's true, American Institute for Economic Research is linked right in the first sentence. Maybe there needs to be some additional text explaining this is a property rights/free market think tank? Surprising you think it's surprising. (Why doesn't that author just say upfront Atlas Network). fiveby(zero) 02:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, 70% of the AIER article was sourced to their own website. Normal for articles on think-tanks, there are a bazillion of them and they are often funded by the same people. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I was just a little surprised that with 'Economic' in the name, and a libertarian slant this wasn't obvious from the git-go. GPinkerton is right that the article needs some context to explain. Not the Koch funding, but as David Naylor said it will: "...enliven the libertarians who object to public health measures on principle..."[33]. It ain't like this was from Kaiser, the motivation behind the organization should be understood. Just saying it's Koch funded doesn't do that. fiveby(zero) 22:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, I agree. "part of the Atlas Network of libertarian think-tanks" might cover it. People think that Wikipedia invented citeogenesis and fact-washing, but we're decades behind the libertarian right. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• The article is again filled with uncited editorializing … GPinkerton (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• And with drive by IPs making (ahem) "Grammar" edits like this it's looking like it might be a good idea for the article to be semi'd. Any uninvolved admins watching here? Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I asked yesterday but was declined. GPinkerton (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

of interest The Gorsky take. ADDED Though I see from the article history that Alex is ahead of me, as usual. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Predictably, the "WHO caves to free-market economics" non-story is now being added to World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. GPinkerton (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, it's not the WHO, it's one dude. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG Thanks, I am fully aware, I have already made that point repeatedly on the talkpage of the Great Declaration. I just wanted to notify others that this fringe spin on Nabirro's interview is cropping up elsewhere too. GPinkerton (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is the Great Barrington Declaration listed in a section in WP:FTN? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Because it is of interest. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 01:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

But the WP:FTN is a place for listing fringe theories or views not theories of interest. Right? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It's here because it is was promulagted by supporters of a fringe theory. GPinkerton (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the proof that this is a fringe theory? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

More than that, it proposes a fringe idea, as RS tells us. The article is looking in quite good compliance with the WP:FRINGE guidance. Alexbrn (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the RS that told us that this is a fringe theory? As far as I know there is no mainstream yet that was outlined in any systematic reviews (and probably there won't be for many years given that the scientific literature is still taking its first baby steps into the COVID-19 knowledge world), so I am really intrigued to see the peer reviewed systematic reviews/meta analysis that said that protecting the vulnerable is a fringe theory. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't get "systematic reviews" determining if something is fringe! See WP:PARITY for the kind of sources usually necessary for fringe topics. In this case, maybe check out the Science-Based Medicine article cited, or see the words of Francis Collins quoted. Essentially, when you have pretty much every international health body on one "side" of the argument, and a handful of rogue scientists (with a boatload of political activists) on the other, then it's important not to WP:GEVAL, so as to maintain Wikipedia's need for neutrality . Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: No, you get systematic reviews determining if something is fringe by stating the current main stream theories that already have been proven correct in many published randomized controlled trials, and if the fringe theory is missing in all these systematic reviews then you determine that it is fringe. Do you have these systematic reviews? WP:FRIND says that independent sources are necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. Science-Based Medicine is not even a scientific journal and Francis Collins's statements are not peer reviewed so it is original research violating Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources and can be negated by words of scientists on the other side. When you say that every international body is on one side of the argument without peer reviewed RS you violate WP:RS/AC and WP:NOR. In summary, if a Wikipedia editor doesn't like a scientific theory, they can't simply bypass systematic reviews and quote original research or non-peer-reviewed websites that support their views as academic RS. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Something that was stated without peer review can be dismissed without peer review. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Knowledge Contributor0: Here is a reliable source (The Guardian) explicitly calling the Barrington Declaration a "fringe view" on Oct 7 and Oct 18 quoting from the latter: "The truth is that a strategy of pursuing “herd immunity” is nothing more than a fringe view. There is no real scientific divide over this approach, because there is no science to justify its usage in the case of Covid-19." --Krelnik (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Krelnik: Main stream theories in Science and academic consensus are not determined by newspapers or websites. As per Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources, WP:FRIND, WP:RS/AC, and WP:NOR; the only situation when it is acceptable to establish academic main stream or consensus using mainstream newspapers is if the newspaper is quoting systematic reviews. If a non-peer-reviewed statement from a scientist is considered original research and can't be used as a WP:RS then a journalist word is actually worse. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice how the GB Declaration specifically advocates "Focused Protection", which is the inverse of herd immunity. Your quote has no relation to the topic at hand. It is curious you have dismissed this as a fringe view when it has the support of several quite mainstream figures. Which other "fringe theory" can claim this? John Ioannidis, the person who founded meta-science, has been a harsh critic of prolonged lockdowns. Are you seriously maintaining that he is fringe?

Is the Earth 6000 years old? Was the Holocaust really as bad as is thought? Are white people cleverer than black people? You can find "several quite mainstream figures" to support any nonsense you care to think of, if you're so motivated. (And coincidentally, I notice these fringe topics make natural bedfellows[34].) We know from good RS this is a fringe position promoted by a small extreme group, and that characterisation is what Wikipedia follows. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you answer the question: is John Ionnidis on the fringe? The answer to this question is really telling. Just a yes/no answer will suffice.

I'll answer: In epidemiology, he is fringe. Your attitude reminds me of those Knights and Knaves brain-teasers set on the island where everybody either always tells the truth or always lies. I got news for you: The real world is not like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: First John Ioannidis is the C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention, Professor of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, and (by courtesy) of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics in Stanford University. He chaired the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina Medical School in 1999-2010. So how exactly is he fringe in epidemiology?

Second, John Ioannidis is co-Director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, which gives his opinion on the level of certainty in evidence of COVID-19 research weight when he calls the claims of scientific evidence on lockdowns an "evidence fiasco". Not to say, that his opinion by itself is evidence, but the peer reviewed studies published by him showing that that the early mathematical models used to justify the lcokdowns were overestimated cannot be called fringe.

Third, I don't think this discussion is relevent here unless we are planning to do a head count of scientists to evaluate whether the focused protection approach is a fringe view or not, which won't be helpful because it will be WP:OR. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

He works in epidemiology. So what? Nobody said that all the fringe of a field works outside that field. Richard Lindzen is a climatologist, and he holds fring views about climatology.

You are right in one respect: this discussion is not relevant. We have reliable sources saying that the position he holds is fringe. The reliable sources are stronger than you and your original research about why he cannot be fringe in your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Which other "fringe theory" can claim this? Just off the top of my head:

• Hypervitamin therapy: Linus Pauling
• Synchronicity: Wolfgang Pauli
• Alchemy: Isaac Newton
• Parapsychology: Alfred Russel Wallace, William Crookes, Johann Karl Friedrich Zöllner, William James, Brian Josephson
• Climate change denial: Ivar Giaever, Freeman Dyson, Matt Ridley
• Evolution denial: Fred Hoyle
• AIDS denial: Kary Mullis

All those are Nobel-level mainstream in one specific area, fringe in another. Lower-level scientists who do fringe stuff outside their expertise are far more numerous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Did you forget:

• Old school racism: James Watson?

Rupert Beale has said of the Nobel laureate signatory "a bad case of Nobel prize disease". GPinkerton (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I didn't forget him, I just didn't know how exactly to call that, and it was not supposed to be a comprehensive list anyway. Astrology Kary Mullis, Alien abductions Kary Mullis, Climate change denial Kary Mullis... the list goes on.

"Old school racism", huh? Add William Shockley to that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

And this just in from the BMJ. What we're talking about is a small group with extreme views. Alexbrn (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't look at the top to notice that this is under views and reviews not even a scientific paper . Please review the BMJ's article provenance and peer review policy to know that this represents just the view of the writers that was not peer-reviewed and may not even appear in the print. So following the same path of quoting opinions, I can quote news from the BMJ saying that scientists are divided in 2 camps giving equal weight to both of them. Or better, I can quote the BMJ's commissioned editorial that quote the current state of the knowledge about COVID-19 saying that there is no certainty in both the "Let it rip” or “Zero covid now” camps. . Actually the BMJ was the first journal to publish the focused protection approach in its editorial in May under the name "Stratified Shielding". Does this mean that the BMJ commissioned a fringe view? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Knowledge Contributor0: Your non-argument is absurd. Spiegelhalter and Smith are writing in April, and what they proposed is very different to the AEIR; they certainly never use the minimalist now-buzzword "focused protection". Moreover, this editorial is based on a "“risk of dying if infected” score" which might have made sense back when it was (wrongly) believed Covid-19 was mortality vs recovery binary, whereas we now know, and the AEIR and their pet zoologist have chosen to ignore, that the disease seriously affects as many as most of the people that survive it, and that there are as many as 600,000 people in the UK alone who have been infected, have not died, but have not recovered, and may never do so. It should also be noted that like Gupta, Spiegelhalter is neither a medical doctor nor an epidemiologist of human disease. GPinkerton (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree the argument is absurd. We have good sources saying this is a fringe idea and not even its proponents are claiming it's mainstream (if it were, they wouldn't have needed to pull this stunt anyway). We don't require "scientific papers" to call something fringe since such a judgement is outside the realm of science - and in any case the GBD is not science (but politics) so WP:PARITY applies. Overall, what we currently have with the GBD article is a good advertisement for Wikipedia's policies on neutrality for fringe topics. Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You are very wrong. It is the fringe theories guideline, and we require scholarship and the views of those most qualified to assess such theories. The authors made at least two claims in the declaration, concerning 'herd immunity' and the viability of a 'focused protection' strategy that are covered by the guideline. In order to have an article on the declaration, which is a public policy proposal, we must describe the degree of mainstream support for those theories. If it were, as you claim: "not science (but politics)" then the fringe theories guideline would not apply to the article. fiveby(zero) 13:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The fringe guideline broadly covers all non-mainstream ideas (as does the policy from which it derives, WP:PSCI). The GBD is political but - sure - has a science-y veneer. In that sense it's analagous to climate denial "science". Such stuff does not need full-weight scholarly refutation - indeed it would be ridiculous to demand that a single side of paper with no peer-review, no references, and no publisher requires "scholarship" to oppose it. We merely need to give the mainstream response to, and framing context for, the fringe ideas ... and in this case we have plenty of response from mainstream science, so the point is academic anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The fringe guideline does not cover all non-mainstream ideas. Do you really think it should apply to such as ethics or moral values? Religious beliefs? (where there is no claim of support from science) You're right tho about being academic for the article, i think it's mostly well done in a difficult subject area. fiveby(zero) 14:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The term fringe theory is used on Wikipedia in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. This doesn't just mean science but includes history, economics, artistic attribution, and so on. It probably can apply to "moral values" (around pedophilia e.g.), and it does sometimes intersect with religious ideas yes (e.g. that Christ was not a historical figure). Alexbrn (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Photobiomodulation

Low-level laser therapy: science or pseudoscience? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Would quite like to know that myself. Ask WP:MED? GPinkerton (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

[35] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Does anodyne light therapy improve peripheral neuropathy in diabetes? A double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized trial to evaluate monochromatic infrared photoenergy -- Diabetes Care

• Laser Therapy: Hope or Hype and Hokum? --Skeptic
• A Skeptical Look at Low Level Laser Therapy --Quackwatch
• Quack Device Marketers Get Prison Sentences --Quackwatch
• Cold Laser Therapy Reviewed: A critical analysis of treating pain and injury with frickin’ laser beams --Pain Science
• Cold Laser Therapy --Skeptvet
• Shedding Light on a Therapy: There's a Degree of Quackery --Wall Street Journal
• Low Level Lasers: N-Rays in action. --Science Based Medicine

