Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 82

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 75

←

Archive 80

Alina Chan

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

New AfC published from draft. About a COVID lab-leak origins proponent. In general I think it could just use more eyes. See:

Chan became known during the COVID-19 pandemic for suggesting the possible lab origins of the virus in a BioRxiv preprint coauthored with Shing Hei Zhan which she sent for consideration to multiple journals but the editors decided against sending for peer review. [cites preprint, no secondary source] The preprint attracted criticism from prominent scientists such as Jonathan Eisen, with whom she interacted constructively, but also the head of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, in a more contentious exchange that Chan was regarded by some as having the upper hand, e.g. Nicholson Baker summarised this 'it was enough for one Twitter user to muse, “If capital punishment were as painful as what Alina Chan is doing to Daszak/WIV regarding their story, it would be illegal.”'

There are a few other instances where the article cites a preprint for some commentary about that preprint, and does not cite a secondary source.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I've trimmed that away by removing the subjective words ("suggesting", which implies as though she was the first one to support this) and by removing the rest since it was based entirely on the papers being used to support their own existence (so in essence, a primary source the same way a book is a primary source for it's text) and likely therefore to include copious amounts of WP:SYNTH and other subtle NPOV problems. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there a good reason why the lab escape theory is not referred to as a fringe theory in the lede? Basically, we have an article about a postdoc who is only notable for spreading fringe theories, she would not be notable for her research.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit the article to clarify. But note the word "fringe" not even found at COVID-19 lab leak theory (honestly a bit of refreshing surprise, since Wikipedians seem very fond of that term). See also {{Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus)}}. "Fringe" can be a pejorative (see both Fringe science and Fringe theory), and there are often more sophisticated ways to convey that an idea is a minority view. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Fringe is only a pejorative because of the euphemism treadmill. It etymologically refers to the edges of a tapestry which is a very neutral way to describe ideas that are not part of the mainstream. The fact that people find it pejorative when applied to their pet ideas is because they don't like other things that are objectively fringe and hate that their idea is in the same category. I do agree, however, that the term is overused on Wikipedia. Fringe festival, fringe benefit, etc. jps (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think a big issue is with defining where the fringe starts and stops. That it's a broad term, it can lead to interpreting its use as referring to pseudoscience and quackery, even if it's actually just a minority perspective. Is the fringe on a rug just the tassels, or also the stitched border? It's almost always worth using a more precise term for that reason. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, sure, people like to argue incessantly about such details. Demarcation is not easy and never is. But that doesn't mean fringe has to be pejorative, and sometimes there aren't more precise terms in the offing. I'm not saying that's not the case here, but "fringe theory" may be a better way to describe ZOMG! LABLEAK! than "minority report". Or maybe not. How's that for precision? :)jps (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:LUNATICS

—Paleo Neonate – 04:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Wade, yet again

An IP has been mildly edit-warring to remove a sentence from the lead. Additional pairs of eyes are welcome. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This should probably be summarized and posted to a BIO RfC to gain a consensus, otherwise this looks like it could drag on. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Zang-fu

I just came across this topic and all its subtopics (each one of the 12 Zang and Fu "organs") and it is in a terribly credulous state. My first thought is that all those "organ" articles should be merged into Zang-fu, and the whole thing would need a big POV review. VdSV9•♫ 12:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Longish list of requests on the Talk page. Have fun. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Steve Kirsch $1000 debate

If anyone's got some spare time, the subject of our article Steve Kirsch came on the talk page to offer $1000 per hour to anyone who would like to debate him on zoom about whether or not the COVID-19 vaccines are toxic. - MrOllie (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Just me, or WP:NOTHERE? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep. I've blocked them. – Joe (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks! Bakkster Man (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse post

I noticed this WP:Teahouse#Richard_Lynn_article if anyone's interested. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Don't mention the eugenicist is a eugenicist in the lede" is a heck of a position. Here's hoping my comment there was helpful. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead of Communism: "The USSR was not communist"

I have problems with the Communism lead because it has a section of the lead that advances the proposition that the USSR was not a communist state. The sources for this claim include Noam Chomsky, Truthout.org and a heterodox economics journal. This seems problematic given that I'm under the impression that mainstream scholarship firmly characterizes the USSR as a communist state. In other words, it's a fringe theory that the USSR was not communist. The communist state Wikipedia article does not have this problem: it clearly describes the USSR as a communist state. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

If we're talking about this section:

Several academics and economists, among other scholars,^[19][20] posit that the Soviet model under which these nominally Communist states in practice operated was not an actual communist economic model in accordance with most accepted definitions of communism as an economic theory but in fact a form of state capitalism,^[21][22][23] or non-planned administrative-command system.^[24][25][26]

It is properly attributed as the point of view of some, not all, scholars; explained with more nuance than that (you put "The USSR was not communist" in quotation marks but it is not a quotation and not what this says); and is cited to eight sources, not three. This text is also at the end of a paragraph which starts by describing the USSR as a "Communist government" in an article that extensively discusses the USSR as a communist state. I don't see any fringe problem. – Joe (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Joe here. Political ideologies are defined conventionally, and in the case of communism we have two conventional definitions that are quite at odds:

1) Communism is what Marx & Engels advocated in texts like The Manifesto of the Communist Party.

2) Communism is what the USSR and its allies were.

The lead of Communism needs to make clear that most scholars do not believe 1 and 2 to be the same thing. Generalrelative (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources 24–26 have nothing to do with whether the USSR was communist or not. I cannot access the recently added sources 19–20, so I cannot comment on those. Even if those two 20-40 year old sources do indeed say that the USSR was not communist, they strike me as a fringe minority. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

To add on to this, regardless, Chomsky and Richard D. Wolff are fringey for this topic. The lead also lacks any mention of the criticism that "true communism" is not possible and/or that efforts to establish it inevitably lead to Soviet-style authoritarian Communism. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a long time since I studied political science as my major, but it's correct that if you take Marx and Engel's understanding of Communist, the USSR was never a Communist state - it might have been a '"pre-Communist state". Only if you define Communism as the form of government that the USSR had was it a Communist state. Our article Communist state has an odd lead, as it later in the lead clearly says "However, these states do not describe themselves as communist nor do they claim to have achieved communism—they refer to themselves as socialist states that are in the process of constructing socialism." That's always been my understanding as well. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - the USSR etc never described themselves or their bloc as "communist", always "socialist", as in many of their official names. Communism, like Nirvana, was a goal none claimed to have reached yet. For the non-Marxist West, being ruled by a Communist Party made you a communist state willy-nilly. We need to briefly explain both senses of the term. Better sourcing than Chomsky should not be a problem. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Precisely. Very well put. Generalrelative (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with Crossroads' statement that Chomsky and Richard D. Wolff are fringey for this topic. As explained by Doug Weller, Johnbod, and Generalrelative, we should clearly delineate two views of what communist means as a description of a country -- the view of Marxists and communists themselves and the view of writers and media in the West. Marxist or communist or leftist writers are certainly not fringe as a source for the former, just as anti-communist writers are not fringe for the latter. NightHeron (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

At school, we were told that the USSR is a "socialist" state, and a "communist" state means a kind of welfare state, when everybody works as much as they can and get (from the state) as much as they need irrespectively of what they do.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree with what Joe Roe, Generalrelative,Johnbod, Doug Weller and NightHeron said. We should be more clear in all our relevant articles about the distinction between (1) and (2) as summarised nicely by Generalrelative. I think it would be really helpful if we did that by using a small c for the first meaning (the historical definition of communism as a workless, stateless society, as in the Marx's concept of primitive communism) and a capital C for the second meaning (stuff do with proper noun Communist Parties and the states they've ruled). Adherents of big-C Communism always called their states "socialist" not "communist" and said they were on the road to communism not that they had achieved it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Also similar with the difference between the ideal of democracy and the variants of existing, effective democracies, —Paleo Neonate – 18:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Australia - New Zealand Skepticon

[1] 20-21 November. Few details yet. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Who will be most popular this year? fiveby(zero) 15:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Elvira Bierbach

Elvira Bierbach does not pass WP:LUNATICS. It does not acknowledge the commandment I will put enmity between thee and Wikipedia. Thee meaning quackery. Even if that's legal in Germany, she is still a quack by our book. Every Heilpraktiker is a quack, every one of them. If they had something positive to offer, they would not become Heilpraktiker. I call a spade a spade. I call a quack a quack. Heilpraktiker is legalized quackery. That's tautologically true. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a small caveat: A school for Heilpraktiker needs to teach them the actual basics of medicine, because that is exactly what is required in the Heilpraktiker exam - they have to prove that they know when to send someone to a real doctor. Of course, that does not guarantee that they will use that knowledge. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

TLDR tirade removed. I even mentioned Peter Fisher (physician). -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You should nominate the article for deletion. Your next best bet is to hire an assassin to destroy all quacks and lunatics, such that they will never trouble you ever again. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You presumably well know that it's not a valid deletion rationale and this comment appears to be violating WP:AGF. —Paleo Neonate – 02:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Orac (David Gorski) stated Quacks really hate Wikipedia. Of course, that is not my own fault, but a result of WP:RULES such as WP:DUE, WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. We are at war with quacks, how comes that you did not know it?

I did not learn anatomy in my post-secondary education, but they learn it in order to dodge real medical care for as long as they can.

They learn some elements of medical science in order to bullshit their patients. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

And this is from a poster representing the views of quacks: Worse than 1984 Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Runs an industry-organized, coordinated smear engine to discredit and suppress all independent scientists, naturopaths and journalists.

It's the first result at https://www.google.com/search?q=jimmy+wales+techno-fascism&client=firefox-b-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&dpr=1 It seems that believing in mainstream science is considered techno-fascism. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Michael Yeadon

Michael Yeadon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Low-intensity but persistent whitewashing of Yeadon's involvement in spreading COVID misinformation and conspiracy theories. Additional eyeballs on the article would be appreciated. Thanks. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Chiropractic

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

Someone wants to happily promote bogus treatments in a Wikipedia article by removing the risks of death and stroke from it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Which edit is the concern? I am not seeing any recent edits that reflect your statement? Slywriter (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be some WP:PROFRINGE manoeuvring on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

FLCCC - another one for your watchlist

Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance‎ (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Another article about COVID quacks, now approaching 1000/views day as the World continues to go crazy, and also attracting drive-by disruption. Like other similar articles probably needs some form of protection. Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Thanks for notifying. I've taken care of the latest batch, and asked at RfPP. Feel free to report again if there's further silliness. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Yosef Ben-Jochannan

Eyes needed for event edits. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thunderbirds

Thunderbird (mythology)

Any thoughts on this edit and sourcing edits to this author Paulette Steeves? He iro 21:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Was the edit in "Supermarionation"? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF

I don't see anything wrong with the source or the author. This is apparently the author's area of expertise "Steeves research focuses on the Pleistocene history of the Americas". Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That is what her Wikipedia article says. It also says she is the Canada Research Chair in Healing and Reconciliation, which does not sound like a branch of paleontology or paleoanthropology. And you can "focus on" things outside your expertise. That's where many fringe ideas come from. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Reading the citation on her article, it seems like the grant is in fact for research and truth as it pertains to the First Peoples of Canada and their history here on Turtle Island, the funding coming from a Canadian initiative supporting Truth, Healing and Reconciliation with indigenous Canadians. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm iffy on this. Teratorns have likely been extinct for on the order of ten millenia, cultural memory generally doesn't go back that far. Some native american groups believe they have always had horses as that's been true as far as cultural memory goes, but horses were only re-introduced to the Americas 500 years ago. It's similar to the claims that the bunyip represents the cultural memory of the giant marsupial Diprotodon, despite it being extinct for probably 40,000 years, which also gets breathlessly repeated in layman sources without much critical examination, as it's essentially an unfalsifiable claim. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

From what I see she has her own pet theories that may possibly be presented as opinions if it's notable (i.e. has been discussed enough by independent sources that put them in context). The current text is at least WP:ATTRIBUTEd, that is consistent with presenting opinions. —Paleo Neonate – 23:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Her pet theories seem pretty WP:FRINGE from the academic mainstream (such as "Indigenous people were in North America more than 130,000 years ago") and I was just wondering if we should be using it at all, especially without some kind of disclaimer. But if everyone else is sure it's ok. He iro 00:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I removed this mention (and the duplicate one at Teratornis). The IP has visited my user talk page and isn't super happy about it. Hasn't used the article talk page(s) yet, though. - MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Brigham Young University

Brigham Young University is about to be stricken by a new wave of fideism. What do you think about [2]? tgeorgescu (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

So this "retrenchment" is being called for by Jeffrey Holland and others, and Holland is a Mormon big shot? Seems like a fine addition to me. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Why did you add "a new wave of fideism is preparing to wreak havoc at the university"? Was that a quote from somewhere? I think the way you had it before that was better without that additional bit. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not verbatim inside the text, but, yes, that's what the text says BYU professors expect to be happening soon. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay. For what it's worth, I think without quotation marks, it might look like Wikipedia's voice is saying "preparing to wreak havoc", which isn't quite right, don't you think? I'll watch the page and defend the original addition, though. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The article describes that havoc has been produced two times before by similar fideism waves, but it was short-lived. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question is more about a characteristic type of bad writing in WP than it is about the subject matter. I'm hard-nosed about WP:NOTNEWS and therefore tend to oppose writing about ongoing events until the dust has had a chance to settle, but at any rate, in a section that's supposed to be a summary of the issue over time, news-reporting a SLT article isn't appropriate. It lacks context and strictly speaking, we would be looking for a third party reporting on the article's publication. In the context of the statement, the article is a primary source. There's also an element of WP:CRYSTAL going on when this new fideism hasn't happened yet.