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes but radiation and UV were all the rage for quack treatments in the 1920s and 30s but they ended up having genuine medical use, and at some point there must have been confusing co-existence of useful vs carcinogenic which would have looked like this. Anything calling itself photobiomodulation is surely a scam, but that doesn't mean all the laser stuff isn't science. Many of the claims read like the lists of ailments cured written on a acupuncturist's window, so clearly 90% of it is pigswill. GPinkerton (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The combination of "we have no idea how this works" and "we have been unable to show that this works in a double blind clinical trial" makes me think "pseudoscience". Light therapy, on the other hand, appears to be science. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Argh. I looked into this a while ago, and I ended up frustrated. The answer is that it depends on exactly what's being talked about. Some of this is pseudoscience; some of this is bad science; some of this is good science. And all of them are use some of the same terms to describe their stuff, and some of them confuse low-level laser lights with red light therapy, which I guess would be fine, except for the tiny little problem that LEDs aren't lasers, no matter how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red light therapy ended. If your doc is injecting you with some Photofrin on Monday afternoon, shining a red laser down your throat on Wednesday, and scraping away the dying cancer cells on Friday, then that's conventional medicine using low-level lasers for a therapeutic purpose. If you're feeling stressed, so you decide to sit down in a room full of red lights, or if Grandma's finger is sore, so she shines a cheap red laser on the joint that hurts and feels better afterwards, then that's nice. She might have gotten just as much benefit from getting watching her favorite funny movie, but it's lot less dangerous than what many people do when they're feeling bad (e.g., alcohol, opioids), so whether it provides statistically significant benefit above control doesn't really matter. Grandma feels better, even if it's entirely due to the placebo effect. On the other hand, there are people telling the world that it's a panacea, and all of them are dangers to humanity. Many of them are engaging in pseudoscience, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Carleton S. Coon

I'm not happy with all the changes here[36], particularly the many times an obituary was used in ways that seem to promote him and the major deletion of "In1961 non-fiction writer Carleton Putnam published Race and Reason: A Yankee View, a popular theory of racial segregation. A special session of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists voted to censure Putnam's book. Coon, who was then the president of the association, and was present at the meeting, asked how many of the participants had actually read the book; only one hand was raised in response. Coon resigned in protest, criticizing the meeting for representing scientific irresponsibility and arguing its actions violated free speech. Coon published The Origin of Races in 1962." I'll tell the editor. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References

I'm not sure why you've decided to raise this here of all places, since none of my edits were remotely related to "fringe theories", and consisted solely of fleshing out the article with accurate information from a reliable source (which had been used heavily in the article before). Perhaps you'd like to explain which Wiki policies you think they violate? Note that "making Doug Weller happy" isn't one of them. And you clearly didn't read the diffs that clearly, or you would have seen that I didn't delete that passage, I just moved it to a more appropriate part of the article. Thanks. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Scientific racism is not supported by modern anthropology or biology. It is inaccurate to present this consensus as the view of a minority (WP:YESPOV, Special:Diff/981606945: "by some modern anthropologists to be pseudoscientific"). WP:PSCI is also policy related to fringe theories so it's in this noticeboard's scope. —PaleoNeonate – 07:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It's true that I didn't notice the move of some content, but my point about the overuse of one obituary still stands. And Coon's ideas are considered fringe today. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

My thanks to User:Joe Roe for greatly improving the article. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I note that WP:Making Doug Weller happy ought to be policy. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Gopi Warrier

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

is a best known as an expert in Indian Ayurvedic medicine. For some reason, lots of his YouTube videos are linked, and also quantum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like COPYVIO from the website about section. establish which came first, egg or chicken. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of the material from there only seems to have been added to the article yesterday. Brunton (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the current status of the Ayurvedic Charitable Hospital? See footnote 14 of this. That’s over ten years old, so there may be more recent info available. Brunton (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it worth listing it at Copyright problems? Seems to be a bit of a backlog there. Brunton (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

There is still something fishy going on with Mr. Warrior, but my spidey senses are failing me. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia

According to Serbian archaeologist Đorđe Janković, the western boundary of Serbian Cyrillic tombstones reached the Split–Benkovac–Kordun line in the High Middle Ages.[37]

• This is information from book of ("Trifkovic, Srdjan (2010). The Krajina Chronicle: A History of Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies") but I can't find confirmation of this information in Croatian sources(archaeological, history sources) also in the sources of Serbs from Croatia(history books etc), Serbian sources(history, archaeological sources) as well as foreign English sources. Is this information fringe theory information? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If it is the view of one person, and goes against what everyone says, yes.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

That's what I thought because I've been researching it for a long time. We'll wait a little longer to see if there is anything else about that fact. Mikola22 (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This does not even rise to the level of needing the WP:FRINGE guideline. Look at the publisher Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies (see their blog, with Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch, i think this Thomas Fleming) and author "Trifkovic Slandered by the Leading Serbian Daily 'Politika'", "The Trials of Trifkovic". Trifkovic is executive director of the foundation which published his work. Janković may or may not be reliable, but he would have to be published elsewhere. fiveby(zero) 20:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Plants do not have consciousness

There seems to be some fringe claims on a few articles claiming plants have consciousness or are sentient. For example, at Plant cognition and on the Plant perception (physiology) article an IP added to the lead "According to research, plants could perceive the world around them ("Earth - Plants can see, hear and smell – and respond". BBC. 10 January 2017.) and might be able to emit airborne sounds similar to "screaming" when stressed. Those noises could not be detectable by human ears, but organisms with a hearing range that can hear ultrasonic frequencies—like mice, bats or perhaps other plants—could hear the plants' cries from as far as 15 feet (4.6 m) away.(I. Khait; O. Lewin-Epstein; R. Sharon; K. Saban; R. Perelman; A. Boonman; Y. Yovel; L. Hadany (2 December 2019). "Plants emit informative airborne sounds under stress" (PDF). bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/507590. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help))." This content should be removed or at least put somewhere else.

There is an academic field of study called "plant neurobiology" (which is a silly term because plants do not have neurons) that studies the idea of plant "intelligence" (see plant intelligence), but this is not a mainstream view and contrary to what is sometimes reported in the media its proponents are not claiming plants have consciousness. I think we need to sort some of these articles out and make it clear what the consensus is. I have spoken to botanists over the years and they do not hold these views. Plants lack a nervous system, they do not have consciousness which is obvious. We do have an article on Plant perception (paranormal) which is very much a field of quackery. I think we need to make clear the fringe field of plant neurobiology is not actually claiming plants have consciousness. Any ideas about what to do here? The plant cognition article is not in a good way. The consensus view is not stated. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• If we look at the plant cognition article it says "Plant cognition or plant gnosophysiology is the study of the mental capacities of plants". This appears to be nonsense. The term "plant gnosophysiology" is used in only one paper, that term is found hardly anywhere else. And the second reference on the article is a philosophical book [38] Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC) I suggest the term "mental" should be removed from the lead. Nobody is studying the mental capacities of plants. Plants do not have a mind. The article admits this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that bioRxiv preprints aren't peer-reviewed sources and should generally be avoided. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I just asked all of my house plants and a couple of trees outside, and after thinking about it a while they all agreed that plants do not have a mind. If that doesn't convince people I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Speak for yourselves, my houseplant is not only sentient, but it demands human blood. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You need a stronger variety. I talk to my plants all the time. Sometimes they reply. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy, I think HRH Sir Prince Charles would disagree. I should have asked my lad, he spoke to him the other day. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Building biology

Resolved

 – Article has been deleted, discussion here. Pink pipes (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This is presented as an academic discipline in the article, but as far as I understand, it is a loose set of beliefs and services, probably combining some scientific measurements and findings (such as air quality) and pseudoscience (such as "electrosmog"). The sources are various "institutes of building biology" and even business websites, often in German. The criticism section has been gutted due to lack of citation. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to proceed: It seems like the whole article should be completely rewritten or even deleted, but I wouldn't know how to word it (Is it a movement? A (partially) pseudoscientific belief system? A service? Some combination?) or how I would go about sourcing it. Pink pipes (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a single usable source in the article, i especially like the multiple chemical sensitivity citation: "See MCS referral service at http://www.mcsrr.org/resources/articles.html" There's [39][40][41][42], but i'd just redirect to sick building syndrome. fiveby(zero) 13:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a group of people calling themselves "Building biologists" which are associated with alternative medicine, especially in Germany and Switzerland. I'm not even sure if they're notable enough outside of these countries to warrant an article here. Either way, the article should be rewritten or deleted, but that proposed redirect seems to miss the mark. Pink pipes (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This is some far out, whackadoodle stuff. My inclination would be to delete it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Mary Midgley

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

[Richard Dawkins] nonetheless slides over to saying that "we are born selfish"

Philosopher misrepresents biologist. Wikipedia repeats misrepresentation without refutation. Calling FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That sentence begins "Midgley argued that". Are you saying that Midgley did not say this, or that you think she was wrong to say it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Misuse of the notice board. The article reports the debate between two significant and much referenced British academics, and reports both sides of that debate. Neither are fringe thinkers. Hob Gadling want Wikipedia to take sides in a debate rather than report it. Somewhat ironically one of Midgeley's arguments against Dawkins (Science and Poetry and elsewhere) was that he was creating a new religion which she terms 'Scientism', acolytes and all-----Snowded ^TALK 04:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If that is really what the prose is trying to illustrate, it is doing a terrible job. I do not understand what Midgley is actually upset about vis-a-vis The Selfish Gene from the statement. jps (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• The point here is really whether the article on Midgley should present Midgley's ideas about science uncritically. I say that, as with any other article, misrepresentations of science (/reality), however dearly held and however qualified the philosopher that has made them, should not go unaddressed or unremarked in the encyclopaedia's voice. We can't just let Midgley get away with representing evolutionary biology that way. "Altruism is an evolutionary strategy" ≠ "everyone is innately selfish". GPinkerton (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The article presents Dawkins response to Midgely so it is not 'unanswered' and to be clear she is not attacking evolutionary biology, she is talking about the approach to the subject that Dawkins assumed in the Selfish Gene. Dawkins does not represent the whole of that field by any means and is challenged by Gould, virtually everyone involved in epigenetics and others in various scientific fields. The article deals with, and represents a dispute between two academics and her view is that Dawkins misrepresents science. You will also find the view that altruism is an evolutionary strategy in recent publications by Jablonka (whose credibility as a scientist cannot be challenged) and others. -----Snowded ^TALK 21:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    • she is talking about the approach to the subject that Dawkins assumed in the Selfish Gene This might be the case, but the prose right now does not say that. It doesn't say anything close to what you are saying here. It would be better if the prose said what you just wrote than its currently tortured arrangement. jps (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
      • @Snowded: "the view that altruism is an evolutionary strategy" is precisely the main point of the Selfish Gene. If Midgley disagrees, then that's what the article should say. GPinkerton (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
        • We need to separate a few things here. (i) this is not the forum to discuss inprovements to the article as this is definately not a fringe issue (ii) imrpoving the wording in the article to reflect the sources is always a good idea (iii) Assuming that Dawkins is THE authority on evolution is wrong (iv) Asserting that we should censor an assertion by a respected academic in a dispute with another academic because some editors fall on one side of the debate is wrong (and that is where this all started). The treatment of altrusism by Jablonka and Dawkins is very different and Midgely is more towards the former than the latter but that is a different if interesting question. The overall point being made by Midgely in a series of works is, to put it simply, that Dawkins is defactor taking a political and ethical position even if he things he isn't. I have my views on that but they are not relevant here, what matters is that the article accurately represents the debate, not that we take sides as this is not creationism v evolution, it is different views within a field and none of those involved are 'fringe' -----Snowded ^TALK 06:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A good example of how not to use WP:FRINGE and WP:FTN. fiveby(zero) 16:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm agreed with GPinkerton and jps. It's way too one-sided on her views and effectively puts undue weight on misunderstandings of certain ideas in evolutionary biology. Maybe adding more of Dawkins' and others' responses would help balance it out. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that we've made anything better here. The article is about Mary Midgley (NB: not about Dawkins, not about evolution biology, not about whether Dawkins' pop science efforts were imperfect [because of course they were imperfect. All pop sci books are imperfect.]). The net result of this discussion has been to remove sourced information about Midgley's own views from the one article in Wikipedia that is supposed to focus on Midgley's own views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  Good. That "sourced information" was disinformation wrapped in "Midgley said". Exactly what WP:FRINGE says we should not have. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