The section as a whole could probably do with some rewriting, but just plunking this statement in is not a good approach. Mangoe (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

My impression is that if it's kept some details should be restored like evolution, race, LGBT; as someone who isn't very familiar with Mormon culture I otherwise find the paragraph unclear. On the other hand, considering that the source is itself a Mormon-focused publication, I agree that it appears to be a primary source. It potentially could still be used, but more independent sources would indeed be ideal. —Paleo Neonate – 01:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

As Bible scholars say, the criterion of embarrassment points that the source is particularly reliable (since it reports against its vested interests). tgeorgescu (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that while Deseret News is under editorial control of the LDS church, Salt Lake Tribune, though owned by big-names in Mormonism, has (relative) editorial independence. jps (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

When I read the source I noticed that they also attribute their points, meaning that the claims are not primarily theirs, and it's not polemical, other than the possible affiliations (ex-Mormons?) I didn't find obvious problems with the text. —Paleo Neonate – 21:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

DISC assessment (again)

DISC assessment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It looks like editors associated with the vendor of this pseudoscientific psychological assessment model have been making this article increasingly promotional. I've attempted to cut back some of the advertising content and put the fact that it is pseudoscientific up front. I would appreciate extra eyes on this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Somatic experiencing

Somatic experiencing (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Has seen significant expansion in recent months and seems distinctly WP:PROFRINGE. May need attention. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple chemical sensitivity etc

Multiple chemical sensitivity (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Toxicant-induced loss of tolerance‎ (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Environmental sensitivity (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

A WP:SPA, Silliestchris is making multiple edits across these pages, apparently in an attempt to de-stubify stubs and create more articles in this messy, fringe, topic space. A new article, Environmental sensitivity (illness) is proposed by them. More eyes/input would be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I too, would appreciate more input, I invite randoms to review my input on talk pages in particular. The multiple chemical sensitivity page in particular gets frequent reversions to anyone trying to add information that does not conform to the Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance hypothesis. This disease is highly controversial and poorly understood, I am mainly trying to constructively add properly cited information. Thank you for your very helpful discussions today, Alexbrn.Silliestchris (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: blocked by Bbb23 for now, —Paleo Neonate – 21:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Didn't know that. Stff still happening at MCS page though. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 21:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

RFP request pending, —Paleo Neonate – 22:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:Silliestchris: Well-documented sections will be removed for no reason as they do not reflect the opinion of individual authors. It would be nicer if they incorporate their counter-arguments into the article and provided them with suitable sources. -- Brackenheim (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you not think it a problem that the version of the article being reverted in the edit you linked, failed to mention that MCS can be triggered in people irrespective of whether or not "chemicals" are present? Alexbrn (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I have never claimed that my version / editing is the only correct one or that it is complete. The disease is a complex area that has several sides or is very multifaceted. I myself have only dealt with one side so far. Since many, it seems, are more familiar with the other side, I still ask that this aspect be supplemented and, above all, supported by studies. But in this context they don’t seem to use any scientific standards here on Wikipedia. For example, this edit was undone – it were peer-reviewed journals with an impact factor of 4.4 - 5.4! -- Brackenheim (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Just now found this. I am an interested party on MCS. I am the author of a heretical hypothesis about how MCS works which is irrelevant to Wikipedia. I have stated on the talk page that the article as written is not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view because it is designed to leave a reader with the impression that MCS is always psychological. That was the PR message of the chemical industry litigation defense effort 25 years ago, and the choice has been made not to balance it against reports of the experience of people with MCS, such as Claudia Miller et al's TILT work and Ann Steinemann's work. I have in the broader MCS community for over 5 years defended the presence of this one sided presentation of MCS in the Wikipedia article as "the Wikipedia editors are doing what they're supposed to do" "peer reviewed science literature is the definition of fact for Wikipedia and it is not allowed to put opinion on a page" and "we just have to focus on getting peer reviewed science literature before anything will change".

As best I can tell, as a neophyte editor, the only reason for this lack of balance is that MCS as a whole is viewed as fringe, which is a very good reason for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to not apply. How can I find out if there is a consensus to this effect?

Lastly, it is my opinion based on the facts I have that Silliestchris was not acting as WP:SPA before he was banned, but rather as an interested party trying to correct what he knew to be errors of fact in the page, without a real understanding of how encyclopedia editing works.

Fstevenchalmers (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It is then possible that you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) in relation to the article (if so, per policy that should be made clear). Fringe topics are subject to WP policy including WP:FRINGE, WP:FRIND, WP:PSCI and in this case since it also touches medical topics, the WP:MEDRS guideline for reliable sources about biomedical claims. As far as I know, the scientific consensus is that when it is not misdiagnosed (usually self-diagnosed and a proper diagnosis would show an actual pollutant or poisoning if relevant), it is considered a type of anxiety about potential pollutants in the environment. That studies have demonstrated that sufferers could display stress symptoms in the absence of actual chemical stimuli, etc. —Paleo Neonate – 06:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging, Paleoneonate. I have reviewed the COI criteria and believe that I am an interested party, not COI, so long as I do nothing to advocate my heretical hypothesis here, which would be utterly inappropriate. To elaborate, I am a retired computer designer, with no path to profit personally or professionally in this context. I am much more the parents in "Lorenzo's Oil" style, noting that my kids grew up and Lorenzo didn't, and they found a cure and I didn't.

Thank you for the policy pointers. It was utterly foreign to me that secondary sources would be preferred over primary. This is starting to help me understand how sourcing on a medical topic is different. This means the survey paper out of Italy a few years ago is very important, but the more recent primary sources will not be given weight. Interesting.

I have a much wider range of information, but with less academic rigor, than you do and believe (1) there is no consensus (2) special interests continue to drive an illusion of consensus for their own purposes (3) the actual definition of MCS best used is probably the 1999 consensus as published (4) there is no operational definition of MCS in mainstream medicine and doctors are strongly discouraged from diagnosing it except as mental illness

That means MCS is a disability which the medical profession has been strongly discouraged from accepting, understanding, researching, or trying to treat. I cannot figure out how to apply the policies correctly in these circumstances.

Are you willing to spend a few more minutes reading a few paragraphs of non-rigorous background (which will help you understand why people with MCS are so apoplectic about the article as it's stood for over a decade) and help me think through what are appropriate and inappropriate ways to approach evolving the article? Thank you, just for reading this, even if not.

Fstevenchalmers (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to placate "apoplectic" advocates, but neutrally to reflect accepted knowledge as (generally) published in reliable, independent, third party-sources. So far as I can see, these say that over the years there have been been multiple proposed causes for MCS, with the evidence strongly pointing to it being unrelated to any direct "chemical" effect. The problem we seem to have is editors with an avowed agenda, and an apparent wish to stigmatize mental health problems as somehow "not real", who want to skew the article so it falsely appears that everybody agrees that "chemicals" directly cause MCS. This is over-layered with conspiracy theories about how the Truth™ is being suppressed by shadowy organizations and by a cabal of Wikipedia editors. Meanwhile, sourcing has always been thin and even the small bubble of interest around the turn of the century seems to have deflated. There is a decent overview from Science-Based Medicine [3] which is at least from this century. Alexbrn (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I see you're a skeptic, Alexbrn

Sounds like you've been burned by advocates in the past

I think reference [30] in the article, the 2017 Rossi and Pitidis survey paper on MCS, is a far more credible and objective source of information than an anti alternative medicine site.

The job of Wikipedia editors is to see to it that articles are fact based, well sourced, neutral, etc. I want nothing else. There is no cabal of Wikipedia editors. There are no shadowy organizations. Everything is "just business".

The agenda of Ron Gots, the primary author of source #4, at the time source #4 was written, was heading the Washington DC organization ESRI, which was funded by the chemical industry to advance its litigation defense effort by creating consensus that MCS is always psychological, so that the chemical industry could go to court with expert witnesses who said MCS was psychological, and that expert witnesses who said it was real were excluded under the rules of evidence as "fringe". That source would not be considered credible by a truly neutral and knowledgeable editor.

The emotional appeal in your post above reflects exactly the PR message Ron Gots placed in media, in policymakers' ears, in grant funders' ears, and yes, in the science literature of that era. He was successful. I do not understand why a neutral Wikipedia editor would support a special interest position like that with such vehemence.

MCS is not hard. Claudia Miller explains it as TILT more clearly than she explained it in "Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes" so many years ago. In my words not hers, person gets poisoned, person wakes up unable to fully function (or function at all) in the presence of multiple everyday substances seemingly unrelated to the original poisoning. Person goes to medical profession for help, but is met with a blank wall because the medical profession has been told that this can't occur so they shouldn't try to help. Person ends up partially or fully disabled, but the social safety net is denied. The thing which poisoned the person can originate in nature or be manmade, but if it's manmade the people who made it have complete immunity from product liability suits. Which was the point of Gots' work. It was "just business" in the rough and tumble world of Washington DC advocacy.

I have to live with the science literature distorted by selective funding and PR framing the problem and therefore framing the research in a non fact based way from that era. Wikipedia editors' role is to treat quality peer reviewed science literature as the gold standard, and facts not present in that literature as nonexistent (premature to include in an encyclopedia). So the gold standard literature from that era will continue to dictate what Wikipedia writes. I get that. I have to live with it.

Happy to discuss this in a setting where we will not disturb others. I post under my real name and have nothing to hide.

Fstevenchalmers (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is always under threat of being "burned by advocates", on this and countless other topics. The fact that people with MCS have been preyed upon by altmed charlatans is an important part of the topic, no? Unsourced conspiracism about somebody called "Ron Gots" (crazy name? crazy guy?) looks like part of the advocacy problem. Alexbrn (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

For reference, I looked up Ron Gots and found a couple links about him. On Sourcewatch and on ICTM, which seems to be his company.VdSV9•♫ 13:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked for sources, but I think there's a chance that he'd be notable. I don't think we have a category similar to Category:HIV/AIDS denialists for scientists who claim Passive smoking isn't harmful, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Gots is the primary author of source #4 in the published article, cited in the introduction, Alexbrn. There is a contemporary source for the what I describe in a 2001 article, but it's not in a journal of any respect at all.

Environmental medicine can actually help maybe half the people who get MCS. But yes, it's expensive. I don't patronize them. Discussing them is irrelevant to the task at hand, which is editing a neutral voice Wikipedia article on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

There is no conspiracy here, it's just business.

Fstevenchalmers (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about what neutrality means on Wikipedia. It does not mean that the article should take no stand on factual questions at all (that is, it does not mean a balance between opposing views), it means that the tone of the article should match the preponderance of sources. In this case, since most reliable sources take the position that MCS has a psychological basis, so too will the Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for coaching, and yes I am a neophyte. But in this case I have studied the policy in depth. It is and remains my judgment that the balance of the article leaves a reader new to the topic with the perception that MCS is always psychological, which is appropriate to the balance of the literature 10 years ago but not to the balance of the literature over the last 5 years. The best example I have is source [30] in the article as published today, where the conclusion of a very thorough lit review is written leaving both physical and psychological (or both) in a balance inconsistent with that of the Wikipedia MCS article as written today. Open to coaching. Fstevenchalmers (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Please share the direct link to the recent, high quality, secondary source you feel isn't being taken into account. Without one there's nothing to really change in the article. I'd also suggest you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Your quarrel seems to be with the medical establishment. Change their views, and those of Wikipedia will follow, not vice versa. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man I believe the conclusion of the 2018 survey paper by Rossi and Pitidis "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Review of the State of the Art in Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Future Perspectives which is reference 25 on the MCS article is a fair and balanced presentation (might be psychological, might be physical, might be some of both, let the workers avoid). My belief is that a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article on MCS would have that balance, not the balance of the article we have which leaves a new observer with the perception that MCS is always psychological. I am here on this page trying to learn if there is a consensus that MCS as a whole is fringe in the community, which would justify the current tone, but as yet have found no such consensus. I brought that paper to a relevant Talk page in 2019. So I am proceeding, cautiously, on the assumption that the current balance of the article reflects the science consensus at some point prior to the publication of that paper, and that I still have a lot to learn. Fstevenchalmers (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie and @Bakkster Man, if our article appears to say that MCS is psychological in nature, then I suggest that the source not being used adequately is the medical school textbook (ISBN 978-0-07-180816-3) that is already cited more than any other source in the article. Perhaps what we need is to remove outdated sources that contradict the current mainstream viewpoint. We can generally rely upon medical school textbooks to represent the current mainstream medical viewpoint, and that one in particular made Doody's list as a "Core Title", which means it is one of the best medical textbooks.

If you're interested in the question of etiology, it would be useful to have a solid history in the article of all the purported causes. There was a new claim of its cause about every 15 years (just like there have been multiple claims about what causes influenza over time – you may be aware that its name is a reference to an early belief that influenza was caused by astrology). Perhaps if people can see that the cause has blamed on whatever is trendy in science (allergies when allergies were a new concept, immune system dysfunction when AIDS was in the news, etc.), then they might have an easier time grasping that we actually don't know what causes this, that we're just testing ideas to see if any of them work, and that our incomplete information doesn't mean that it's not "real" – just like influenza, when we were completely wrong, multiple times, about its cause. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The recent Quebec report mentioned hereabout[4] has a run down of all the hypotheses over time, so should be useful for this. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fstevenchalmers: I have reviewed the COI criteria and believe that I am an interested party, not COI, so long as I do nothing to advocate my heretical hypothesis here, which would be utterly inappropriate. I'd recommend you reread WP:COI, most notably: Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith... Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. In other words, it's not wrong or bad or a judgment on you if you have a potential COI. Only that it's worth recognizing (and disclosing) if one exists. And, whether or not your outside writings rise to the level of COI, it's worth asking yourself whether you can set aside that personal belief in order to build a neutral encyclopedia. Especially if it means working to the contrary of your personal beliefs. While it doesn't appear you're exhibiting any off the behaviors of WP:NOTHERE, that's the broad concern others have in these kinds of situations (which, as I'm sure you'll believe, we've seen repeated many times before). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man Thank you for taking time to coach this neophyte. The reason I keep disclosing my interest in this topic, once in each conversation, is so that the other editors in the conversation can form their own opinions. I am very very concerned about any appearance that I am promoting my heretical hypothesis, the discussion of which has no place anywhere near Wikipedia. After over 5 years paying attention to this page, and two years since appearing in talk, I am still very much learning what it means to correctly edit an encyclopedia, and in particular edit an encyclopedia around a contentious topic. I welcome your coaching, and in particular if you see I need to tweak disclosure up or down I'm all ears. I also have to pay close attention to RGW, since I have that role in a very focused way out in the real world. But that attitude is counterproductive here at Wikipedia, and you don't know how many people I've coached out on social media that it is not appropriate to just come edit the page with their opinions, but rather to stop and listen and learn and understand the rules before even considering making even the smallest edit. Again, thank you for your coaching. Fstevenchalmers (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fstevenchalmers: Your efforts to keep things WP:PAG-based are appreciated. What is always good to bear in mind for topics in which one is interested, is that Wikipedia is only meant to be a dumb summary of the views expressed in the WP:BESTSOURCES, as decided by its own criteria. Thus, if ones disagrees with those sources, one will also disagree with Wikipedia. I find editing is always at its most interesting when editing "against the grain" of ones own bias. Alexbrn (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Side note: There has been a big shift in mainstream medical views of Multiple chemical sensitivity during the last five years or so. If your mental model is still stuck in "In the previous century, Ronald Gots said it wasn't real", then I encourage to you find some recent sources, such as medical textbooks. There is some reason now to believe that MCS is primarily a neurological condition (not psychological – think "physical brain damage") that manifests in autonomic dysregulation. It's still not necessarily caused by any of the previously alleged causes, but the science has moved on from "it's not real". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

If I have understood it correctly, the problem is that I used Huber’s book too often as a source for the pathomechanism (draft: User:Brackenheim/MCS). If I now find other primary sources or studies for his statements and insert them as sources, it should fit. I’m right? -- Brackenheim (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The article must be based on secondary sources. It's in a mess overall, but should really be updated with sources preferably from the last 5 years for anything bio/medical, such as pmid:29111991. Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Brackenheim, Huber's book is too old (2008 = 13 years old) and from a somewhat disreputable publisher. I think you should consider using other sources. A review article from a reputable journal could be a good source. Alex has linked one here from a reputable journal. One approach that can be helpful as a starting point is finding a good source and seeing how much of what you've already written could be cited to that better source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I know that the book is unfortunately quite old, but the fundamentals of the pathomechanism are the same today. My plan was first to bring the basics of the disease up to the state of 2008 and then gradually supplement it with newer findings. However, I can understand the point of criticism well and will try to find newer evidence and gradually remove Huber’s book as a source. Of course, everyone is welcome to help me with this. Since MCS is not the focus of research, this might not be that easy - but it is certainly feasible. -- Brackenheim (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Huber source is usable at all. But (as mentioned on the MCS Talk) page, we're in luck! A June 2021 comprehensive review has been published[5] by the Institut national de santé publique du Québec. This should be a good basis for reforming the article. (I haven't read it yet, and will need to brush off my French). Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Alex, I started reading in French, then realised that there is an English version too!! -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 07:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Its key point: all is consistent with symptoms resulting from chronic anxiety and the conclusion invalidates the hypothesis that the toxicity of chemicals at their normal levels is the cause. Yet it remains a serious health issue considering the debilitating symptoms and supportive treatment/medical support is recommended. —Paleo Neonate – 08:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I read the same short source (in English), and I didn't see anything that says the symptoms results from chronic anxiety. Consider this bullet point:

Over the long term, the nearly unavoidable recurrence of these acute stress episodes in these individuals leads them to develop neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and, inevitably, chronic anxiety.

Does that sound to you like "MCS is caused by chronic anxiety"? It sounds to me like this sentence says "repeated acute stress episodes causes chronic anxiety".

(For clarity: I read the bullet points on the initial webpage, not the four-page PDF, which I'll get back to later.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If I understand the complex physical symptoms are assessed to derive from anxiety and over time resulting oxydative damage could result in the chronic form ("cascade of reactions triggers and perpetuates biological changes in the normal functioning of the individuals’ immune, endocrine, and nervous systems", "the observed alterations explain the chronic and polysymptomatic experience reported by those suffering from MCS"), but it's my layman's understanding of a short summary. My "consistent with anxiety" is also derived from it ("Chronic anxiety helps explain all of the symptoms of SCM syndrome", "rebut the hypothesis that there is a relationship between MCS and the toxicity of chemicals present at normal concentrations")... Also interesting is how odors can trigger episodes for many, they also stress that it's an actual condition with potentially serious symptoms, recommend treatment etc. —Paleo Neonate – 21:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate, I don't think you've got it quite right. If we look at the simplified disease model:

Cause → disease → symptom → secondary symptoms

then we would get statements like these:

Smoking → lung cancer → chronic cough → soreness
Virus → chickenpox → fever and rash → itching and scratching

The relevant statement for MCS, according to this source, is approximately this:

Unknown → MCS → chronic anxiety → symptoms of anxiety

The question is what causes that "cascade of reactions" that produces "the observed alterations"? It doesn't cause itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean... if trying to fit in this model from the summary I have the impression that it means (1) anxiety -> interpretations and symptoms -> goto 1; or neurology/genetic anxiety disorder -> interpretations and symptoms, etc... (considering that there appears to be a frequency/family relationship with some anxiety disorders and neurology is taken in consideration, I remember you also mentioned neurology). From the summary's introduction I also see (my own translation): "Since the 2000s, advances in neuroscience, bio parameter measurement and functional cerebral imagery, helped to better understand physiopathological mechanisms of SCM. These confirm that the psychological is indissociable from the biological and the social." Then another part describes how severe anxiety (persistant concern and danger anticipation) affects neurotransmitters, the prefontal cortex, can cause potential neuroinflammation with time, immunological and other body effects. For susceptibility, it remains vague mentioning possible factors like personality temperament, personal antecedents, psychosocial factors... But I can't really see a precise claim about an initial causal neurological condition there (I could try to check all mentions of "neuro" in the longer document). —Paleo Neonate – 21:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a precise claim about an initial cause because nobody knows what it is. There are a few hypotheses being tried out (e.g., brain damage caused by chemical exposure vs by physical trauma – one of the famous index cases was a man who was injured during an industrial chemical explosion, which has the possibility of at least neurotoxic chemical exposure, traumatic brain injury, and PTSD in one event). However, beyond an agreement that it is multifactorial, nobody knows what the cause is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't reply yet as I had nothing to object, it seems that other than anxiety there's no well understood cause, —Paleo Neonate – 19:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not accurate. It's not true that "other than anxiety there no well understood cause". What's true is that there is no known cause, full stop. Anxiety is not the cause. People do not start off being anxious and end up with MCS symptoms. They first start off being normal, then get some stressful symptoms, and last develop chronic anxiety. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Wolfgang Huber‎

Wolfgang Huber (1940)‎ (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Related to the above, I notice there have been repeated attempts to cite this gentleman's (likely non-WP:MEDRS) work in the MCS article, and the above article was created last month, with a high proportion of unsourced biographical detail. Is Huber notable? Alexbrn (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:BIO. -- Brackenheim (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Which makes me think no. A minor academic failing WP:PROF surely? And (as creator of the article) could you say how the unsourced material got there? (Like, when he finished his studies?) Is there a WP:COI here? Alexbrn (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or" (WP:BIO): Yes
"The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." (WP:PROF): Yes
"The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association [...] or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor [...]" (WP:PROF): Yes
"The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." (WP:PROF): Yes -- Brackenheim (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

If you don't think so, feel free to start a deletion discussion. -- Brackenheim (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

No evidence any of these are so. And you didn't answer about WP:COI. Alexbrn (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, that’s very simple: Huber does not belong to family, friends, customers (nor am I his), is not my employer, and there are no financial or other relationships. I didn’t even study in Heidelberg.
How did I find him? I was looking for special immunological tests (BDT and LTT). I found some Information about him during a presentation in a special immunological laboratory in Berlin. I’ve listened to a few of his lectures and found his work very interesting. Since he didn’t have a Wikipedia article yet, I contacted him and asked for information about him/his life. Since he is a bit older, he sent me a nice letter with the requested documents. So he got the article and I got the info.
I also found out about the MCS through the laboratory. I think the disease really exciting because it is very extensive and multifaceted. So I once decided to expand the associated articles over the next few years. For this I received his book from Mr. Huber, payed by WMDE, which summarizes the previous studies. I supplemented this with further studies. There are of course many more, but it takes time to work your way through.
And what about you? You seem to have a downright personal interest in the fact that none of these studies appear in Wikipedia. Are you really sure you are not biased? -- Brackenheim (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, so this was your fan page for him based largely on private correspondence added without heed for WP:V, a core policy. Since you ask, I do have a bias against inclusion of unreliable and unverified material in Wikipedia. It still seems Huber is not notable, and your assertion that (e.g.) he holds a "named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment" is still unevidenced. Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Fan page? For real? Sure, and everyone who wrote about Adolf Hitler is sure to be a Nazi. Otherwise one would certainly not write about him ...
What kind of sources would you like then? You do not accept studies or other primary sources, newspapers, databases and books. Then what kind of sources should I search for? -- Brackenheim (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It's all gone a bit Godwin. Sources should be reliable and content should meet WP:V at a minimum. We can't just have WP:BLPs with completely unsourced content, nor can we base notability on apparently false assertions about holding a "named chair or distinguished professor appointment". What is going on here? Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn, you blanked a fairly large part of that article, and I think that the line in WP:CHALLENGE might have some relevant advice:

"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.^[1] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable.^[2] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

^ It may be that the article contains so few citations it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags. Consider then tagging a section with {{unreferenced section}}, or the article with the applicable of either {{unreferenced}} or {{more citations needed}}. For a disputed category or on a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.
^ When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind such edits can easily be misunderstood. Some editors object to others' making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular point of view, as that may appear to be a contravention of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.

It seems to me that it would be easy for an editor to misunderstand your blanking as indicating "chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions" that are "unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material" while you "concentrate only on material of a particular point of view".