John Ioannidis

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

He is in the minority in his opinions about anti-COVID-19 measures, but you wouldn't know that from the COVID-19 section, owing to edits like this. Could some medical expert have a look at that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

What are the sources for the claim "He is in the minority in his opinions about anti-COVID-19 measures"? We already say that there are "objections from other researchers" (which is pretty much true of all Covid-19 research) but I would like to evidence that [43] and [44] is an example of fringe vs. mainstream as opposed to a normal disagreement among researchers. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Things get especially heated in crisis moments, but at the very least Ioannidis is intentionally stepping on the toes of public health professionals who he seems to hold in low regard (as he does with some justification many of his colleagues) with little more than "uncertainty monster" arguments in March. Couple that with his attempts to insert himself into the White House policy discussions and running the Santa Clara study that may have been designed to come up with higher infection rates (most studies are wrong, remember!), it looks like the beginnings of a problem at the very least. We aren't without significant ripostes anyway. The article could potentially use a bit more expansion in that regard. jps (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse

• Argos (Dutch Radio Program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Satanic_ritual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=984051741
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Grapperhaus&type=revision&diff=983479658&oldid=979580557

Sounds rather dubious to me. Does anybody know more? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, the article on Argos itself was attributed to a translation of the Dutch Wikipedia version, which the intro does seem to be, but the whole bit about ritual abuse is completely absent from the Dutch version. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know more, but I thought it looked dubious in SRA too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a straightforward investigative journalism radio show. Obviously there's two points of view here, the government and the opposition parties, but on the face of it the source looks good. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, with flat or round earth, there is also two points of view. That is not the point. The point is that one of those points of view is fringe. That alleged Satanist network is just the old witch craze renamed, or the antisemitic blood libel. The reasoning is the same too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hob here. While there is a level of political sides-making going on (a bit orthogonal to the normal positions, TBH), the claims of ritual abuse being bandied about are definitely at the level of those which have been debunked for decades. It would be good to find sufficiently WP:FRINDly sources to help with this. jps (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Zoom conference Friday Oct 30 "Martians, Atlanteans, and "Lost Tribes": Pseudo-archaeology and Its Impact on Native American Studies"

It's the Institute for American Indian Studies 15th Annual Native American-Archaeology RoundTable. Free registration here.[45] Agenda and speakers here.[46]

It should be brilliant! Doug Weller talk 20:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Jim B. Tucker

Did you know that UVa's Division of Perceptual Studies along with UA's Center for Consciousness Studies are the last two "Parapsychology Institutes" at R1 institutions in the US? Well, Jim B. Tucker recently showed up in a fluff piece in the New York Times: [47].

This guy seems to be really good at getting into journalist pieces without having to deal with the headache of people who might challenge his extraordinary claims. It's rather surprising.

So I went to the article and found a practical apologia for quantum mysticism. Tried to clean it up a bit, but more balance towards the mainstream would be appreciated in spite of the media being unable to find people who can explain why no one with any chops takes this stuff seriously.

jps (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I got reverted this morning. No explanation. I reverted back. jps (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, utter nonsense. Perhaps a warning on the IP's talk page is needed here. - DVdm (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Human dominant traits

• Human dominant traits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This new page looks like a heap of Bio 101 oversimplifications and WP:MEDRS violations. Thoughts? XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The editor's contributions look well-meaning but copied from school books. AfD. GPinkerton (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggested it for deletion as a copyright violation after running a check, so it's probably sitting in a queue to be evaluated for that. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Gay Ghosts

(Not to be confused with The Gay Ghost or with The Grim Ghost.)

Majority of Gays Are Possessed by Ghosts, So-Called Study Says

Sounds legit. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Do they put the willies up each other? Alexbrn (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

No, no, no, the ghosts are straight, but they possess people of the opposite sex! It's important to get that straight. --mfb (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

But what happens if a gay person gets possessed by a gay ghost of the opposite sex? And BTW, when did ghost possession become a thing? I thought it was demon possession. Which, by the way is an actual thing. _{No ghosts for me; I want to be possessed by an otter!}--Guy Macon (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

If the study's claims are correct, your scenario involves four ghosts, including one possessing another ghost. I think the D&D rules do not say anything about multiple dominations or about domination by a dominated character, so you'll need house rules to find out.

In the Gospels, "unclean spirits" still did the possessing. Of pigs, for example. Demons came later, I think. Those study authors are probably just old-fashioned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, the problem there is that you're still using either second edition or edition 3.5. Those are the only editions that would allow a Matryoshka doll style possession. I love Paizo's continuation of 3.5, but it's good to play some OD&D and 5e just to wash out some of the rules-crunch and bring some common sense back to the table. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely WP:FRINGE, but with enough independent coverage of siginificant snark (see also Pink News) that it may actually be useful to include this somewhere. E.g. homophobia. jps (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. How does WP:WEIGHT apply when something is in an obscure source that literally nobody takes seriously but is also so ridiculous that lots and lots of sources make fun of it? Which, BTW, describes much of our Alex Jones article... --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, there is no way we can use this, its is just lunacy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but... Something can be deemed notable (or perhaps “note worthy” would be a better term) BECAUSE it is widely ridiculed. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

True, but then were do we put it? I cannot see where this can go that would not be detrimental the article we put it in.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

But what about bi's, or pan's? Is there a limit on the number of ghosts that can possess one person? Are ace's possessed by so many ghosts of different gender preferences that they cancel each other out? Deep questions remain for further study. I can just see the grant applications now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Haunted locations

Should we have categories of haunted locations? [48] --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Ehhh.... Like categories or lists for cryptids and other hullabaloo, in an ideal world where anyone needing WP:FRINGE explained to them would lack the capacity to edit anyway, "locations claimed to be haunted" would be a very fun category that I'd like to keep.

In reality though, it seems like a magnet for users who would insist that WP:FRINGE is contrary to WP:NPOV, or even that parapsychology and/or ghost hunting could only be considered fringe by God-hating communists. If there was a way to be notified on a watchlist whenever that category experiences additions or removals (or if there is and I'm embarrassingly just not aware of it), that could make the category even more useful. Because ghost hunters would recreate the category if deleted, our choices are really "keep deleting their attempts to create such categories" or "seize and maintain control over one such category and use that as justification for preventing mirror categories." I don't know enough about what sort of activity the category has been getting to decide which course of action is more appropriate, though my gut says the latter seems a better option. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we should consider them as part of Category:Tourist traps. jps (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson: You can have additions and removals from a category show up in your watchlist. Once you've watchlisted the category you want, go to Preferences, then go to the Watchlist tab under Preferences, and then uncheck "hide categorization of pages". Crossroads ^-talk- 20:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Village Pump (Policy) RfC to change what WP:ONUS says

Editors here may be interested in the following RfC:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should we move WP:ONUS to WP:CONSENSUS?

Crossroads ^-talk- 05:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Raw foodism

Fringe material and removals of sourced content is repeatedly being added to this article. Debate has spilled out from the talk-page, now here [49] Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Time contraction

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#J. H. Field on American Journal of Physics
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Time dilation
• Talk:Time dilation#Time_contraction
• Uniformly moving clocks in special relativity: Time dilatation, but no relativity of simultaneity or length contraction
• Two Novel Special Relativistic Effects: Space Dilatation and Time Contraction

This looks like a fringe theory to me. I think we should have at least a stub article for John H. Field, and I question whether we should redirect Time contraction to Time dilation. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that for all the obvious reasons a John H. Field article would be utterly undue, and that Time contraction can safely (and should be) just deleted. - DVdm (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with DVdm that an article on John H. Field would be undue. Although a respected experimental physicist, Field's accomplishments as a team member on various projects are not sufficient to make him wp:Notable. I also agree that the Time contraction redirect should be removed. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that Wikipedia can do without this. This is just someone who, in the spirit of Herbert Dingle, could not accept special relativity and, in stubbornly remaining argumentative, ended up deriving some cute consequences of special relativity that are surprising to exactly no one but himself. While we have Dingle to thank for the Twin's Paradox, time contraction/length dilation is a pretty boring result by comparison. jps (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I generally concur with jps about this. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Copying from RSN: I happened to have known John Field because he was an associate professor at University of Geneva in the 1990s when I was there as well, also ar School of Physics, but my field is very different. He is/was (do not know whether he is still alive) an academic researcher, and likely notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about him. My understanding is that the paper is not WP:FRINGE. He actually does not say that the relativity postulates are incorrect, but just tries to find previously unknown gedanken experiments. This is well within the scope of American Journal of Physics, which is (or at least at the time was) primarily for physics teachers, and the purpose was to explain modern research in a language accessible to the teachers and possibly to high school students. On the other hand, I do not think the effects he proposed such as space dilation have never been taken up by other researcher and developed further, and, as such, should not be mentioned other than in passing by Wikipedia articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Copying from RSN: In numerous arXiv publications, J. H. Field states that Einstein was wrong, and that over a century of analysis of the consequences of special relativity has been misguided. Here is a small listing of quotes from his voluminous output:

• "Many errors both of physical principle and of a mathematical nature are uncovered [in Einstein's 1905 paper]. The `relativity of simultaneity' and `length contraction' effects predicted in the paper are shown to be the spurious consequences of misinterpretations of the second postulate and the Lorentz transformation, respectively."[50]
• "A further consequence is the unphysical nature of the `relativity of simultaneity' and `length contraction' effects..."[51]
• "...analysis...predicts time differences between airborne and Earth-bound clocks at variance with the results of the [Hafele-Keating] experiment."[52]
• "...the spurious and unphysical nature of the 'relativity of simultaneity' and 'length contraction' effects of conventional special relativity."[53]
• "an argument given, claiming to demonstrate that an upper limit of c on the speed of any physical signal is required by causality, is invalid."[54]
• "Spatially separated clocks which are synchronised in their common proper frame are shown to be so in all inertial frames..."[55]
• "A sign error in an angle while drawing the original Minkowski plot has persisted for a century in text books and the pedagogical literature."[56]
• Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  I am not sure how this addresses my point.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The quotes establish Field as being a dedicated anti-relativist and a wp:Fringe theoretician of long standing. All relativity-related works by this author must be deemed highly suspect unless backed up by reliable secondary sources to establish notability and reliability. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Terminal lucidity

Does anyone know about this topic? Some of the sources seem dubious. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Stansberry Research

I have a gut feeling that the Stansberry Research article is somewhat understated in its description of the entity, given that for at least the past decade they have been pushing an imminent collapse of the U.S. economy (usually stemming from a misrepresentation of some piece of pending legislation or other as enabling confiscation of currency or the like) as a reason for subscribing to their investment advice. For example, this recent promotion. BD2412 T 19:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there any real reason to have both a Porter Stansberry article and a Stansberry Research one? The latter is not exactly a one-man shop but it seems clear from their output that the former is the only real source of their "advice". Is a merge discussion called for? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think a merge would be fine, but even the current Porter Stansberry article is light on depicting the degree to which Stansberry promotes monetary doomsday scenarios to push his products. BD2412 T 18:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Christopher Fogarty

Man with some fringe views on Irish history listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Fogarty. FDW777 (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus

I'm looking for editors who deal with difficult content disputes, and I thought of y'all. Please see Wikipedia talk:Consensus#No consensus in article pages, recent edits. The main concern is that WP:NOCON and WP:ONUS might be telling different stories about what to do when the discussion results in no consensus (i.e., a true no consensus, with an evenly divided discussion, resulting in neither a consensus to include nor a consensus to exclude – not a consensus against inclusion).