Also, do you actually have any rational "concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source" for all of what you blanked? Most of what you removed was basic education and work history, such as where he went to medical school. That's not usually at high risk for being unverifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Given that I'm drawing a blank looking for sources on Huber, it looks like verifiability could be a problem. I notice BTW, this appears to be a translation of the article on German Wikipedia (also lacking sources). Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you try looking at the website in ==External links==? It is absolutely standard for such basic information to be taken from self-published, non-independent sources, especially for articles about academics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I glanced at it but did not consider an archived copy of what looked like personal pages to be great. I see now it links off to an archived cv - but using such sources for a fairly large part of the article could be problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I might think that relying on self-published, non-independent sources for such content is problematic, but I assure you that repeated discussions about WP:NPROF have convinced me that other editors believe entire BLP articles can and should be sourced exclusively to such material. I therefore cannot say that there is any consensus for claiming that such a source is unreliable for such uncontentious material. You might self-revert (if you haven't already) and spam in a few {{citation needed}} tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, for this kind of stuff there comes a point where WP:BLPSELFPUB#5 would come into play, which is hard policy. Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A good deal of articles about modern academics simply do not comply with that rule. Look at the sources in an article such as John Armour or Andrew Murray (physiologist) or Keith Ward. These are all in Category:Fellows of Trinity Hall, Cambridge; if any deserving academic could attract attention from independent sources, it's folks like these. And yet most of the sources are self-published and non-independent, especially if you look at the sources for statements about the person (e.g., schools attended and positions held). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In which case it might not just be the sources but the actual practice of allowing such articles to stand on such poor sources which is problematic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, we're veering off-topic but much of Wikipedia is non-encyclopedic and should be deleted, either because it's too low-level (factoids) or too thoughtful (ersatz secondary source syndrome). But it's mostly harmless so who cares. The exception is medical misinformation, where Wikipedia's place in the world is A Problem To Be Managed. Alexbrn (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The community's everyday practice is its most effective and true expression of its policies. If what you write on a page that says "policy" at the top isn't what experienced are doing, your policy is no different from the tax levies issued on purple vellum with gold ink during the late Roman empire: all show and no substance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sound like an argument for socking and UPE

Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Nah, with socking and COIs we at least claim to be upset about it when we discover it. In the PROF case, we have experienced editors insisting that self-published, COI-ridden sources are actually an appropriate way to handle the subject area (because the practical alternative is no article, and nearly all principles must give way rather than having no separate article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: No problem, I’ll find the necessary sources and add them. My question about the sources you didn’t accept (primary sources, newspapers, databases and books) also referred to the section above on MCS. You had undone my edit as „fringe“, even though I had provided the section with a source. A review in the AFP should actually be citable ... -- Brackenheim (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a very old source (1998) but the biggest problem was that it was misrepresented to imply this was a list of chemical causing MCS, when the source itself made clear it was more the belief of exposure to such chemicals which was to blame. Copying large parts of unsuitable-licensed sources into Wikipedia is also not a good idea. Alexbrn (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, you are right. I missed that. However, it would have helped me more if you had corrected that in the text directly.
Of course it is clear to me that you can’t just copy and paste large sections of text into Wikipedia. According to German law, however, such a simple list does not have a height of creation ("Schöpfungshöhe") and I tacitly assumed that this is the same on en.wiki. -- Brackenheim (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

He looks about 5ft 11inches to me. WP:CIR. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 18:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

AIUI simple lists are not protected as copyrightable under US law, either. I don't know whether this list would have been considered "simple".

However, I suspect that Alex's concern is that the list was provided with an unclear title ("the following chemicals can precipitate symptoms"). I believe he is concerned that someone might misunderstand "can precipitate symptoms" as meaning "is the original pathophysiological cause of MCS". The case is closer to "Once you already have MCS, then those stinky dryer sheets could trigger problems" WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I had many concerns, and put them all in the edit summary[6] "Undue/copyvio & outdated/fringe". Maybe this was too cryptic? But it would have been better for Brackenheim to have engaged with it rather than mashing the revert key. Alexbrn (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Organic farming – "health" benefits?

The Organic farming farming article strikes me as problematic. In particular, this sentence in the lead, "Organic farming advocates claim advantages in sustainability, openness, self-sufficiency, autonomy and independence, health, food security, and food safety." There is no counterpoint to these claims in the lead. Isn't it a violation of WP:FRINGE (or at the very least NPOV) to prominently feature rhetoric claiming that organic food has health benefits over non-organic food? The other purported benefits also strike me as dubious and poorly substantiated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin was removed as an allowed parasiticide for organic livestock in the U.S. in 2018. fiveby(zero) 02:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Just looked there. You're probably right. I also reverted this removal. As a review article, it is a top quality secondary academic source and should be covered. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I noticed that the article appeared overly promotional, but have only added that to my endless notes, —Paleo Neonate – 05:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

But organic farming 'advocates' actually do claim those things. Why does there need to be a counterpoint to those claims? The claims are what they are. The lead presents them as claims, not facts in Wikipedia's voice. All of those claims are believed by the large population who create a demand for organic products by buying them. Farmers, on the other hand, would say that organic farming is more lucrative (larger profit margins) due to that demand, provided you get past the approvals, which a few organic farmers have told me is easier to do outside of California than within it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a counterpoint to those claims? Per WP:FRINGE. Imagine if the homeopathy article or its lead just said the claims of proponents - attributed as claims, mind you - and left off all criticism. That would be a huge problem. Now, organic farming isn't as fringe as homeopathy, but the point stands. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to provide an overview of the body text. A counterpoint would be a summary of the "issues" section of the article. WP:SOFIXIT. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It would probably be best to find a reliable secondary source that reports what advocates claim and see what qualifications there are. There should also be clarification of who these advocates are. I haven't seen any organic producers that claim their products are healthier for example. If you provide a claim that hasn't been made then rebut it, it's a strawman argument. TFD (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The two sources given: "Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues" and The New Organic Grower do not support the claims at all. fiveby(zero) 13:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

More important than what advocates say is what consumers think about the product they are buying. It's the proximate cause that makes an industry large. Could be that consumers got their view that "organic is better" from advocates, could be that they came up with that on their own, got the view from their circle of friends, or wherever. When advocates say this product is better for this and that reason, as long as consumers don't believe them it doesn't really matter. --Distelfinck (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans, I think you might be reading that sentence loosely. Organic farming does improve health – the health of the farm workers who would otherwise be exposed to pesticides, and the health of the local ecological web that would otherwise have fewer insects, birds, frogs, and fish. The sentence doesn't actually claim that eating organic food confers benefits on consumers.

To put it another way, Wikipedia can't say out of one side of its mouth that methyl bromide is incredibly dangerous to basically every living organism and deserves a place in the List of highly toxic gases, and then say out of the other side of its mouth that organic strawberry farming (which doesn't use it, unlike basically the entire rest of the strawberry industry) has no health benefits for anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah though some "organic" practices complicate the picture rather. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. The problem is that the term "organic farming" is very poorly defined. It does not mean not using pesticides, for example! Nor does it necessarily mean "ecologically friendly". jps (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Some pesticides (be they synthetic or "organic") are incredibly dangerous. Yet, just like everything else, there are safe levels of exposure, there is a right was to use them that makes it essentially harmless to farmers, consumers, and the surrounding environment. The fact that a strawberry was grown without one particular synthetic pesticide doesn't actually mean it is healthier than a strawberry that was grown with it. The dose makes the poison. VdSV9•♫ 18:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

There is not always a "safe" level of exposure. Sometimes there are only levels likely to cause measurable damage in an individual (e.g., toddlers with > 50 ng/mL lead poisoning) and levels that are likely to cause measurable damage to a statistical population (e.g., toddlers with 10 to 50 ng/mL lead in a blood test). When it comes to ozone depleters, such as methyl bromide, the "safe" level of exposure is "none per atmosphere". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Crop circle and others

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

Does this need so many weird See-alsos? The same question applies to other articles from here: Will-SeymoreIII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It was bloated, but there were two links to articles I did not know about and would like to draw the attention of this board to:

jps (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I may have fixed the lot. On the balance, Will-SeymoreIII (talk · contribs) has done us a favor by highlighting some see also sections that deserved to be eliminated. jps (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is often that way. People make an article temporarily worse and eventually better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Transpersonal Psychology

This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Tall el-Hammam and Steven Collins (archaeologist)

Article uses the Creationist archaeologist Collins as a main source, describing him as a professor at two universities (although further down it mentions that one of them is Creationist). It also mentions the claims discussed above of a Tonguska event. I'm generally unhappy with using sources so recent that haven't yet been discussed in the professional literature. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

See #Sodom and Gomorrah. jps (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: that's what I meant as "the claims discussed above". Doug Weller talk 13:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha. Sorry if I came across as well-actuallying. jps (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

As someone who watched a LOT of Discovery Channel in the 90's, I can assure you both that this is totally, completely, and 100% legit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Collins is a Creationist and a literalist. He's constrained in his analyses by his religious beliefs, thus he is not a reliable source. We need clearly reliable secondary sources. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought my Discovery Channel reference would make my intent clear, but alas I forget that such views actually exist. Suffice it to say my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek for that comment. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: thanks, that's a real relief. I was wondering what had happened to you! Doug Weller talk 15:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Collins (archaeologist). XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Changed the wikilink in the heading. Different Steven Collins. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Fun new AfD for you to consider:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Southwest University.

jps (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this issue and it seems to me that what we have here is a WP:SENSATION situation. Does this warrant an article about the controversy? I would say so. Something like Controversial archaeological claims about Tall el-Hamman. You know, not that, but that. This would remove some of the problems of writing articles about obscure unaccredited universities or shoehorning fringe material into mainstream articles. jps (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable idea. I'm not sure what the best title would be for it, though. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly jps, I've been on that page for a while, but you keep nominating the potential dump-articles for deletion :)

During all of this I learned that the first archaeologist to properly look at Tell el-Hammam was Alexis Mallon, almost a century ago. He excavated another site (Teleilat el Ghassul) that by coincidence was also touted as Sodom by popular media. And ironically, despite being a Jesuit priest, he thought this was rubbish, and generally didn't hold with "bible and spade" type research.

Anyway, it made me realise that there's actually quite a long history of dubious claims to have found Sodom/Gomorrah. So maybe the article you're talking about could be Historicity of Sodom and Gomorrah (or just Sodom and Gomorrah#Historicity). – Joe (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That also makes sense. XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] I quite like this idea; no offense to jps, but I haven't seen enough coverage of the controversy qua controversy to make me think an article would be appropriate, but I am also wrong and don't read every last bit of news. But a history of claims sounds promising to me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

No offense taken! I also hate "controversy" articles. I think Joe's is an excellent idea. And I see that most of the citations that people want to use mention this claim explicitly, so let's just push everything there. Fantastic! jps (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Kalergi Plan

User just does not get it. I am done with reverting, and I cannot think of anything at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I have brought up the issue at WP:ANI. Bangalamania (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is an invitation to endless edit wars, due to a lack of usable sources explaining what the Kalergi Plan theory is (it's not derived from just the one quotation given) and why it's false (Kalergi's lack of connection to European migration policy). The slight amount of material is suitable as a section of the bio page on Kalergi but there is not enough for an article of its own. Otherwise it will continue having edit battles every time someone rediscovers what else Kalergi wrote.Sesquivalent (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Irene Hughes

I deleted the bulk of the content because it was totally unreferenced and attempted to add credibility to her alleged precognitive powers. The remaining content is solely obituary, which cannot be used to prove WP:NBIO. Not taking to AfD yet in absence of WP:BEFORE. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure deleting all that content was the right choice. You can add CN tags or find sources. Nothing about her bio seems to indicate WP:PROFRINGE to me, as she was clearly a novelty act "celebrity", and her notability is independent from whether or not her "abilities" were real, no different than Miss Cleo or whoever else. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I get that the kids like to legend trip, or whatever, but junk like this is pretty PROFRINGE:

“

Hughes, in the interview with Ebert, predicted that Lyndon B. Johnson would not seek re-election as President, and furthermore that "the Democrats will come right to the brink of nominating Robert F. Kennedy but then switch to someone else." This was said more than a year before LBJ announced on March 31, 1968 that he would not seek a second term. Bobby Kennedy, then the likely Democrats' nominee, would be assassinated on June 6, 1968.