AIUI, ONUS says that if someone wants to include some content, and that content is disputed, and the result is discussion there's no consensus, the disputed content is removed, but NOCON says that under exactly the same circumstances, editors should revert to the WP:STATUSQUO (which could be either inclusion or exclusion, mostly depending upon how long ago the information was added).

It would be good for policies (a) to match each other and (b) to represent best practices. If you can help us achieve these goals, I would be grateful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you are already aware of WP:SILENT.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

There is a disagreement between me and User:General Iroh, the Dragon of the West about whether or not Richard Lynn, Edward Dutton (anthropologist) and J. Philippe Rushton should be cited at Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.

Dutton and Lynn are both closely tied to Mankind Quarterly and both have been involved with neo-Nazi groups such as Washington Summit Publishers and Red Ice. At Race and intelligence, the work of this group is handled carefully and contextualized by more reliable sources. In this article they are just added to the pile of sources, which suggests the article has deeper issues. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I added one source by Dutton and one by Rushton, respectively - the Lynn source was already cited by the time I started editing that article. In either case, I would argue that all three sources ought to be included as they shed light on perspectives essential to the article. It is true that they're a bit controversial, but what scientist researching these topics isn't? Preferably, we could come to an agreement on wording further emphasising the uncertain nature of this topic, Ashkenazi intelligence, without removing sources we may personally find undesirable. By the way, feel free to contextualise all you like, if you can find any reliable sources refuting their claims. One final comment: It's a bit funny how you describe publications featuring Jewish authors like Michael H. Hart as "neo-Nazi". Iroh (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@General Iroh, the Dragon of the West: Michael H. Hart is a white separatist and white nationalist and has been associated with various other white nationalist figures, such as Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer (differing from other white nationalists mainly only in the area of anti-semitism). He certainly qualifies as fringe. Skllagyook (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure, look at the article on Michael H. Hart as an example if you want. Hart is published by Richard B. Spencer.

There are a lot of controversial figures in this field, but... the idea that these specific figures are "a bit controversial" is a comical understatement. Very few psychologists have their emeritus status revoked. Very few theology majors go on neo-Nazi podcasts to promote racist versions of anthropology. Shifting the burden on to more reliable sources to bother and "refute" these claims is a function of pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's examine the contents of these sources. I can begin with Dutton since you didn't choose one.

Dutton argues that Ashkenazi Jews do indeed have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group, but that their disproportionate successes may also be explained by their high general factor of personality (GFP) and/or positive ethnocentrism. His paper is really a response to a response by Nathan Cofnas to Kevin MacDonald. Cofnas acknowledges that high Ashkenazi GFP has been found by Dunkel et al., and furthermore does not fully dismiss the possibility than Ashkenazim may be more ethnocentric than for instance non-Jewish Europeans, though he does not think they are "extreme[ly]" or "uniquely" ethnocentric. Are all these people fringe neo-Nazis, too? Iroh (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

All these people are fringe. Whether they are neo-Nazis or not, I leave for to another venue to discuss. jps (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but to clarify why I mentioned this, Nazism's views on Jewish people is a based on scientific racism. Involvement in neo-Nazi movements is not incidental to being fringe. Instead, it's another demonstration of it.

That Dutton defends Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) further shows that this his views of "Jewish intelligence" are based on fringe pseudoscience. As for Cofnas, I recommend this article for background, if anyone is curious. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Richard Lynn, Edward Dutton (anthropologist) and J. Philippe Rushton are not suitable sources for the article given their racialist nature. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Even Cofnas and Dunkel? Lol. Is there anybody but Noam Chomsky who is not fringe? Anyway, I don't really feel the need to argue the Rushton source right now as his findings on high Ashkenazi IQ during early testing are backed by Cochran et al. (in fact, the latter should be restored immediately as it directly contradicts a claim by The Guardian). As for the Lynn source, I need some more time to familiarise myself with it to be comfortable making a more definitive statement on it as I wasn't the one who added it.

All in all, my central point stands: If you accept that these allegedly fringe sources ought not be removed from articles like The Bell Curve since they're contextualised by left-wing sources, you can't have them removed from the Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence article just because you couldn't find any left-wing sources to contextualise them there. Iroh (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh great, Grayfell doesn't think Cofnas is fringe. That means this source should not be off-limits, right? Iroh (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Cofnas' work on this topic is fringe. Per the link I cited, Nathan Cofnas met Dutton at the London Conference on Intelligence, and both have ties to the Ulster Institute for Social Research which is a racialist "think tank" run by Richard Lynn. Cofnas is part of the same walled garden.

Context comes from reliable sources, regardless of ideology. Your opinions on "left wing" sources introduces a WP:GEVAL problem, but still has very little to do with reliability or fringe. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

How can you not consider Cofnas reliable when your own source portrays him in a positive light and criticises MacDonald's remarks on his Jewishness? It seems to me you just aim to shut down the whole discussion around Ashkenazi GFP and ethnocentrism. Can you at least see how the Cochran et al. "factoid" on early IQ testing is relevant to "contextualise" the Guardian's claims, or is contextualisation a one-way street only?

By "left-wing", I was referring not to politics but rather environmentalism as opposed to hereditarianism. Iroh (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That source doesn't simplistically portray Cofnas in a positive light. Cofnas had some valid points, which is why his essay dunking on MacDonald was popular. Being popular isn't the same as being reliable, and disagreeing with someone who is fringe doesn't mean that he cannot also be fringe.

Consensus on Wikipedia is that any proposed genetic link between "race" and "intelligence" is fringe, for a variety or reasons. Therefore, per many tedious discussions, race and intelligence is not simplistically about "environmentalism" vs. "hereditarianism". Many self-described "hereditarians" have the good sense to reject the shoddy statistics of Richard Lynn, and there are plenty of "environmentalist" academics who push fringe perspectives on environment. Reducing this to a left-wing/right-wing issue is confused, arbitrary, and inflammatory.

In "Cochran et al." that et al is doing a some heavy lifting. Gregory Cochran is controversial, and his coauthor Henry Harpending was fringe and was (yet again) an associate of Richard Spencer, who is a neo-Nazi. Regardless, this discussion is about Lynn, Rushton, and Dutton. Shifting the discussion around to other people is a distraction. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it relies on primary sources, i.e., isolated studies, without explaining their degree of acceptance in reliable secondary sources. There is a neutrality issue too. The article says that whether or not the subjects have higher intelligence is a matter of controversy, without explaining what the mainstream view is. Climate change and evolution are also matters of controversy.

If you can get a reliable secondary source that discusses the controversy and use primary sources properly, then the problem of rs problem will be reduced. But to answer your question, I would only use their writings in reliable secondary sources, which is AFAIK nothing.

TFD (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Lynn, Dutton and Rushton are all fringe figures who should not be cited; we can rely upon secondary sources to report upon them and evaluate their statements. And, to concur with Grayfell's point, fringe figures do indeed have disputes with others on the same fringe, whether it's arguing over the location of Atlantis, the proper way to build a perpetual-motion machine, or whatever. XOR'easter (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

XOR'easter, the way the article is written, the theory is not treated as fringe but mainstream controversial. IOW half of experts would agree, the other half would disagree. You need to fix that first. I agree that fringe theories should only be presented using reliable secondary sources. The only time I would use a primary source would be if it were directly quoted in a secondary source. If we provide more, then we risk violating OR and neutrality. If readers want to read Lynn et al they can get their books and papers. TFD (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a single "expert", hereditarian or otherwise, who does not belive Ashkenazi Jews have "higher average intelligence than other ethnic groups"? Iroh (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course there are! The vast majority of experts acknowledge that we don't even have a validated definition of intelligence that allow anyone to be able to make declaration of the average intelligence of ethnic groups. Wow. jps (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer primary sources on scientific issues as they tend to be more fact-based and less subverted by politics, but I've come to understand Wikipedia prefers secondary or even tertiary sources. I can respect that. Surely we should be able to find some non-primary sources properly summarising the hypotheses and controversies around Ashkenazi intelligence. Iroh (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Please also respect the Wikipedia consensus, which arose from lengthy discussion of the sources, that claims of genetic differences in intelligence between racial or ethnic groups are fringe, i.e., not supported by mainstream science. See [[57]. NightHeron (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Wait a second. Every single scientist who has ever researched the topic has found racial/ethnic differences in intelligence - the uncertainty lies in to what extent those differences are due to genetics vs. environment (numerous interracial adoption studies and countless twin studies have been carried out in pursuit of answering this question as well as the broader question of nature vs. nurture vis-à-vis intelligence). But this discussion is about Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence in particular. Iroh (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone please warn this user about discretionary sanctions. I just reverted them again for POV-pushing. Looking at their contributions, I'm afraid we may need to ask for a topic ban at AE. jps (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha. I didn't even add a new source, I just expanded on the article's main source, Cochran et al. ("contextualising" claims made by The Guardian). Per Grayfell, "this discussion is about Lynn, Rushton, and Dutton. Shifting the discussion around to other people is a distraction." To put it plainly, if that source is a "fringe POV push", almost the entire article (as it stood before I started editing it) is a fringe POV push. Yet apparently numerous times the article was nominated for deletion and rejected. Iroh (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking at my contributions, less than 5% are about Ashkenazi intelligence, and less than 10% are about intelligence in general. Let's try to resolve this issue in a civilised manner rather than running around trying to "topic ban" each other. Iroh (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope you are not a sockpuppet. Some of your commentary is reminiscent of User:Oldstone James. jps (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I scrolled through some of their contributions, and I have to say I'm feeling a little insulted. Not because you correctly noticed that we have taken interest in similar topics, but because their level of English literacy is far below mine. But no, I am not a "sockpuppet". On an unrelated note, I just told GirthSummit "[a]s for my occasional use of sarcastic language, that's probably a generational issue more than anything. My guess is I'm also a bit more neurotypical (i.e. less autistic) than most Wikipedia editors. Anyway, I'll try to cut that down as to avoid coming off as inflammatory." Iroh (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, upon further inquiry, his vocabulary doesn't seem too poor to me (still of course below my level); it's rather his grammar to which I would object more often than not. Furthermore, he apologises a lot. I doubt I could ever apologise that much unless I had raped or murdered somebody. Iroh (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

New sources

All right, now I've had enough of "edit warring" and off-topic discussions for months to come and then some. Let's start presenting and examining some non-primary sources so we can improve this article in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines (with which I like to belive I have now familiarised myself quite well). Iroh (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the fringe theories noticeboard. This is the place to discuss the topic as it relates to WP:FRINGE. There appears to be consensus that these sources are fringe and should not be cited without context. Your comment suggests that you want to drag this out by discussing sources in general, but the article already has its own talk page.

Your willingness to go to bat for fringe sources, however, is relevant to this board. You've barely edited that article, and only for a couple weeks. Further, your account is less than a year old. Unless you do have some prior experience with another account, it's very odd for you to presume this will last for months to come.

As for your abrasive and dehumanizing comments about being neurotypical, and you casual use of rape and murder as rhetorical devices, I suspect behavior like this might end up at WP:ANI sooner or later.

Further, this edit from a couple months ago restored a context-free quote to Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi. This quote is pretty much only ever mentioned by advocates of the very fringe Kalergi Plan hoax, so that's also a big red flag. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I see, should other sources be discussed at the article talk page then?

Oh, I don't presume this particular argument will last for months to come, however I do expect to keep editing Wikipedia every once in a while. I've just grown tired of these nonsensical, substanceless back-and-forths.

Do you belive I regard autists as less than human? If not, my comments are not at all dehumanising; please do not follow the example of contemporary discourse by using that term so casually, in effect relegating it devoid of meaning like has already been done with nigger, etc.

I use rape and murder as rhetorical devices all the time for the same reason I know the Kalergi plan is really more of a meme nowadays - because I am a young person. It's really that simple. However it is true that Kalergi envisioned an all-encompassing race of the future (though I commend the other editor for removing the Quotes section altogether, Kalergi's views and predictions are already covered (with more context) in the rest of the article). Iroh (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If you compare the word "autists" to "nigger", call the Kalergi Plan just a "meme", and childishly use rape and murder to score points in an argument, you will eventually be blocked for 4chan style trolling. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I merely urged you not to overuse the word dehumanising in the manner that nigger is overused nowadays. Use a word too much and too randomly, and it loses its original meaning, or even worse, any meaning. Anyway, please refrain from engaging in ageism. Iroh (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Seriously though, I'll try to avoid making potentially inflammatory analogies in the future. Still trying to learn about and adapt to the Wikipedian climate. Iroh (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

What climate are you from where any of that behavior is acceptable?? JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Cochran and Harpending, again

To avoid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at an obscure article, I would appreciate additional eyes. Specifically, this is regarding these edits by me, which Iroh has reverted.

These edits removed this source, which was the key source for the bulk the article.

• Cochran, Gregory; Hardy, Jason; and Harpending, Henry (2006): "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" (PDF). Journal of Biosocial Science 38(5):659–693 SEP 2006, University of Utah.

As I said on the talk page, this was heavily over-represented without significant support from reliable secondary sources. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending's work should be supported and contextualized by sources, not editors. Cochran and Harpending's credibility as a reliable source is disputed by many other academics. Further, this source is almost fifteen years old. Since then,more research has been done, and more information about Harpending and Cochran's extremist and pseudoscientific views has come to light (easy-to-find sources on this: [58] [59]). Any update should contextualize this based on newer sources, but fringe sources are not a good starting point for a controversial topic. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As I previously remarked on the article talk page, there is an entire section - Criticism of the genetic explanations and debate - devoted to "contextualising" the Cochran et al. paper. Feel free to add even more critical soruces, just don't remove existing reliable ones. Again, you can't just remove the Genetic explanations section and leave the criticism/debate section intact - then they're ostensibly criticising thin air! As you've noted many times, context is important. Also, please don't start a new discussion involving me without pinging me. Iroh (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

AfD

No, not that AfD, but I can see why it might be confusing:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination).

jps (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Spillover into Nobel Prize articles

These sources seem to have spilled-over into mentions of the Nobel Prizes. We have Cochran et al, Charles Murray, and now Richard Lynn (again!) being cited at List of Jewish Nobel laureates.

Jews#Contributions now includes a lengthy, extremely vague paragraph supported by Cochran et al, as well as an opinion from Charles Murray. As I said on that article's talk, most of these sources don't unambiguously support this content even if they were usable. Both of these sections were added by User:Maxim.il89 who has also repeatedly copy.pasted this into Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Grayfell (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, just for the record, no one actually "promotes" that theory - I think this theory is ridiculous, false, there's no such thing as genetic superiority, and I can explain Ashkenazi success in terms of historical circumstances.

HOWEVER, this pseudo-scientific theory exists, and because it exists, it makes no sense to erase information about its existence.

This guys removes basic information like the fact the overwhelming majority of Jews winning the Nobel Prize are of Ashkenazi ancestry, it's just a fact, statistics - it's definitely relevant to an article dedicated to Jewish Nobel Prize winners.

I started discussion on the talk page, I tried reasoning with him, I feel like for him it's more of a matter of ego to make a point.

Obviously this theory is nonsense, however... "Jews" are not a single, homogeneous group. Nobel Prize winners of Jewish ancestry are overwhelmingly Ashkenazi. No, it doesn't mean that silly theory is true, but it's a statistical fact. Maxim.il89 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Maxim.il89: Instead of attacking my motives, discuss the issues.

As you may expect, Wikipedia has dealt with pseudoscience in the past. We directly describe fringe theories like this as pseudoscience to readers. We do this so we don't inadvertently promote misinformation. Merely mentioning a fringe theory's existence is not enough, we need to give enough context to readers for them to be informed about the topic. Your edits failed to do this. Your edits implied that this routine statistical information "prompted" a theory. This isn't necessarily true, but regardless, you didn't explain that this theory is based on racial superiority and rapid evolution, nor did you explain to readers why this was controversial.

Additionally, why are you citing pseudoscientific sources for this? Did you know who Richard Lynn and Charles Murray were when you cited them? Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I offered you to collaborate, I said I'd be happy to see an edit from you where you bring up the percentage of Ashkenazi Jews without those sources or without the theory, I'm all for compromise, but you seem to just want to edit war here.

Go ahead, I might be inexperienced on Wikipedia, but I know the topic of Ashkenazi Jews is relevant to the Jews winning Nobel prizes article - come on, show me how it's done, because all you do is remove.

I used the word "controversial" about this theory, you want to add more info on that? Context? Go ahead. It's obvious this theory is crap.

You have to cite pseudoscientific sources when discussing a pseudoscientific theory. I mean, good luck writing an article about Nazism without using Hitler as a source for it. Maxim.il89 (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Invoking Nazism here, of all places, seems very odd, but okay. ...good luck writing an article about Nazism without using Hitler as a source for it. Stop and think about that for a bit, please. There are many thousands of in-depth reliable sources about Nazism. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we cite reliable sources about a topic to explain that topic. Instead, what you've been doing is sharing your own understanding of a topic based on unreliable WP:PRIMARY sources. This is a form of original research. I've tried to explain this to you on multiple talk pages, and if you presume I must be wrong anyway I don't know how else to collaborate with you. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This is modus operandi for Maxim unfortunately. He is a good faith editor, but his ability to separate out what he is doing vs what people are saying he doing vs what wikipedia guidelines and rules say we should avoid is quite well documented on talk pages and the many argumentative discussions had. As it stands, I agree with you Greyfell. Koncorde (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No, invoking Nazism here isn't odd, because Nazis believed in "scientific racism," and this theory is just that, trying to use statistical achievements to build some weird theory of genetic superiority.

However, as this article exists, and this theory is promoted by many (I mean, let's be honest, I grew up in Israel... a huge percentage their believes in this theory of superiority), this information is relevant.

Those sources are reliable in the sense of describing the point of view of those who support it, and that's all it is, an opinion, a non-scientific (or pseudo-scientific) opiniono.

Again, there are many links on the topic, I'm totally pro editing it, changing it, changing references, I literally said, show me how it's done. This is not sarcasm. I've said it many time.

But all he does is remove it, not edit it, not change, remove. He was told on the Jews page this info is relevant, he still continues removing it.

All I'm trying to include in the article about Jewish Nobel prize winners is the fact the overwhelming majority of them are Ashkenazi, it's not an opinion, it's a fact relevant to the article. If you have a better way to source or formulate it, I'll be happy to see it, no sarcasm, again. Maxim.il89 (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Those sources are reliable in the sense of describing the point of view of those who support it — which is not "reliable" in the sense that we need sources to be reliable. After years of reading documents from creationists, UFO enthusiasts, homeopaths, perpetual-motion mechanics, relativity denialists, etc., etc., it becomes clear that fringe authors are not reliable sources about their own positions. They lie. They shift the goalposts, hide their motivations, pretend to be scientific in one venue and abandon the pretense in another. Sorting through the mess is often a thankless task, and it is not what Wikipedia is suited for. We rely upon other analyses to do that for us. XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong again. Be it an article on UFOs, Satanism, or any other ideology, those who believe in it are used as sources, it's just that the criticism against their views is also included. I've already edited my formulation, but he's not edit warring because of the formulation. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

What you are describing is WP:GEVAL. Fringe sources are only used as WP:PRIMARY sources, and only with extreme caution. That's what we are all trying to explain to you. This is based on WP:PROFRINGE and WP:DUE and a lot of other policies. This is the consensus on Wikipedia based on many, many past discussions. Your edits did not explain that this theory was fringe. Your edits instead implied the theory was legitimate by offering random flattering statistics stripped of all context. If your goal was to explain that the theory was fringe, you made a serious mistake.

Above you say that scientific racism was trying to use statistical achievements to build some weird theory of genetic superiority. You added the statistical achievements to the article but completely failed to explain why this was pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I wrote controversial, and then I removed all references to this theory from other articles, what is the issue now? I am trying to compromise. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

One of your most recent edits re-added "controversial" after multiple editors had removed it. Or were you talking about this edit, where you added two completely unreliable blogs as sources, at least one of which includes young-earth creationism and links to neo-Nazi propaganda? Oh look, you restored both of those things again while I was typing this. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove the sources which are unreliable - it's one sentence with like 6 references, the bad sources, remove them. I even added "citation needed" to it. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Mind blowing concept; Stop adding the bad sources... Koncorde (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Why hasn't WP:JUDAISM been alerted about this discussion? I remedied this omission.[60] Debresser (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Because, in my opinion, the guy doesn't want people who might disagree with him to take part in the debate. Just my opinion. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

What makes you think people wouldn't agree with him? Koncorde (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Because a few people across different pages have already told him that the information, even if could be better formulated, is relevant. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I count one who has vaguely referred to the theory (his name is directly above this), but not your cited content, and one that has referred to the broader pseudoscience article which is currently in AfD. In contrast there are at least 6 or 7 named editors disagreeing with you about the significance or relevance. Koncorde (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

What "guy"? This discussion seems to involve multiple people. I don't know how many of them are male/"guy"s but any one of them as well as any editor who isn't a guy, including you whichever category you fit in, was free to notify any relevant Wikiprojects. If editors were concerned about canvassing, they could have asked here first. Unlike say required notifications of the editor/s your discussing at noticeboards, there's no particular editor who is required to notify Wikiprojects. Therefore if there was a failure to notify Wikiprojects, it's on all participants of this discussion except for Debresser when it comes to Wikiproject Judaism and editor's gender identity is also irrelevant when it comes to said failure. And me for said Wikiproject since I'm fairly sure this is the first time I'm commenting. TLDR; it's not because the guy anything, but because you neglected to do so, "you" being anyone who participated in this discussion before Debresser notified. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How is pseudoscientific to mention well-established statistical facts? Please avoid WP:Bias Grayfell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk • contribs)

Pretending that these are "well-established statistical facts" devoid of all context or nuance makes this a loaded question. I have very little patience for that game, and as I've already said many times for this issues, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Ignoring the context of a source to imply that this is a bland "statistical fact" is cherry-picking. Look at what reliable sources are actually saying, not what you wish they were saying. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:BIAS is actually a redirect to Wikipedia:Systemic bias, which is about how we're awfully white and male around here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Fallout

I was thinking of creating a draft now that the AfD has gone through... but I cannot even decide what title to use. Perhaps the best thing would be to start collecting sources. There were four I listed at the AfD, but these are largely of the "editorial commentary" sort except for the last one which is an excellent summary of the attendant race realism/antisemitism involvement. jps (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

A random thought for a title: Antisemitism in intelligence research? XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Philosemitism, surely? The evidence shows a higher average, which would generally be perceived as good. Oea the King (talk)

This comment is ridiculous, but it isn't even worth explaining why, because based on behavior, this is 96.44.5.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) evading a block. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, almost certainly. XOR'easter (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Grayfell (talk) would avoid engaging in theories of conspiracy and instead talk about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, sock has a point if, perhaps, sock doesn't realize what that point is. It is sometimes hard for even certain well-meaning people to see the antisemitism contained within this topic because, typically (though, crucially, not universally), the claim seems superficially to be to the benefit of the people being profiled. Seeing through this charade is not difficult for the majority of the reliable sources commenting, but there is a rather large group of people who are convinced by their own love-ins that they're just following the research wherever it may lead.