”

Good to remove that.

jps (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, and I'm not sure what you meant by the "legend tripping" thing, but the editor was arguing that the bio itself does not meet notability, and is pro fringe. The fact that she claims she has magic powers is beyond the point. Her notability is based on her celebrity status. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Notability is often judged (incorrectly) by the substance in an article. Insinuating that a psychic correctly predicted the outcome of the 1968 Democratic US Presidential Primaries is a pretty remarkable claim that demands a source and not just a "CN" tag. There has been a long history of users arguing that claims to superpowers of this sort are enough to establish notability, too. WP has not established whether every guest of The Merv Griffin Show is notable enough for an article, for example. "Celebrity psychics" are important edge cases and it would be better if we didn't let the sensation of their claims or supposed "correct predictions" cloud our judgement in the determination. jps (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Specific psychic predictions are unencyclopedic enough to merit deletion instead of tagging. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Scott Minnich

Scott Minnich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just did a trimming of this page on WP:NOTCV and WP:UNDUE grounds (seriously, no one cares about signing "dissent from Darwinism" open letters, and they've been a joke for over a decade). I'm not convinced that the subject is wiki-notable. He wrote some papers, signed a thing, was part of a thing... There's just not a lot there. Previously discussed at FTN here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Does not appear to meet WP:N for academics. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Minnich. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Apostle_JP_M_Dinayen

User:Apostle_JP_M_Dinayen - First time I have seen anything like this. A user page that looks like an article. I have no idea where to go. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I've deleted it and left him a welcome message and an explanation based on Wikipedia:User pages. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

In case it can be useful for the future, with such self-promotion cases the WP:NOTWEBHOST CSD criteria fits (WP:U5), after evaluating notability and that the user meets "has made few or no edits outside of user pages". Or sometimes WP:G11 (for obvious spam), —Paleo Neonate – 21:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

BrandonTRA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is arguing that a book by conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier James Fetzer is a reliable source for claims related to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. It's already cited in the article for Fetzer's POV, but not in wikivoice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I see they have a 48 hour block for editwarring. Looking at the article, Headbomb's unreliable sources checker[7] which everyone should have brings up a book by Oakcliff Press - which has only published one book[8], two from Consortium News which has been discussed at RSN and is fringe/unreliable, this group[9], history.com, this YouTube video[10], this self-published book[11], and this. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added Consortium News to WP:RSP as generally unreliable linking all those RSN discussions, and removed content sourced to it or Robert Parry from the JFK conspiracies article. There's a lot of cleanup needed here, but particularly quite a few problematic WP:HOWEVER statements sourced to non-RSes. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding 24.234.77.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for reference, —Paleo Neonate – 14:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

IP edits need checking

38.126.71.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was banned for long-term insertion unsourced or material not in sources provided or undue conspiracy theories (eg Woodstock was plan by the government and AIDs doesn't exist). Several have been reverted but there a number of fringe edits by them that may need a check (the field is a bit out of personal wheelhouse) 2001:8003:38C0:900:9:D148:4A30:DF5B (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to admit: the conspiracy theory that the Woodstock Music Festival was a nefarious government plot is a new one for me. I guess that's some real throwback John Birch Society propaganda. Give me that old time religion! jps (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

While checking this user's contributions, I came across their additions to Hepatitis B (diff), and I found out that the included information is mostly identical to this article on "Opera news" (apparently an African portal). I'm assuming for now that the IP and the author of the article, "ProfFrancisT", are likely the same person. A couple of possible counterfactuals: the OperaNews article includes a couple of the previous paragraphs, but the majority of it is what 38... added to HepB. And the additions to the HepB article were in November 2020, while the article says it was posted "6 months ago", but that might be rounded down and those were simultaneous. I can't find the actual date of the article. Thoughts? VdSV9•♫ 17:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

John Ernst Worrell Keely, Godfrey Higgins etc.

Atlantisandlemuria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

May be worth watching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not worth watching. This user needs to be stopped from doing damage, because every edit they have made has been negative. I left a message on User_talk:Orangemike#Reference Removal. Someone with authority needs to take a step. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Superdeterminism proven?

Some sockpuppet accounts are pushing the idea that Superdeterminism has been proven. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Johnbannan/Archive and recent IP editing. Affected articles include Superdeterminism, Quantum entanglement, Copenhagen interpretation, Determinism, Predestination, and Free will. Those of you who embody the proper collection of quantum states will be compelled to watchlist these articles shortly. - MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)‎

Spoiled my fun, I really wished that Superdeterminism were proven. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I think you were joking, but in fact I would not expect a solution any time soon, in either direction. Of course things can change within the next decade, given the multiplicity of the issues involved, but logically speaking neither a proof nor a rejection is likely. A key confounding variable that affects the solution, but is not usually mentioned, is the budget at CERN. And as of now, that is far from being deterministic with all that is going on. Ode+Joy (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be the same self-published book previously promoted by Special:Contributions/Groguyoda —Paleo Neonate – 13:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Past life memory

Past life memory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New article with pretty much one author. Stubby, some dubious sources, probably redundant with something else too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I cama across this by chance, so I will just comment and move on. Given that I do not personally believe in reincarnation I was surprised to see that the University of Virginia School of Medicine has a group working on past memories and the page on Ian Stevenson is in effect a review of the field. Jim B. Tucker also has a detailed page, and the letters MD after his name. So:

The article is an absolute disaster, full of factual errors but has a few valid references.
The topic is notable, given the many references in the medical literature.
I am not sure if the issue is fringe, or a small group idea. This needs more research, but not for me to do.

I do not know the past memory field and will not be able to work on the article. My edits would be half baked, at best. As a final note I should say that Ian Stevenson was sloppy as they say in his article, given his attempt at a Popper type empirical falsification test. To test past memories, he left a combination lock at the department, and said he would try to give the combination to a department member after his death. This would of course not test "memory" but communication. So his work can not be taken seriously. The article will survive an Afd attempt, so someone with knowledge of the topic should try and fix it. Ode+Joy (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Just one aside: "Fringe" does not mean "small group". See WP:FRINGE. The operational part in departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field is "in its particular field". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

So I should have said "minority view" vs "majority view" to avoid the term mainstream, given its ambiguity. Now, let me ask, what happens when there is no majority view on a subject, and scientists oscillate between 40-60% and 60-40% from year to year? How is WP:Fringe interpreted in that case? A good example is, of course, the definition of mass in the E=MC2 equation. A readable explanation of the problem is in Physics Today Vol 42, No 6, by Lev Okun, of Hadron fame. But let me note that I do not agree with his selection of item 1 as a solution in that paper and I just mentioned that paper because it is readable. In this type of case is there any theory which is considered a fringe, given that there is no majority view? Thanks. Ode+Joy (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
You have to differentiate between the popualtion at large and the relevant scientific community. Climate change denial is a good example for a fringe theory: there are just a handful of climatologists who hold that view, and they have practically no effect on the published science because the facts are not on their side. But in the general population, ignorant as it is, deniers are definitely not a "small group".

Minority views (minority of scientists) are something completely different. Being in a minority does not make something fringe.

Past life memory being real is clearly fringe. Psychology can explain it without any fantasy elements, and it plays a role only in those journals which do not care about the quality of studies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What you did not want to say is that the user seems to be living in outer space. While that may be true or not, it should not affect notability, etc. I don't see the article on the institute as harmful and confusing, unlike the other one which needs more urgent attention. Ode+Joy (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Seyyed Hossein Nasr

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

Has a section "The theory of evolution" which is probably 100% bollocks. And lots of other stuff likely needs cutting down. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a pretty cringe-y job. It would be good to find some critical sources, but I think they may not actually exist because who cares what an Islamic Traditionalist thinks of scientific discoveries? jps (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I did some clean-up work, but it could do with some attempts to actually see which of Nasr's ideas have been noticed by, y'know, actual experts, and which are just promoted by his students and disciples. jps (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

There has been a little bit of pushback from the authors on the talkpage. Some misunderstanding about what the role of Wikipedia is, some confusion about what would constitute good sourcing. I think I'm okay for now, but getting some others to contribute to the discussion would be good. And if you are really up for it, the article is still very full of exposition that is heavily based on primary sources rather than sources which properly contextualize their importance. Reminds me a bit of how William Lane Craig used to read. jps (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Chiropractic

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

SPA wants to delete the risks of stroke and death because some chiropractic somehow managed to get a whitewashing study published. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Blue zones

Blue Zone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Came across this recent article on SBM, and then noticed we have a substantial article on this topic already (~700 views/day). Reading it, it seems a bit ... credulous. As Doc James noted[12] back in 2018: "The article basically takes the word of the people who own this trademark without critical analysis. This article needs independent sourcing". Alexbrn (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed it also. A good deal could be done by summarizing the "Characteristics" section, much of which is trying to summarize one particular pOV on many complicated issues of human health the basis of consumer publications. . DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I note that many of the sources fail WP:MEDRS, and the overall concept of "blue zones" seems to be based entirely on Dan Buettner's claims. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking closer, Buettner didn't invent the concept, but I was able to trim a large amount that was based on his book. –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Creationist cosmologies

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationist cosmologies (2nd nomination) and share your thoughts.

jps (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Sodom and Gomorrah

Sodom and Gomorrah (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

A new article in Scientific Reports suggests that city destruction was wrought by a meteorite.[13] This has found its way into this article as asserted fact. But is it fringe? Alexbrn (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

That Tall el-Hammam would be related to the legendary city is itself controversial. The story is also not generally viewed by scholars as historical, more as a moral lesson... —Paleo Neonate – 19:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
For those interested, a credible scientist (whose work the paper cites) made some initial notes on Twitter: [14]. I think it's reasonable to say he is unimpressed thus far. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 20:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a note for posterity/archives, when I removed the impact related info, the rationale is that this is about Tall el-Hammam, when the suggestion that it would correspond to Biblical Sodom is itself dubious. This suggested that Sodom and its story must suddenly have been actual and historical, through those far-fetched links... —Paleo Neonate – 03:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
This looks like a walled garden to me:

jps (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with Sci Rep when it comes to paleontology related topics, where it usually publishes reliable low-impact descriptive work. However, in other topics I find that Sci Rep has low standards and tends to publish low quality work, and the fact that a spectacular claim such as this hasn't been published in a more prestigious journal indicates to me that the evidence is not high quality. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Its biggest problem is that it tries to be all things to all disciplines and thus has an editorial board that numbers in the hundreds. If we wanted, we could probably track down which editor it was who passed this dreck by looking for associates of the articles I link above, but I'm kinda tired of playing these games, TBH. jps (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I think for something that amounts to personal speculation published in such a journal (which though they maintain scientific rigor tend to have have relaxed standards of what is noteworthy enough to publish), we should err on the side of caution and wait for it to be repeated in a secondary source before even considering whether it is noteworthy speculation. To quote WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Agricolae (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
In my field (condensed matter physics / nanophysics) Sci. Rep. is a low impact but generally reliable journal. They claim that validity of the publihed material is the only criterion (which does not seem to be the case though since they sometimes reject clearly valid articles). I do not publish there myself, but some of my colleagues do.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Apart from the creationists, the rest of the authors of the paper are associated with the Comet Research Group, an odd group with a history of pushing fringe views related to the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.[15] Before this they published another paper about another comet wiping out another prehistoric settlement. That was also in Scientific Reports... I wonder if they have a sympathetic ear or two on the editorial board. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh, gee. It's an unholy alliance that reminds me of how the creationists got really excited about Velikovsky back in the 1960s and 70s. Sigh. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism comes to mind. jps (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for bearing the bad news, but it looks like this is getting more mainstream pickup then I expected or than (in my opinion) it deserves: see this article at The Daily Beast [16]. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
It has at least been completely torn apart on Twitter already: the dubious background of the authors;[17][18][19] there are plenty of other explanations for "melted crap";[20][21][22][23] astronomically implausible;[24] incompetent excavation;[25] bad chronology;[26][27][28] bad osteoarchaeology.[29] Hopefully a published rebuttal will follow before too long... maybe even a retraction, if we're lucky. – Joe (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
This has been nominated for ITN: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Tall_el-Hammam_and_Jericho_destruction_by_an_impact_event. – Joe (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Rejected. See these also about earlier claims and Allen West.[30] and this about earlier claims.[31] Doug Weller talk 15:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
And the published rebuttals start, ironically, with other biblical literalists: [32]. – Joe (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Shanks and BAR

The deletion bombardment directed at Shanks and his works displays a lack of familiarity with him and them. BAR was (and I imagine is) a perfectly straightforward piece of popularization which at times attacked popular fringe ideas: in one notorious case, a Franklin-Mint-ish statuette of a very white Nefertiti set off a letter battle which culminated in an article discussing the matter pretty much along the same lines as this Wash. Post article on the matter. I agree that we don't need every one of these articles, but assuming that they are fringe is a major failure of WP:BEFORE. Mangoe (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean, the problem is the way they were being pushed at this website. Maybe there is a way to frame them such that we indicate that in the past the society, its publications, etc. functioned as a popularization rather than a fringe promotion, but the way these articles are sourced doesn't indicate to me much more than that they push certain fringe theories about biblical archaeology. If there are good sources (other than the NYTimes obit), I was unable to find them. The WaPo article is interesting, but it doesn't quite strike me as a justification for an article. But maybe there are third party sources out there which can provide proper contextualization. WP:FRIND is the name of the game I think. Anyway, if we do decide to merge into one or two articles with good sourcing, that would be a wonderful outcome of the AfD storm, IMHO. jps (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

BAS is an important outlet for popularizing archaeology. It has some religious conservative bias, though, despite the religious beliefs of its owner. It is not 100% fringe, it does feature many mainstream archaeologists and mainstream Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. What sources do we have that say this sort of thing which would be much more useful to describe in our article than what we currently (don't) tell readers. jps (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If we only go by https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/free-hebrew-bible-course-with-shaye-cohen/ it is not fringe. Cohen is a conservative believing Jew, but that has more to do with his private life than with what he teaches at Harvard (he teaches mainstream Bible scholarship). tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay. But is that discussed elsewhere? jps (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Break (Sodom and Gomorrah)