This really is an offshoot of race and intelligence, so perhaps it would be a good idea to start a section in that article and see if a WP:CFORK is really necessary. Perhaps a redirect can suffice.

jps (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Just want to mention that there are people who think intelligence is a bad thing. Or think that using one's intelligence is a bad thing. Or behave as if they think one of those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Sander L. Gilman's rejection of the "philosemitism" claim in this monograph seems especially useful. Gilman also cautions against presuming that racial categories have scientific validity, which has been a major issue with race and intelligence.

Some of the sources I have looked at have tried to explain IQ testing differences without using biological race, but unless I'm forgetting some, they do so in response to racialist proposals such as Cochran et al or Murray. A non-racialist look at this has a lot of potential, but we cannot build articles on potential, we have to look at reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest Jewish intellectualism, to not center race pseudoscience.--Pharos (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

EXCELLENT suggestion. Can we collect some sources to start a stub? jps (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

A non-pseudoscience religion-and-intelligence source is this one[61]. Look also for sources citing it. Also one of the authors runs a blog where he discusses FAQs[62] to people who question the paper. He believes his work was supported by subsequent research. Obviously as a Lutheran I have not-good feelings about a study showing Lutherans coming in last. But it makes sense historically; the Protestant Work Ethic helped industrialize the Protestant areas more, leading to dysgenic effects with the urbanization and reduced family sizes among the most intelligent Protestants. Over time you get lower intelligence this way.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You're telling us that a paper with Emil Kirkegaarde on it is "non-pseudoscience"? I don't think that's how this works. jps (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that is quite a rap sheet, especially the political stuff. At least now I am aware of it. In defense of the paper, he is not the only author. Maybe check out the others and see if they come out equally crank-ish?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Could anyone contribute a debunking of the study about how Lutherans are less intelligent?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The premise of the paper itself is problematic. The entire crew is, well, *gulp*. This is not the source to start from. It probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. jps (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Peter Mt. Shasta and Ascended Master Teachings

Both need work. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Mt. Shasta. GPinkerton (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge: Ascended Master Teachings with Ascended master: Talk:Ascended_master#Merger_proposal_(November_2020) GPinkerton (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Atlantis of the Sands

Confusing article, I'm not sure if it's fringe or just confusing. But the name seems wrong - eg the lead says it has had various names, eg "Ubar, Wabar and Iram" and when you click on Ubar at Wabar Craters you get Iram of the Pillars which has some of the same material as Atlantis of the Sands. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

To add to the confusion, the blockquoted Missouri archaeologist evident on Ubar, on Atlantis of the Sands, and on his own page makes a massive blunder which throws the whole quote into suspicion. He says "It's very clear on Ptolemy's second century map of the area. It says in big letters "Iobaritae". And in his text that accompanied the maps, he's very clear about that." This is gibberish. The 2nd-century maps of Ptolemy, if they were ever circulated at all, are long lost and are not gathering dust in some California university library. The texts are all that survive of his work. The most ancient maps based on the text are 2nd-millenium, not 2nd-century. The manuscripts are hardly older. Whatever or however names are written on medieval interpretations of Ptolemy's text are neither here nor there. The concept of an Atlantis of the Sands is obviously a thing, whether or not it existed or can be identified with one or more real place should be irrelevant. The Ubar issue is another matter. Still, the archaeological papers should be given more prominence in the text and less shrift given to the travelogues of Fiennes, which are old news in archaeological terms. GPinkerton (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe @Azd0815: can help? – Joe (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, 'Atlantis of the Sands' was a project which Sir Ranulph Feinnes and Nicholas Clapp developed, recruiting the established Arabia archaeologist Juris Zarins from U of Missouri. Clapp & Co. first approached the Saudi government in order to search there for Ubar/Wabar, which did not resonate. They were never turned down, but rather the Saudis chose simply not to answer. Bertram Thomas, Wilfred Thesiger, Wendel Phillips and Charles Weston Baker all mused about the position Ubar/Wabbar of the folktales in '1001 Nights' between Saudia or perhaps Oman's Zafar Province (Yule 2001 I, p. 10). They hoped to find it in there during their travels and surveys from the late 1920s onwards. With the support of Prince Charles, the project won the financial and moral support of Oman's Ministry of Information. It facilitated tourism to Oman. The project group made many announcements about their "discovery" of Ubar/Wabbar at Shisr. The idea gained public recognition as a result of the repetition in much the same way as the false claim that Barack Obama has no birth certificate. Archaeologists of Arabia never take the Ubar/Wabbar identification even of Zarins seriously (e.g. publicly M. Macdonald, I and others). In Zarins's serious book about the archaeology of Zafar, The land of incense, Muscat, 2001, map opposite p. 138 he plotted the position of "IOBARITAE", "Marimatha ("place of the Mahra" =Shisr/Ubar)". Aside from Shisr, which has been on maps of Oman for decades, the other identifications are at best hopeful, if not improbable. For example, Marimatha can hardly include the Semitic word root for the place-name and tribal name 'Mahra'. When the study group claimed "Iram" of the Quran to be Shisr, this lead to diplomatic complaints to Oman from Indonesia of misusing the holy scripture. The ministry backed off with their support. Atlantis of the Sand was successful to funde Zarin's useful fieldwork into the prehistory of the region including Shisr. The "Atlantis of the Sands" equation is a scandel, since the '1001 and Nights' is not a book of history, but rather one of medieval stories. Actually, no-one found Atlantis either. The repeated identification of Shisr with Ubar/Wabbar was central to the publication effort of the authors. It frequently appears in the 2° and 3° literature on Oman. Azd0815 (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Azd0815. That was also my impression from a brief search of the sources. That does make Atlantis of the Sands look like a bit of a coat rack article for Zarins/Fiennes minority theory. We already have an article on Ubar (the "lost city") and should have one on Shishr (the archaeological site). I'd suggest the better content is split between those and Atlantis of the Sands turned into an article about Fienne's book (assuming it's notable). – Joe (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Good morning, Joe Roe! Solid and used in our field is Zarins's book of 2001 which I mention above. Contrasts such as the Ubar hype and his serious work are striking and rare in our discipline. Ubar is an 'artefact' of research. I have not yet seen the article on Shisr, but that is a serious archaeological topic, excavated and published by a competent colleague.Azd0815 (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Yes that's a good idea! Add italics to the title and recentre the Altantis article on Fiennes and the other speculation, move the proper material to serious articles. GPinkerton (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Valproate and Autism

Could someone with some knowledge of checking medical claims take a look at Valproate? It makes some exceptional claims in regard to autism.

E.g. "Sodium valproate is so heavily associated with autism that it has been used to induce autism in rodents to reliably study some of the qualia of certain autisms. The various molecular pathways thought to mediate this induction of autism are also found in humans."

I don't have the knowledge, or experience of checking medical claims to investigate the sources. 92.5.9.21 (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Miracles can happen

Not here, according to Nathan Coley.. dave souza, talk 11:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Islamic view of miracles
• Quran and miracles

A little help. Clearly there are many Muslims who believe in miracles. Clearly there are few who are not Muslim who think these miracles are well documented. Compare literally any other religion on Wikipedia.

jps (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not rationalwiki. There is no need to debunk Islamic miracles. What matters here is that they are referenced by secondary sources. They do not need to be "well documented". Readers can think for themselves without being told to believe or disbelieve in the miracles.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

For a Wikipedia article to say something is the case, yes, it does need to be well documented.

The approach "readers can think for themselves" is usually combined with the presentation of a mixture of facts and lies, with the assumption that the reader is somehow able to tell them apart by "thinking for themselves" without any help. Of course, the assumption is not generally true, and the approach Wikipedia takes is different: See WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're afraid we're coming next for the Christian miracles: Never fear! We are. muahahahaha! In all seriousness, however, when miracles are contextualized within their relevant mythological tradition, that's only appropriate. It's when Wikipedia starts to ape the religious proclivities of certain fundamentalist believers that we have to step in. If an editor demands that Wikipedia include prose to make it seem like, I don't know, spontaneous resurrection is a documented scientific fact then, you know, we've got to some contextual work to do. jps (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The "fundamental" problem with your approach is that it uses categorizing in such a way as to drown out higher-level thought processes. You end up driving away people and creating or worsening camps or cliques that way. For example, abundant religious satire in France served to drive some out of France, or into groups like SSPX. On WP you end up with results like those found here.

I once put up some stuff criticizing miracles on Modern criticism of the Catholic Church. And what happened when I asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism when it was challenged? No one commented or anything.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I cannot follow your argument. First you claim that we are drowning out higher-level thought through categorization. Then somehow that is what causes people to leave France and join reactionary societies? And that is equivalent to right-wing Brexit magazine whinging?

If you want help with working on making sure hagiographies are not presented as fact, you've come to the right place. I don't think such work really functions well in "Criticism of..." articles (which are to be avoided as a general rule, frankly). jps (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

While RationalWiki and Wikipedia have very different tone and goals, WP policies do include presenting the best scholarly views. Not being a confessional project, it's not its mission to present a false balance (WP:GEVAL) for apologetics. There's no problem to document the notable beliefs of groups, but they cannot be presented as uncontested facts (this reminds me of some previous articles that were pamplhets about foreknowledge claims). The self-segregation of fundamentalists (and the radicalization of some) always existed although at times technologies contributed (it was also true with the invention of printing) and WP can only help by its wide exposition and attempt to present mainstream scholarly views... Parodying groups is not WP's business either, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 03:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want done with these articles. Both could be improved as while they contain numerous scholarly references some of the statements lack inline citations. Please bear in mind that lots of people might want to know what Muslims think about miracles, without either being Muslims or believing in miracles. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Quran_and_miracles#Scientific_miracles seems particularly problematic. Starting there might be good. I know that the belief in "scientific miracles" is one that is promoted in certain Islamic circles, but compare, for example, Wikipedia's work on documenting anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. The Qu'ran is a product of its time just as the Book of Mormon is a product of its time. There is plenty of scholarship on this, but it is essentially absent from this section. jps (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Feldenkrais Method

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

I've watched this article on and off for several years and it's quite common to get visits from new accounts trying to whitewash it and/or add unreliably-sourced boostery of the Method. This has happened again recently with a NY-based editor, and I reverted the changes - so far so normal (though this time I got an aggressive email too). However, searching for new sources I happened across this 2016 communication from the "New York Region of the Feldenkrais® Guild of North America" which appears to be encouraging a group effort to get the page changed. If nothing else this may explain the steady attention the article has received in the last few years. More eyes from experienced fringe-savvy editors may be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Now on my watch list. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

That was an interesting pdf. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Pomorje

Article Pomorje with information that Pomorje is also known as Littoral Serbia ie (Latin: Serbia Maritima). Source for this information is: Јанковић, Ђорђе(Jankovic, Djordje) (2007). Српско Поморје од 7. до 10. столећа (Serbian Maritime from 7th to 10th Century).

• I find no mention of that term in other sources. This is about the Middle Ages and the alleged existence of this term, "Serbia Maritima". Is this fringe theory? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • A Google books search found some incidental mentions of "Serbia Maritima", from late 19th and late 20th centuries. The paper referred to is cited for the same information on the Serbian Wikipedia, and looking at the paper, I did find a relevant section, which does not precisely say "Pomorje was called Serbia Maritima", but comes close. The source seems reliable enough: the foreword (machine translated)says: "The immediate reason for writing this text, in addition to the need to publish new material and resist the growing spread of arbitrary, unprofessional interpretations of archaeological facts, was the regular annual meeting of the Section for Medieval Archeology of the Serbian Archaeological Society in Herceg Novi in ​​2001 (Jankovic, report in U.S. Gazette 18, 2002: 329-331, and 19, 2003: 181). The gathering was organized in cooperation with the Homeland Museum, which is publishing this book with the Serbian Archaeological Society." So a publication of an academic conference all about the subject, seems legit. The relevant section is the only place where the stem "maritim-" appears (at least in Latin characters) and it (again, machine translated) says (emphasis added):

    "According to Latin sources, the land of Sclavona, Slauonia, is located next to Dalmatia, from the capture of Salona until 10. century and later (VIS 1967: 89, 94, 97, 106 107, etc.). Describers of the crusade from 1096, as a rule, call Serbia Sclavonia (Sclauonia and variants); so do Peter Tudebode, Anonymous, Raymond of Aguilers, Baldric, Tudebod's successor; the name Dalmatia is exceptionally used (IBI 1965: 18, 24, 55, 79, 85, 102, 107). The country is Slavic (Sclavorum terra), and its capital is Shkodra, according to Raymond of Aguilers (IBI 12:59). According to William of Tyre, Serbia is located between Dalmatia (determined by the cities of Zadar, Split and Dubrovnik), Hungary and Illyria: "... Servia… inter Dalmatiam et Hungariam et Illyricum media iacet,… “(IBI 1965: 195). ¶ A similar picture was obtained from Dubrovnik and Kotor sources written in Latin and Italian, respectively (it should be noted that notaries were often foreigners, immigrants from Italy). As a rule, there is no Serbia or Diocletian, Zeta, Pomorje, or even Dalmatia in that material, at least not in the sense in which they are recorded in Serbian sources. In both Dubrovnik and Kotor, Serbia is called Sclauonia, then rarely Rassa, Raxia, Rascia, and exceptionally Servia together with Pomorje, for example, Queen Jelena is "domine Regine Seruie et totius maritime". Dalmatia, lower, as a rule, is mentioned together with Croatia, as a Hungarian banovina, and very rarely in general. The cities of Dalmatia-Serbian sources are listed individually (Shkodra, Bar, Ulcinj, etc.). Zeta and Trebinje are listed mainly as geographical determinants, parishes (de Genta, de Trebigna), Hum (Chelmo) as principalities. Dubrovnik was transferred to Ragusa. It has already been stated that the archdeacon of Split, Tom, is the city of Diocletian in Serbia, ie Russia."

    I would guess at not fringe, and the Serbia Maritima name derived from this royal titulature of this queen: "Lady Queen of Serbia and All [Serbia] Maritima" though of course this is the Balkans, its history is confused, and I haven't read the book (I don't read Serbian). GPinkerton (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• (ec)It can be concluded that Serbs began the taking over of Dalmatia towards the end of the 4th century, and completed it at the beginning of the 7th. from an english summary here. Isn't this a nationalist ethnogenisis theory? fiveby(zero) 21:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Fiveby: Oddly I think that might be a typo for "towards the end of the 6th century". After all, the book itself does not make mention of the Serbian terms for "fourth century" or "4th century", and its title suggests it does indeed only deal with the 7th to 10th centuries. The whole thing stems from whether or not or how much to trust Constantine VII's notoriously compendious but anachronistic and archaizing 10th century self-help book for his son and co-emperor Romanus, the De administrando imperio, which says some stuff about Heraclius and the granting of bishopric to the "Baptized Serbs" (as contrasted with the "Unbaptized Serbs"). GPinkerton (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Fiveby and GPinkerton: This is about Middle Ages and term which is used in the Middle Ages. ("Servia together with Pomorje") yes, probably exist sources which mention Serbia and Pomorje, but we talking about "Serbian Pomorje" term. In Serbian rulers titles exist several informations about "King of Serbia and Maritime Lands". But it's not basis for "Serbian Pomorje" fact. As for archaeologist Jankovic Djordje ie author of this source, he is pseudo archaeologist or something in between. Mikola22 (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Mikola22: You asked about "Serbia Maritima" not "Serbian Pomorje". There's no suggestion of that term in the article. What's the evidence for Jankovic being unreliable? GPinkerton (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• The term "Maritima" on its own for the area dates back at least as far as the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, of disputed date, which says:

  Post haec secundum continentiam priuiligiorum, quae lecta coram populo fuerant, scripsit priuilegia, diisit prouincias et regiones regni sui ac terminos et fines earum hoc modo: secundum cursum aquarum, quae a montanis fluunt et intrant in mare contra meridianam plagam, Maritima uocauit; aquas uero, quae a montanis fluunt contra septentrionalem plagam et intrant in magnum flumen Donaui, uocauit Surbia. Deinde Maritima in duas diuisit prouincias: a loco Dalmae, ubi rex tunc manebat et synodus tunc facta est, usque ad Ualdeuino uocauit Croatium Album, quae et inferior Dalmatia dicitur ...

  GPinkerton (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• See the article on Ђорђе Јанковић for information about the paper's author. GPinkerton (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Đorđe Janković (pseudo-archaeology)[63] And this information " No, njegovi noviji radovi mene osobno podsjećaju na nešto uglađeniju verziju srbijanskog arheologa Đorđa Jankovića, čije je čitanje i tumačenje ranosrednjovjekovnih vrela s razlogom odbačeno od srbijanske arheologije i historiografije..However, his recent work reminds me personally of a somewhat more refined version of the Serbian archaeologist Đorđe Janković, whose reading and interpretation of early medieval sources was rightly rejected by Serbian archeology and historiography" (page 454, Danijel Džino, (2012) Razgovor s duhovima: percepcije hrvatskog srednjovjekovlja Vladimira Sokola (Conversation with Ghosts: Perceptions of the Croatian Middle Ages by Vladimir Sokol) [64])
• @GPinkerton: Term "Serbian Maritima" ie "Littoral Serbia" is in question (which currently does not exist in the sources), not "Maritima". "Serbian Pomorje" is term from book of Đorđe Janković. Mikola22 (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Mikola22: Again, no, its "Serbia Maritima" not "Serbian Maritima". Thanks for the information on Janković, though I don't see that his theory on early migrations is relevant. His view of the 4th century doesn't affect the facts in much later history. Janković certainly didn't invent the word: I find it in a 1898 Italian edition of Johannes Lucius's De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae, for example. [65] GPinkerton (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• @GPinkerton: Sorry I mean "Serbia Maritima" term. Your source from 1898 the not talk about "Serbia Maritima" term nor is it information for medieval term. Also "Croatia mediteiranea" historical term the not exist. In Serbian medieval titles these terms are separated. It is not one term. Mikola22 (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Otherwise it is also WP:OR issue because source ie Đorđe Janković in his book does not say that Pomorje is ("also known as Littoral Serbia (Serbian: Приморска Србија / Primrska Srbija; Latin: Serbia Maritima"). The proof is and fact that in the source the not exist page where write this. As far as I can see, this information is transferred from the Serbian Wikipedia (Српско поморје или Поморска земља, односно Српско приморје или Приморска Србија (лат. Serbia Maritima),[1] је назив за историјске области у јужној и средњој Далмацији, које су током средњовековног раздобља улазиле у састав српских земаља. Serbian pomorje or Pomorska zemlja, ie Littoral Serbia or Primorska Srbija (lat. Serbia Maritima), [1] is the name for the historical areas in southern and central Dalmatia, which were part of the Serbian lands during the medieval period.) Mikola22 (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Mikola22: What do you propose? Remove the "Serbia" bit or the whole "Maritima" name? "Maritima" is an adjective in Latin, so it should probably be attached to something, a place name for which the area can be considered the coastal (or "littoral" or "maritime") part. GPinkerton (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• @GPinkerton: First we must remove original research ie "also known as Littoral Serbia (Serbian: Приморска Србија / Primorska Srbija; Latin: Serbia Maritima)[1]". Mikola22 (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• See my edits. Mikola22 (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Better, sr:Đorđe Janković is worrying as a source, didn't he come up in an earlier FTN section? I'm not sure there should be a Pomorje article on WP, our one English source is Nevill Forbes, we should not be trusting a Russian Literature specialist from Oxford writing on the Balkans in 1915.[66] GPinkerton, you are aware that WP should take a great deal of care in sourcing and avoiding OR here? That's why Janković speaking of 4th century Serbs in Dalmatia is worrying. fiveby(zero) 13:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: Yes that was covered by my "but this is the Balkans and its history is confused"! The 4th-century Serbs notwithstanding, the bit of Janković's book I looked at does indicate that the area was part of some Serbian entity at some much later point, which I think few would disagree with, any more than they would disagree with the fact that Bulgaria was once "on three seas", or that Macedonia (everyone pick your favourite meaning) was once big and strong. GPinkerton (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Problem @Fiveby and GPinkerton: We have problem with this article because he is based on one source. Sources which are listed below the article do not speak about medieval "Serbia Maritima" term. Possible they mention titles of Serbian rulers. Mikola22 (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Djordje Jankovic's has been assessed as extremely WP:FRINGE and is not acceptable in any academic context. The author's contributions involve the theory that Russian groups "possibly" lived in early medieval Macedonia. --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true. Jankovic is somewhat problematic with some of his views but he never claimed that Russians lived in Macedonia, but that Antes settled there and that Russians are ancestors of Antes, which is just another POV and we have several theories. DO NOT take words out of context. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Tom Rowsell and Survive the Jive

I've recently created a stub on Tom Rowsell and Survive the Jive. An alt-right YouTuber, Rowsell recently received some academic attention for promoting pseudoscience and fringe theories via his channel (in The International Far-Right: Fascism for the 21st century?, 2020). He also wrote for Breitbart, but I believe there's an issue with linking to that. The article is currently a stub and could not only use watchers but also expansion. I noticed that Rowsell has featured similarly aligned figures such as Rachel Fulton Brown on his channel and has also appeared on white nationalist site Red Ice, but I am having trouble finding secondary sources that discuss this so far. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The Leviston Abbey Dog and Black Shuck

In May 2014, archaeologists from DigVentures discovered... the bones of an unusually but not extraordinarily large mastiff in the remains of Leiston Abbey. The news spread like wild fire first into the local Leviston newspaper then into the East Anglian Daily Times before finally moving into the national news terrifying... anyone who hoped the WP:Daily Fail would not claim that it was a 6ft hellhound Black Shuck. Digventure's page on the skeleton https://folklorethursday.com/urban-folklore/proof-black-shuck-definitely-not-discovered/ East Anglian article Daily Mail article

Okay but seriously my question is over whether and how to include the Leviston Abbey Dog in the Black Shuck Wikipedia page. The discovery of the dog skeleton is a known fact as reported on by DigVenture's Dr. Brendon Wilkins, visiting lecturer at Durham and UCL. The idea that it is a 7ft hellhound as reported by International Bussiness Times [67] is a known falsehood as reported by the aforementioned doctor in Museum, Gallery and Heritage Practice.