I'm wondering what the response would be like if the paper had not mentioned Sodom. I'm sure it wouldn't have been so hysterical, and poorly-qualified "experts" like Mark Boslough (cited here multiple times) would not have been able to use mockery in lieu of arguments. Or Michael Press, whose expertise is irrelevant to the subject. If there had been a city in the path of the Tunguska event, it would have been destroyed, so there is nothing intrinsically implausible about a comet zapping a city. The question is how well the evidence stacks up scientifically, nothing else. Some of the lead author's previous related papers were in prestigious journals like PNAS and The Journal of Geology, and they led to useful reactions. That's what is needed here, not blah-blah on twitter. Finally, Shanks is not an author; why does he keep getting brought up here? Zero^talk 10:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- If there had been a city in the path of the Tunguska event, it would have been destroyed, so there is nothing intrinsically implausible about a comet zapping a city. Except that the rarity of such events points to the likelihood of hitting the bullseye something of an ECREE situation. I find your attempt to pooh-pooh skeptics a bit remarkable (Mark Boslough is not "poorly-qualified"). Mockery is about what should be expected here because the evidence for a meteor strike is pretty poor and there is a long history of claiming meteor strikes where the evidence is scant. jps (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Finally, Shanks is not an author; why does he keep getting brought up here? Because he founded BAS which the co-director and lead author of the Sci Rep paper seem to have been able to manipulate into supporting these rather fantastical positions. It is unclear whether this group still wields influence at BAS or not, but they might. Sourcing is horrible for those related articles and it looks to me, at least, like there may be a concerted effort on Wikipedia to provide more coverage than reliable sources do for the associated group of (amateurish) Biblical archaeologists and catastrophists. Shanks seems to have been on the up-and-up for the most part with his popularizations of Biblical archaeology, but the group pushing this new claim (and others from the last few years) seems firmly WP:FRINGE as far as I can tell. Sourcing for articles other than Shanks is atrocious and connecting the dots is nigh on impossible for me, at least. jps (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The Tunguska event "flattened an estimated 80 million trees over an area of 2,150 km2 (830 sq mi) of forest", so no bullseye was required and none is proposed in the article anyway. I am very doubtful of the claim, but refutation does not consist of first impressions by tweeters who seem to mostly be qualified in the wrong subjects. I will withhold my judgement until more worthy responses are available; you can choose differently. Zero^talk 13:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The Earth is far bigger than two thousand square kilometers. That's the proper comparison (not to the area of the city). The tweeters are absolutely qualified in the right subjects. That's because they have experience debunking the comet research group (Boslough) and debunking the claims of charlatans in archaeology (Press). Your vain attempts to argue that their expertise isn't well-positioned looks to me like you haven't seen how a lot of this fringe stuff typically plays out. jps (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

By this reasoning, nobody wins the lottery because one person is far far smaller than the human population. Zero^talk 13:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but no. In order for this analogy to hold the entire surface of the earth would have to be covered by cities (or I suppose much of it, since sometimes no one wins a given lottery). If we're contemplating the odds of an ancient city being destroyed by a meteorite impact we'd be talking about vanishingly slim odds, as jps has pointed out. Generalrelative (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Probability theory of exceptional occurrences is one of my professional specialties. You show the problem with your argument by writing specific meteor, when that is not part of the claim. It could have been any old meteor. How many meteors strike the earth over a couple of thousand years; I don't know but you have to allow for all of them and not just one. If it could have been any old city as well, your argument would be in even more trouble. I think it is very suspicious that the city just happens to be the one that some people identify as Sodom and for that reason it may not be any-city any-meteor but rather this-city any-meteor that we have to consider. The difference is huge but needs some mind-reading to assess. Zero^talk 16:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Ha! You took out the word "specific" during an edit-conflict, good for you. Zero^talk 16:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I took the word "specific" out because I saw that it might be a source of quibbling, but either way the point stands. I'm not trying to cast aspersions on your professional competence here, but your By this reasoning, nobody wins the lottery argument is transparently specious. I imagine I was the only one to respond because others just threw up their hands. But in any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this line of debate further. If you don't see why it was specious at this point I'm probably not going to be able to convince you. Generalrelative (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering what the response would be like if the paper had not mentioned Sodom. Imagine what the response had been if it had been a completely different paper!

Such counterfactuals are not helpful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

But it does mention Sodom, most of the ridicule directly derived from the fact that it mentioned Sodom, and most of the embarrassing press nonsense we are going to be subject to in the near future will only exist because it mentions Sodom. As proof that I am on target, note that the previous similar claim about Abu Hureyra that makes no suggestion at all of a biblical connection received little or none of this type of reaction. Zero^talk 04:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Write stupid stuff and people say you wrote stupid stuff. Do not write stupid stuff and people do not say you wrote stupid stuff. What's your point? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Zero0000: the previous similar claim about Abu Hureyra that makes no suggestion at all of a biblical connection received little or none of this type of reaction Depends where you mean, really. Reactions in the media, twitter, etc., no, because unfortunately the Neolithic doesn't have the widespread same appeal as "bible times". But amongst people who actually study Neolithic Southwest Asia, I can assure you that it's been alternately a source of despair and the butt of jokes for years. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: On the balance of probabilities, the jokes were justified. And yet (sorry, can't resist) the idea that the dinosaurs were zapped by a meteor was also the butt of jokes for quite a few years until it gradually became a mainstream theory. My only real point here is that science progresses by scientific study and scientific debate. It doesn't progress by sideshows like mockery on twitter or fatuous arguments like "it cited a creationist so it must be entirely wrong". Zero^talk 11:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That's the Galileo gambit you are using here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

And it is also a fallacy that matching something to a named type makes it incorrect. Zero^talk 15:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

If it bothers you that fallacies have names, I can instead refute your reasoning by saying: You cannot find the correct answer to a question such as "does this creationist paper have a valid point?" by looking at very superficially similar questions like "did an asteroid (not a meteor, BTW) kill the dinosaurs?" (the main similarity being that they once were answered "no" by the establishment too), then transplanting the answer "yes" from that question to the first one. That is a pathetic technique only used by completely helpless people who have no idea how else to approach scientific problems.

Same answer as before, just more detailed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I made the mistake of swinging by just now and the bigger mistake of reading your offensive and stupid "reply". You put words into my mouth and then "refuted" them with insults. You don't have a fucking clue where I come from or what I believe. Zero^talk 11:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, the science is happening. But for our purposes—judging what should be included in an encyclopaedia written from a neutral point of view—I think the fact that the paper cites (and is written by) creationists, and that experts in the field have severely criticised it on Twitter, are both very useful pieces of information. – Joe (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not putting it in any articles and I haven't argued for that. The fact is that I have very low confidence in this paper and I came to that conclusion after reading it on the day it came out. I'll be delighted to see either a serious refutation or serious independent support, but I've seen neither. I just don't like seeing fallacious arguments being put forward as proof. For anything. Incidentally, has your claim "written by creationists" been established here? I tried to establish this about the lead author Ted Bunch who has come at this via the Younger Dryas stuff [33] (108 citations) but I didn't succeed. It is easy to prove that none of the authors of this paper (assuming they believe what is written in it) are "young-earth creationists" since it states as a fact that something happened 12,800 years ago, which young-earth creationists believe is older than the age of the earth. Anyone who believes in the Younger Dryas stuff, and many of these authors even published papers supporting it, is definitely not a young-earth creationist. That leaves "old-earth creationist" which mostly refers to not believing in stuff like evolution. It isn't a correct name for people who "just" believe that the bible is a history book. But I can't prove that Ted Bunch is one of them either, can you? Zero^talk 15:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not talking about Ted Bunch... the last author, Silvia is a student of Steven Collins (archaeologist) and works for Veritas International University. I don't know or care what exact subspecies of inerrancy the Tall el-Hammam Project subscribes to. Wikipedia isn't the place to look for "serious refutation", but if you care to look at the tweet threads I've linked above, there are plenty of subject-matter experts pointing out substantial flaws in the evidence and reasoning. But if you also don't believe their claims, and don't think we should put in an article, what exactly is your problem with us talking about the background of the authors? We do that all the time when assessing the reliability of a source. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

By this reasoning, nobody wins the lottery because one person is far far smaller than the human population. Not at all. Someone might win the lottery, but identifying some specific person as a lottery winner without doing a systematic search of all lottery players is far more likely to result in a false positive than a correct attribution. That's just the way Bayes' Theorem works. jps (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Just thought I should point out that Elizabeth Bik has now involved herself, in this tweet and at the linked page: [34]. Not suggesting these are good bases for an article, but interesting information for those of us following along. Cheers, all, and happy Friday-eve. Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- West has now admitted to doctoring the photographs: [35]. jps (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

AfD: Abadir dynasty

There is a discussion about deleting the article Abadir dynasty that may benefit from the attention of editors at this noticeboard. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Alfredo Bowman

I just reverted some bad edits on this page. User was inserting a racial debate onto the article and claiming "Bowman's theory on genetics was in direct conflict with the pseudoscience on race that scientists and universities had utilized for hundreds of years to preserve and ingrain the concept of white superiority, so it must be noted that McGill University itself has a deep history of participation in race pseudoscience". [36]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

They are 'bad edits', certainly, but I can't see how they constitute a 'fringe theory' of any consequence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

If good sources report controversy about the McGill University, it would belong in its own article and is irrelevant here and inappropriate to attempt to pointy-WP:GEVAL in this context, of course. And if reliable sources also put Bowman's claims in context in relation to countering the prevalent white racialism, it's acceptable to mention it... Thanks for patrolling, —Paleo Neonate – 22:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Mathias Bröckers

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

Has been expanded recently. I just changed the order yet - did not have time for more then - but NPOV and FRINGE problems are likely. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Breast tax

This is surely one of the longest surviving WP:HOAX on Wikipedia because it tries to show a imaginary subject as historical. The article depends on mainly new and partisan sources who are mixing up with a local village legend called Nangeli.

A BBC article about Nangeli was published in 2016, and the article about "Breast Tax" was created in 2018, while Nangeli was created in 2017. This is clearly in line with the fact that these subjects were not known before BBC published article about local village legend Nangeli in 2016. Historians agree that a "breast tax" did not exist.[37][38][39]

The article even survived AfD but the participants at DRV guided editors to avoid WP:AFD and instead look for merging or redirect via discussion.

Numerous discussions have happened since, such as Talk:Breast tax#Redirect, Talk:Breast tax#Dubious journals, Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?, and others where it was made certain that the subject is a WP:HOAX after carefully analyzing the sources provided.

A couple of users (Paraoh of Wizards, 103.13.229.228) however believe otherwise.

The page is currently fully protected, but input is very much welcome at Talk:Breast tax#Redirect. Azuredivay (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a fringe at all. The consensus seems to be that this tax actually did exist. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Tulpa

Hi! Could you take a look at [40], please? I am not an active editor of the enwiki and have no idea of whether it satifies its rules, but it certainly looks fringe. Wikisaurus (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Homicidal sleepwalking

The article has been tagged since 2015 due to overreliance on anecdotes from sometimes questionable sources; a large section from The Book of Lists was removed in September 2020 for this reason. Should any other content be removed or cleaned up, considering that most of the anecdotes are based solely on news articles? In addition, some of the other sources are clearly non-WP:MEDRS.

My motive for reporting this at FTN is that it is described (without proper citation) as an extremely rare event that is going to attract incredible anecdotes. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

As a totally irrelevant aside, thank you for providing the name for my next hardcore band. Generalrelative (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This article lacks an overview sourced to expert literature and instead by listing various incidents reads more like a chapter in a book about strange and unusual things. In the discussion page, an editor refers to a BBC article that quotes an expert on the phenomenon. However much more is needed to establish notability of the topic. TFD (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a notable topic - the lead is atrociously written, but what the article body is actually describing is sleepwalking in a legal context. While it's not super rigorously studied, it's also not fringe because everyone agrees that assaults while asleep do genuinely occur[41]. They're just... uncommon and ethically complicated.[42] That being said, this topic would best be discussed within the context of the sleepwalking article rather than as a separate article. And it already is covered there, with less resulting undue implication that sleepwalking is dangerous, because the entire rest of the article says "it's basically fine". --Xurizuri (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Polynesian expedition to Antarctica

Antarctica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ui-te-Rangiora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hires an editor Is edit warring on the Antarctica article to imply that Antarctica was known prior to its discovery by Europeans, complaining that the article is written from a "Western European perspective". diff. As far as I can gather, this is apparently referring to Maori oral tradition surrounding the legendary figure Ui-te-Rangiora that some have interpreted as evidence of an expedition to Antarctica during the 7th century. These claims made a brief splash in the news in June, which was based off a paper entitled A short scan of Māori journeys to Antarctica in the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. The paper has received a response in the same journal entitled On the improbability of pre-European Polynesian voyages to Antarctica: a response to Priscilla Wehi and colleagues. As far as I can tell, there is no scholarly consensus that these claims are likely. My question is, do these claims merit inclusion/how much weight should they be given in the discovery section of the Antarctica article? In my own opinion, the current wording repeats these claims as if they were fact, and should at least be modified, if included at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

A perfect example of how well-intentioned but simplistic pushes to "center indigenous knowledge" above all else can harm scientific accuracy. I don't think these claims should appear in the Antarctica article at all. It is just another novel claim that has been rebutted and certainly does not have widespread acceptance among experts. There are tons of these in every field. They are almost always WP:UNDUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

* I made no such implication. My only issue is the idea of "discovered" is Western-centric, as if no other people could have "discovered" anything on their own.