The problem is that the skeleton is only relevant to the article because it was linked to Black Shuck by the media. As such IBT has been used in the article for at least 5 years as a self source to show that they linked the skeleton to Black Shuck. I made the article a bit more specific a year ago and started using the Daily Mail as a self source as well.

Several editors have deleted the text about the Daily Mail and IBT linking the two as they were cited from those sources which are obviously unreliable to which I suggested 4 options: continue citing those articles as self sources as they have been for 5 years, remove the reference to Yahoo! News (there seemed to be a specific objection to this), use DigVetnure's report to try to outline what the Daily Mail had said, or remove the section entirely.

I have created these options because, as I explained on the article's talk page, I feel that including the section without referencing the Daily Mail article leaves a massive chunk of the story missing.

None of the editors involved have stated which of these options they prefer or if they prefer an alternate option and they have failed to reply to my latest talk page post (made 2 days ago). The most I have got is a suggestion that I raise it here. And so I have decided to raise it here, thank-you. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no issue with the media, I do with the Daily Mail. If this was even a vaguely serious (if fringy) view it would be picked up by better sources.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine if you rely on the East Anglian article, the archaeologists and other reliable sources. The Mail article is quite something! Of interest to folklorists. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that if we were to rely upon the East Anglian and DigVentures we would miss both IBT claiming that skeleton was Black Shuck and would have to be vague about how the Daily Mail linked the skeleton to Black Shuck. In my view where the skeleton is only relevant because of the media reports being forced to ignore basically the entirety of the media reports as they cannot be used in a WP:ABOUTSELF manner would leave the section missing the majority of the important parts of the story. At the moment the text mentions the two being linked in the regional paper with a readership of just over 10,000 but misses its coverage in a national news source with a circulation of more than 1,000,000. While we may view the EADT as more accurate than the other it seems strange to view it as more important. El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Does Loch Ness Monster help with how to handle nonsense reported in the press? Anyway this is much less notable than the Loch Ness Monster and a single line from the East Anglian would be enough. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

So would you be happy to see the section deleted? The only reason I am here is because I feel that the section should either be removed or stop hedging around the reason it is in the article. El komodos drago (talk to me) 16:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I know we all hate the Daily Mail but pretending that it doesn't exist isn't going to simply make it go away. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand your frustration—I've definitely been there with situations such as these—but without a reliable secondary source that discusses the situation, my experience is that there isn't much to do about it, unfortunately. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

To put it flatly:

1. The skeleton is only relevant to the article in that the two were linked by the media.
2. This was done in The East Anglian Daily Times (in a joking manner), The Daily Mail, and The International Business Times.
3. The EADT is a regional newspaper with a circulation of 12,589.
4. The Daily Mail is a national tabloid with a circulation of 1,134,184.
5. The IBT is an international online news source with a viewership of roughly 40,000,000.

And yet the article currently only makes mention to the EADT's coverage. While I would understand this is the skeleton was Black Shuck or the two were linked by academics but when the only reason for the inclusion of the section in the article is that they were linked by the media refusing to refer to the major news sources that did the linking is, frankly, like writing an article on the foreign policy of Taiwan without mentioning China. Best wishes, El komodos drago (talk to me) 21:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Etymology of Basarab of Wallachia's name

An IP editor claims that the "autochthonous", "possibly Daco-Thracian" origin of the name of Basarab I of Wallachia is widely accepted by Romanian historians ([68]). The editor also claims that the theory about the Turkic origin of the name was proposed by Neagu Djuvara. The editor refers to Sorin Paliga's book to verify these statements. 1. I think the "autochthonous" origin of Basarab's name is a marginal (rather fringe) theory. I have not read other book or article published in English (written either by a Romanian or by a non-Romanian historian) that contains reference to the autochthonous origin of Basarab's claim. 2. I think the statement that Romanian historians have accepted Paliga's etymology is unverified. 3. I think the statement that Djuvara was the first to propose a Turkic etymology is also unverified. All comments are welcome at the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Planet of the humans

Planet of the Humans, an environmental documentary with fringe claims like wind/solar being equally bad for the climate as fossil (alongside more accurate portrayal of biomass), is attracting many IPs who discount criticism. The lede now contains lovely sentences like: Upon its release, Planet of the Humans generated intense controversy, was criticized by renewable energy proponents for what they claimed as being outdated and misleading. Some more eyes on this would be greatly appreciated; I can't find the time to keep this to standards. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, seems also to be an example of a growing problem I warned about a few weeks ago.[69] I wonder if we need something explicit in WP:FRINGE about "synopses" of fringe films in general. Alexbrn (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Planet of the Humans is not a fringe film. I don't agree with its arguments and it is no use as a source for Wikipedia, but it got a mixed reception from environmentalists and the authors had a right to make their case. These are arguments within science, not between science and pseudoscience. I will watch the page and try and help make sure that it doesn't get unbalanced. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I agree it's not a fringe film as a whole, the discussion of biomass got mixed/positive reception from scientists. However, the discussion around solar and wind was uniformly derided as misleading/outdated by environmental scientists, and contained fringe claims like the one stated above. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, outdated. The problems with it all fell into place for me when a review pointed out that it was at least ten years out of date. Probably took that long to make. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Charles Koch

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

Just noticed: the article has the word "Climate" in it, but only in the title of one of the sources. How did it come to that? That man paid for one of the biggest fringe pushing campaigns in the last decades, but it is not even mentioned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Femkemilene added it to the article again. --mfb (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Bryant G. Wood

WP:PROFRINGE edit warring at Bryant G. Wood. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible and Spade (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Robert Todd Carroll

Wikipedia user O Govinda is a reincarnation believer, he also disclosed that he is affiliated with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. I am not convinced all his edits on Robert Todd Carroll were done in good faith. For example, the old lead was "Robert Todd Carroll (May 18, 1945 – August 25, 2016) was an American writer and academic. Carroll was best known for his contributions in the field of skepticism; he achieved notability by publishing The Skeptic's Dictionary." On October 5, this was changed to "American writer and academic, best known for his website The Skeptic's Dictionary". This is downplaying Carroll's influence and confining the man to a website. You can see some of the changes in this edit [70]. If you also scroll down and check the "skeptic" section, O Govinda has also deliberately deleted "long-time advocate of scientific skepticism and critical thinking". O Govinda doesn't seem to like the idea of scientific skepticism and he has removed those links on the article.

Also on the article was the following "Carroll's views attracted numerous interviews for him from mainstream media and local newspapers, such as the Davis Enterprise and he was quoted in the New York Times." This content was removed by O Govinda and the replaced content was that Carroll spoke at a few skeptic conferences. Based on these edits, O Govinda seems to be downplaying Carroll's influence. I think this users edits need to looked at, I think there is some stealthy removals going on here. I believe the old lead should be restored. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason given on the Talk page was self-sourcing. I find that difficult to argue against. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a valid reason but not all his edits match to this. I have been going through this edit more [71]. O Govinda has removed a bunch of sources that are independent and reliable. For example Popular Science Review [72]. Carroll's influence was not limited to the skeptic movement, I believe the old lead should be restored. The delinking and removal of scientific skepticism on the article is suspect. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the lede. It could use some tightening, but the removals seem to be a change in POV that at least needs discussion.

I did not look at the rest, and the edits are difficult to parse because they span multiple sections at a time. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

After looking over the current references, I think the article needs a total rewrite, hopefully from far better references. If sources have been removed, they are needed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

An empirical, 21st century evaluation of phrenology

Title: An empirical, 21st century evaluation of phrenology.

Published in: Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior, Volume 106, September 2018, Pages 26-35

Author: Oiwi Parker Jones -- Applied Artificial Intelligence and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford[73]

Author: Fidel Alfaro-Almagro -- Brain Imaging, Machine Learning, Neuroinformatics, and Computer Vision, University of Oxford[74]

Author: Saad Jbabdin -- Brain connectivity, Diffusion MRI and functional MRI, University of Oxford[75]

doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.04.011, Epub: 2018 May 9,. PMID: 29864593, PMCID: PMC6143440.

Key quotes:

"In this study, we sought to test the 19th century claims of phrenology by using 21st century scientific methods."

"Although written in a light-hearted spirit, this study demonstrates the feasibility of applying to cranial data the standard methods of neuroimaging (like registration, normalisation, random field theory, and mass univariate analysis)."

"In summary, we hope to have argued convincingly against the idea that local scalp curvature can be used to infer brain function in the healthy population. Given the thoroughness of this study, it is unlikely that more scalp data would yield significant effects."

"Results: The phrenological analyses produced no statistically significant or meaningful effects."

"Contributors: OPJ and SJ conceived of the study over pints at our local pub, the White Hart; all authors contributed to data analysis and writing."

Released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Perhaps we can host a copy on Wikibooks or Wikidata? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Börek

The recipe for "round" burek was developed in the Serbian town of Niš. In 1498, it was introduced by a famous Turkish baker, Mehmed Oğlu from Istanbul.[76]

• Source for this information is some portal [77]. As far as I have noticed this information is not in books or scientific papers(in English or Serbian language) it only exist in internet portals. Is this information fringe? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It's your average web portal, it's not that good or that bad but something in the middle. I think that the information is kinda okay, if added with WP:NPOV in mind. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

A tale of two Wikipedia pages

• Failed back syndrome#Chiropractic
• Chiropractic#Effectiveness

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

College of Medicine (UK)

According to Wikipedia, "The College of Medicine is a champion for social prescribing and integrated medicine, particularly within mainstream healthcare and the NHS." It must be right cos it says so in the lead. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I hate to do he said/she said in the lede, but it's probably better than the version you referenced now. More sources would help this thing. Looks like it's just a repackaging of the absurdly corrupt foundation.jps (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge with The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health? Same Dixon, same prince, same vehicle. GPinkerton (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Son-Rise

Have you heard? Autism can be cured at home! (Or maybe not.) See Son-Rise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for further information. GPinkerton (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Samudra

A lot of the refs are too vague to check. David Frawley is of course not an RS nor would I use his books as ELs. A google search finds some very old dictionaries and some recent fringe, including this] I also found this which might be useful. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Jay Bhattacharya

• Jay Bhattacharya (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

An author of the Great Barrington Declaration. We have the same kind of problems here as we had at Sucharit Bhakdi‎. Needs eyes and work. Alexbrn (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)