Besides, the entire paragraph is from a Western European perspective, rather than a NPOV. So in my opinion, it bears mention that the perspective being used is Western European. So we might say something like "Western Europeans are the first people documented to have sighted/landed on/(whatever)..." and avoid the word "discovered".

* Separately, I had no knowledge of the fringe theory mentioned above. I agree that without proper evidence, the fringe theories mentioned don't belong.

* Lastly, I did say we should discuss it. Hires an editor (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why "discovered" is Western-centric in the case of Antarctica. It makes sense to question the "discovery" language for the Americas, as people were already living there, but Antartica was uninhabited. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I am actually fine with Hires' edit to Antarctica; it's a more epistemologically conservative statement. To be clear, I don't believe Ui-te-Rangiora reached Antarctica, and I can't point to anyone else who did. But one statement restricts itself to a field of knowledge while the other apparently takes in the entire sweep of human experience. There certainly can be times when overly specific language gives credence to fringe theories, but this doesn't strike me as one. As ever, perfectly fine if consensus is against me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I read it as implying that there were non-Europeans who had discovered it or even living there - much like the Americas or Australia, which are sometimes erroneously called "discovered" when speaking about Europeans. However, there is zero evidence for humans ever reaching Antarctica before recorded history. From what I could see in the abstract of the rebuttal paper cited above, there are good reasons to very skeptical that any humans could have reached Antarctica before modern times. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, that is a possible reading, but for me it's simple epistemic humility. I don't think it at all likely that people reached Antarctica before the modern age, but that's an inferential leap I am making. With regard to western science, that's something closer to an observable fact. Again, if the general thought is that it's too close to implying someone made it there before, so be it. But as I say, I believe there is also value in precise language. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes the "Western-centric view" accusation is a straw man: it's simply that we know that it was visited in reliable enough recorded history, which must be distinguished from legends that are reinterpreted or altered to suggest that it has also been visited before (a claim lacking reliable evidence). As always, it could be mentioned and be presented as speculative opinion, if enough critical sources mention it, indicating it's a notable claim. Unless there is reliable evidence, it remains a fringe claim. —Paleo Neonate – 01:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

While there is essentially no evidence that anyone knew about Antarctica prior to the so-called "Age of Exploration", there is definitely a bias that needs correcting with a certain undue and trivial emphasis on the provenance of discovery. I am certain there are historiographical sources which deal with this and probably provide ways forward for this and other similar framings. I think it would be good if WP:Wikiproject Countering Systematic Bias tried to reposition some of the text at Wikipedia that gets overly into the Great Man Theory trope -- in a fashion that was coherent and, dare I say, systematic. jps (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This appears to me to be the appropriate takeaway here. Generalrelative (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"Unknown to European science" absolutely carries the implication that it was not unknown to all peoples. The specificity implies exceptions. Like describing a no-parking zone as "No parking on Tuesdays", or describing George Washington as "The first straight, white president of the united states." ApLundell (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It also carries the weird (and incorrect) assumption that there is some way to identify science as being specifically "European". Or that "science" is the proper field of study when we're talking about people learning about geographical locations. jps (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

So let's go about fixing this issue. I propose that the entire paragraph be reframed as "The first documented explorations of Antarctica were by Europeans ...", which avoids all kinds problems, and is much more of a NPOV. Hires an editor (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support this proposal and would be happy to help. Generalrelative (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this is an elegant solution. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I oppose this. It has the same problem as before - it implies that there could have been pre-European, undocumented explorations of Antarctica. As this above-cited paper notes, Polynesian voyaging through the circumpolar westerlies would have little chance of success and archaeological evidence of Polynesian voyaging does not extend south of about 50° South. It isn't physically plausible for even the expert seafarer Polynesians to have gone there. I get not wanting to be Eurocentric, but WP:FALSEBALANCE does apply. We wouldn't rewrite Apollo 11 to say Armstrong was the "first documented" person on the Moon because, oh, some lost civilization 100,000 years ago, or aliens from another star system billions of years ago, maybe could have landed there. And of course, the implausibility of both scenarios is part of the point. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: With respect, this bit of the thread is on another topic. You're certainly free to object to a paragraph beginning "The first documented explorations of Antarctica were by Europeans ..." but that is very different from what you seem to be arguing here. Generalrelative (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No, that's exactly what I was objecting to. I don't know how it could seem otherwise. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hm, okay. Apologies for misreading what you'd said. Generalrelative (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This tweet contains a full link to the paper, it's only 4 and a half pages long, so not too much of a time investment. From the paper, it's not even clear if an Antarctic voyage is a reasonable interpretation of the original legend. The Ui-te-Rangiora article is in need of some serious reworking. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

We can have our cake and eat it too. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "the first documented explorations of Antarctica were in the nineteenth century, and there is no evidence that any humans had contact with the continent prior to this...." I don't think identifying the provenance of the humans who were on those first ships is necessary. The article states which countries they hail from which is good enough for a reader. jps (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Vision therapy

Vision therapy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Following some outrage on FaceBook among behavioral optometrists about Wikipedia's coverage of this topic, there has been an influx of new editors and an uptick in article interest. Could use more eyes from editors experienced with WP:FRINGE topics. Alexbrn (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is seconded. I’m one of the new editors that wants to make sure that all Wiki rules and criteria are met. I believe the article can much more neutrally describe where vision therapy is supported, questioned, and ophthalmology’s position on it. I’m struggling with some of the circular reasoning that comes with having had a fringe label applied to optometry. I respect Wiki fringe policies because there is no shortage of quackery out there (including some claims about Vision Therapy). I do not believe ‘turf war’ arguments trump logic or science.

We could really use the expertise of someone with a serious background in evaluating both studies and reviews of studies. Especially related to poor design (in support of quackery) and misrepresentation of papers, or selection bias in a review.

I’m hoping there is a lot I can learn here and I can be of more value to Wiki for other topics in the future, especially areas of healthcare outside my own expertise.

Snapdginger (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Arb request filed

People here may be interested in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Fringe science and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University

Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should the article say you can learn only bollocks there? Someone deleted this part: Ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific because it confuses reality and metaphysical concepts, and because its premises are not based on science. Ethnologist Johannes Quack writes than although the rationalist movement Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti officially labels Ayurveda – like astrology – a pseudoscience, these practices are in fact embraced by many of the movement's members.

The user is right that the quote is not talking about the institution... and the rationalist movement's members embracing Ayurveda sounds fishy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, that one clause about reality and metaphysics is premised on a false dichotomy. The concept "reality" is by definition metaphysical. This could be easily fixed however by cutting that clause and skipping to the next "because". Generalrelative (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Relies on flawed metaphysics would be more accurate, —Paleo Neonate – 13:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps accurate, sure. But far from verifiable. And also perhaps trivially true since I'm unaware of any flawless metaphysical systems. Generalrelative (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Not that it's all flawless, but It would be false equivalence to compare this to methodological naturalism and the scientific method, that constantly attempt to assess reality as best it can and work with what exists and is practical, obviously... —Paleo Neonate – 00:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Methodological naturalism and the scientific method are certainly more powerful than whatever epistemological commitments underpin Ayurvedic "medicine", but they are not, strictly speaking, metaphysics. Indeed, that's the whole point of designating a methodological naturalism. In any case, though, I believe we agree in principle. As an aside, I imagine that some here will be aware of the literature on this topic already, but if not, the collection Many Worlds?: Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality is a fantastic inquiry into the effort to salvage realism, and what other metaphysical commitments we might need to abandon in order to do so. Generalrelative (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

If Ayurvedic medicine is invoked, it is necessary somehow to make sure it's clearly identified as pseudoscience, per WP:PSCI. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I suggest restoring the first sentence quoted above, minus the nonsensical clause about reality versus metaphysics. The second sentence can be considered separately. Generalrelative (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Update: I went ahead and did this, adding citations from the main article Ayurveda. Generalrelative (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I’ve added one for homeopathy as well. Anyone got one for Unani? Brunton (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I am a scientist myself and I clearly don't accept this as medicine, but the article is not about Ayurveda, it is about a university. There is no rule that says that every time someone says "Ayurveda", you need to shout "pseudoscience" and slap four sources on it, which absurdly, more than doubled the size of the article (as of this edit, the entire article is 5,594 bytes, 2,803 of which are this unrelated commentary). Besides, you are ignoring the cultural context. This is not some fringe institute, it is a state university established by an act of parliament. The sentence added gives undue weight to some unrelated sources without balancing them with the fact that these practices are respectable in this culture. Having said that, I really don't care about this article or about Ayurveda at all. If it gives you joy to yell "pseudoscience", go ahead and add it to every article about Ayurveda institutes in India, there are many more. --Muhandes (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a fringe institution and generally not "respectable" even within the cultural context, while there is a non insignificant number of people who believe in the effectiveness of "alternative medicine", the vast majority does not. It's also well within policy and would be irresponsible to our readers to not specify that a medical institution which claims to impart education on a reliable medical practice, does not in fact do so. Not to mention, we define fringe science on the basis of scientific consensus rather than the degree of acceptance (or not) by the general population. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Saturated fat

The same sort of nonsense on the talk-page of the saturated fat article again from the usual suspects that were pasting in similar low-carb stuff 4-5 months ago. This time claiming a single low-carbohydrate diet feeding trial is a high-quality study that should be put onto the article [43] Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Stephen F. Hayes – Saddam Hussein-Al Qaeda relationship

There is a dispute over the wording of the lead in the Stephen F. Hayes article. Hayes is known as a chief proponent for the false claim that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had an operational relationship. Hayes claimed in 2003, "there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans." Should we describe Hayes's claims as being "false"[44] or should we say that the claims were "later determined to be false"[45]? The latter language suggests that Hayes's claims were valid at the time, but only later discovered to be false. I find that language to be deceptive, as Hayes's claims were baseless at the time that he made them. Furthermore, Hayes was actively working with Bush administration officials in selling the Iraq War, which makes his claims on the subject even more reckless. His claim, "there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans", was false when it was made in 2003 and it was false after 2003. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I would certainly argue for "false" and not "later determined." I don't think any serious thinkers in 2003 believed there could be no serious argument about the proposition. A more temperate assertion (something like "evidence leads me to conclude they worked together") could accurately be said to be "later determined." This maximalist formulation. however, strikes me as false ab initio. Just one old guy's opinion. Cheers and happy Monday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The article originally stated, in the intro paragraph, that Hayes was "and an influential figure in promoting the false claim that the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda had an operational relationship." My view, which sparked the disagreement, is that this gives the impression of a deliberate lie. "False claim" may be literally ambiguous about motive, but its implication, I would say, is definitely one of knowingly lying. I argue that in 2003, the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda was still an open question in the US, and the book was only definitively closed on it -- as Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations recounts -- in 2007-2008. My larger point is that since this is a WP:BLP, we should take care to ensure that our language is as NPOV as possible. I'm not married to "later determined," but the old wording of "promoting the false claim," to me, sounds like it's making an implication about motive and knowledge that we simply can't be making. Korossyl (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand and respect your position; for me the quote is so bombastic that it is close enough to a lie to call it such. I would argue the same about someone who had said "no one actually believes that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda." In 2003, there was a great deal of debate and it certainly seems in retrospect that the matter was unsettled. When you go to the outer edges of the claim like this, I think it is appropriate to label it out-and-out false, no matter from which ideological direction it comes. I hope that makes sense, and though I have my position, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Dowsing

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

Should explosive detectors be mentioned in that article because someone called them "nothing more than dowsing rods"? They seem to be based on the ideomotor effect, with the swiveling antenna and so on, but it could be WP:COATRACK to mention them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Page 51 of the PDF of source 45 specifically mentions "advanced" dowsing gizmos with supposed discrimination ability and some makers of these who were selling them to law enforcement for contraband detection. Considering this, it seems relevant. MarshallKe (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Though, I didn't check the sources for the list of four devices MarshallKe (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this what they are talking about [[46]] [[47]], if so, yes it is dowsing?Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Dowsing#Police and military devices mentions ADE 651, Sniffex, and GT200. Quadro Tracker is another one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Damn, the military bought eight of them for $50,000 each? Need to change my career to scamming the government ^{[just kidding]} MarshallKe (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh cops and militaries love to buy these bad boys. The quadro tracker is particularly excellent, because cops didn't stop buying them even after people started opening them up and showing that they were literally empty (or, in a couple of instances, had dead flies seemingly intentionally placed in them). And yeah, big time dowsing rod. --Xurizuri (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

A mention of fraudulent devices seems warranted, but obviously not a claim that actual detection devices are dowsing... —Paleo Neonate – 22:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Binary silicon-hydrogen compounds

Binary silicon-hydrogen compounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

de:Peter Plichta is supposed to have proved something, but without a source, a text introduced here. For context: Plichta has written a book "Benzin aus Sand" ("Gas/Petrol from Sand") propagating silans as energy storage, although he makes it sound like an energy source. (He has also revolutionized number theory and quantum mechanics with his self-published ideas about prime numbers, without the communities of mathematicians or physicists noticing it.) My chemistry knowledge is not good enough to judge the silan stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The only source given was to a Wikipedia mirror, so I undid it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Gerard Rennick

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

Australian climate change denier. The "Climate" section is pretty weird, starting with attributing the (obviously true, from what he said) "denier" category to political opponents. The crazy accusations he leveled at climate scientists are repetitive and not well written. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Roy Spencer (scientist)

Roy Spencer (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another one. Lengthy quotes outlining his opinion about stuff he does not understand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't work on that article now, but you probably rightfully removed the primary-sourced: "And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism." This reminds me of the columns in The Watchtower. Yet noone would plausibly, suddenly decide that "evolutionism" is "religious", if they understood that aspect of biology at all; there's always stuff like the Great chain of being but that itself contrasts with the actual scientific theory... Somehow, they never grasped the science but accepted it as faith? —Paleo Neonate – 11:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Did not realize he was a creationist too! Fascinating. jps (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Fringe, Anti-fringe, and Turning Wikipedia's Values Upside-down

Most here have probably seen DGG's ARCA request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Amendment request: Fringe science which is still open but you may not have seen this. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

In the arbitration case, we have three separate questions:

Is a certain viewpoint actually being taken seriously by experts, by those who know what they are talking about?
Is that viewpoint being propagated by popular media and portrayed as actually being taken seriously by experts?
Did Wikipedia users, by consuming those popular media, arrive at the belief that the viewpoint is actually being taken seriously by experts?

I get the impression that regarding the race-intelligence question, as well as regarding COVID outsider ideas, the answers are no, yes, yes. The #3 yes" leads to sentences like this:

The problem is adequately discussed in the case statements, and epitomized by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, but I can summarize them as Consensus has changed and what was originally a far fringe theory from sources associated with conspiracy theories, became one seriously considered by both the medical establishment, and the most reliable possible news sources (WSJ, NYT--in a series of major articles).

Lacking direct access to the scientific consensus, users apply instead the trickled-down out-of-context information framed by those media they happen to read. It's the availability bias in action. And they think this is somehow better than the real, original sources, because, heck, the result agrees with their own impression. This is a concrete attempt at making Wikipedia more fringe-friendly.

The village pump thread looks much more vague, like "there are anti-fringe users, I won't say who exactly, who do bad things, I won't say what exactly. I disagree with them. Who is with me?" The bad things consist of one hypothetical example which, if addressed by pointing at policies, would be resolved quickly in a satisfying manner - the hypothetical anti-fringe users would lose. It sounds as if that solution would not work in the actual cases that inspired the thread (because they are different; the hypothetical example is an exaggerated one), which is why the actual cases are kept under the hat. Since those bad things the anti-fringe users are doing are not against policy, a mob of "pro-fringe" and "meh-everything but strongly anti-anti-anything" users is gathered first. But they will not be able to do anything because all they have is hot air. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This reminds me of another different discussion currently going on, but going nowhere. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 13:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It's usual in this cases that an editor with a certain axe to grind dresses it up as some kind of righteous general policy stand. If there are editors mis-applying fringe, this is the noticeboard for discussing the content in question (it happens quite a lot). Persistent offenders get sanctioned. There's no big mystery to it. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you have an example of someone mis-applying fringe, coming here, and being told so? I would interested in seeing that. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes.[48] Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about anti-fringey editors misapplying fringe. This seems more like the usual pro-fringey ones misapplying it. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you imagine to be "anti-fringey editors" or "the usual pro-fringey ones"; WP:FRINGE is a guideline for everybody. Sometimes, though, editors think something WP:FRINGE when it ain't (or vice verse). Even I've done that. Occasionally this noticeboard gets misused by editors who think they can easily bring down the Wrath of Fringe on something they don't like just by bringing it here. It doesn't work like that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

For everybody, exactly, in theory there are no "anti-fringe editors", we instead have a non-pro-fringe encyclopedia, —Paleo Neonate – 20:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skeptic: Another example: A few months ago I brought concerns about the article Psychedelic therapy here to FTN ([49]). In a brief discussion other editors convinced me that it wasn't a fringe issue, and I shouldn't have brought it here. So the discussion moved to a more appropriate venue. NightHeron (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I never understood that "shouldn't have brought it here" reasoning. Since it made you wonder if those articles are WP:PROFRINGE, yes, you were right in bringing it here and learning that it was not fringe. If someone wonders if something is fringe, this is the place to find out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, it happened to me as well, in an area I lacked experience with, that used outdated but historically-relevant terminology I also wasn't familiar with. —Paleo Neonate – 06:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 81#Transubstantiation - does sacramental bread transform into the body of Christ? is another example I remember of. —Paleo Neonate – 20:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Which, incidentally, was initiated by the OP of the Village Pump thread. If I didn't know better I might suspect some kind of WP:POINTy game playing. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, —Paleo Neonate – 16:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_77#Putin's Palace or Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_78#Are all Jews to be called "Middle Eastern" ? or Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Sex Redefined (note added in post: I see Alexbrn mentioned this last one above already)? jps (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Health Freedom Idaho

Health Freedom Idaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned about this new page which seems to give free advertising to an Idaho anti-vax group under the guise of alternative medicine. The page is only mildly promotional in tone but seems to have been written by connected individuals. It's possible there's sufficient local coverage to indicate meeting GNG, but I'm concerned Wikipedia's voice is being used to legitimize an organization dedicated to misinformation about vaccinations of all types. BusterD (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

BusterD, the earliest history of the article as written by its creator states in Wikipedia's voice that at least one of their claims is "false", so I am unsure where the free advertising claim comes from. Someone writing advertising for Coca-Cola or Facebook would be fired immediately if they called those company's assertions "false" in an advertisement. Would "connected individuals" call the group's claims false? Please explain how the article legitimizes this group. I am just not seeing that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328—presumably BusterD is referring to the 03:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC) version of the article, edited by HFITruthBeTold. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes... there was a concerted attempt by a SPA to make the article promotional. I took care of that and had a temp lock added to the page. RobP (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I noticed the article when watching RfPP and after edits by User:HFITruthBeTold I saw the page protected by an admin. I failed to investigate the page history more thoroughly before I posted here. The page appears to be a good faith effort to accurately portray the group and User:Cullen328 is quite correct the earliest versions are relatively neutral; the current version also seems fine. Sorry for not providing better documentation when I OPed, and thanks to all those who have responded here. BusterD (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The WP:WEASEL is strong with this one. Nine times "some". The medical types can handle this better than I would. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hard to know how much their COVID model was WP:FRINGE vs "just wrong" - but the prediction of zero COVID deaths by July 2020 certainly raised eyebrows at the time.[50] From the present article, you wouldn't get much of an inkling there had been this controversy. Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Some new leak-oriented pages to watchlist

Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For archives and as an invitation for editors to patrol or merge as needed (some redirects were also created for these pages), it seems that the intention was to create a WP:POVFORK of the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article, rather than needing to expand its own section because it's too long (WP:SPINOFF). One of the stated goals being to promote standard arguments like presenting a false balance between Adhanom's opinions and the WHO's official report (or as I observed at the other article, between Alina Chan and the WHO), etc. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 08:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

POVFORKS upon POVFORKS then! Alexbrn (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion at The Bell Curve

Your participation is welcome in the discussion at Talk:The Bell Curve#Merger proposal concerning merging the article Cognitive elite into The Bell Curve. NightHeron (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Steven E. Koonin‎

Steven E. Koonin‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent IP tries to turn the evidence for man-made climate change on its head quoting Wall Street Journal. I reverted twice, but that probably won't be the end of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Somatology

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

In case someone would like to work on this obscure article. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 23:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Some other related:

—Paleo Neonate – 07:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

So it's an archaic term that would now be called Physical Anthropology? Could it just redirect to Biological Anthropology? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skeptic:

Done. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Wang Sichao

Whaddya think about that last section?

jps (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it was sourced by the CCP's media outlet and poorly written. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how to handle this. Is someone else up for the task? jps (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, so...The People's Daily is a suspect source for pretty much anything, the subject's UFO claims have not received any attention in actual, reliable, secondary sources, and I'm far from certain the subject is sufficiently notable to merit their own article. At a minimum, WP:UNDUE applies, so I will try to edit the section accordingly. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Notability is also a concern of mine that I expressed at its talk page. —Paleo Neonate – 23:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

AfD started here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is now uncritically declaring that most of the world agrees 5% of UFOs are not "human-originated" (But since there are four types of UFO ids: natural phenomena, human technology, delusions, and hoaxes... I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean). jps (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jps: Yup, that source is WP:PROFRINGE beyond a doubt. Removing statement. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Havana syndrome

Havana syndrome (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Just stumbled across this after noticing an RfC. Definitely in the WP:FRINGE space and based largely on non-WP:MEDRS sources for biomedical claims. Could uses eyes from fringe-savvy editors. (Also note drama at ANI) Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The ANI drama you started. Geogene (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It is the correct venue for what's been raised. See WP:ANI#Havana syndrome and guerilla skeptics. Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

And I thought you were just complaining about the ultimatum you left on my talk page being ignored. Geogene (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Related. A newbie tagging Susan Gerbic. Sheesh. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 08:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm quite enjoying the conversations. It's not my first rodeo. Sgerbic (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Tricky, clearly a notable topic based on news coverage, but no really good sources that can adequately evaluate the medical aspects. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

There does seem to be a report from the CDC which sums it up (with a kind of shrug). I suspect most of the primary sources/buzzfeed etc can be swept away leaving that. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As long as the mass psychogenic illness discussion is in the lede we are on the right track. As the experts start publishing and their voices get louder then it will become clear that the brief mention in the lede of PI will need to grow. This is how it is done on Wikipedia. If it goes the other way and countries start zapping people's brains like in Mars Attacks! then we can include that in the lede, that is IF Wikipedia and the Internet still exist. The Wikipedia page needs to reflect the growing consensus of experts, and not holding onto outdated theories just because that was current back in 2017. Sgerbic (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's been months, but from what I remember the independent sources that reported that some considered the microwave brain injury plausible were also full of caveats (I commented before on the talk page about the misrepresentation of a specific one)... —Paleo Neonate – 19:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 2#December 2020 for more information. If that is true, that the "attack" terminology was no longer used, the new article should likely also reflect this... Moreover, it's understood today that traumatizing anxiety can lead to observable neurological damage, as can be seen with MCS or PTSD (unsure if some sources do mention this IRT this topic). And it's not even conclusive that there was any damage in this case... —Paleo Neonate – 00:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a VERY interesting case to me. It's an odd case of what should be fringe masquerading as mainstream, and those that believe the mass psychogenic illness hypothesis of the psychology experts (and other mass psychogenic illness experts) are called fringe. As been said in various Talk venues regarding this topic: Skeptics are "part of a skeptic religion" and should just "shut up about medical matters" and "stick to debunking UFOs and Bigfoot." In truth, the only things pointing to the "attacks" causing the reported symptoms as being real are (poorly done) studies starting with the Trump administration, with the goal of finding things that could be attributed to enemy attacks and backing-up the administrations early position, taken before any evidence was in. When you look for things to prove what you're looking for, instead of investigating IF the hypothesis is true at all, you find "evidence" you want. This is why homeopathic doctors and Reiki masters think what they do is real. And admitting you were wrong is near impossible for people, organizations, and esp. governments. So the attack claims have spread in the years I've been following this (When the page was named Sonic attacks in Cuba) from just being in Cuba to happening pretty much everyplace, including folks walking their dog on the mall in DC, and even to embassies and hotels in US allied countries. (Yet oddly sparing nearby people of any issues - people who were not pre-warned about getting attacked don't seem to get symptoms of the attacks. These must be amazingly focused energy weapons.) All this has the signs of BS spreading as BS does. And the gov't and media are (mainly) still assuming its all true, with the US gov't even passing a bill to pay for medical treatments. For the media, it's a more interesting (click-baity) story if they keep reporting we are under attack everywhere than reporting that nothing nefarious is going on anywhere. And experts on the skeptical side, pointing out all the flaws and red flags in the mainstream story, barely get heard. Because they are not medical experts. Of course the issue there is pre-assuming whatever medical problems are found are due to attacks. And then, because the skeptical view is underrepresented in the media, and seen as fringe even when it is mentioned, the WP article reflects this situation. A damned shame I say. Seems to be slowly changing, but not fast enough for me. This has been a travesty of the truth, and luckily a war hasn't started (yet) over the unsubstantiated claims of these unproven "attacks". RobP (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the kind of ranty editor opinion/POV crap that that talk page has been filling up with for years instead of just following what reliable sources say about it. Geogene (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes it was ranty... Here I can rant...As for articles, yes, WP:reliable sources rule apply. The problem is that in the RS sphere things are often gray and some editors (you know who you are) are leaning way too far in one direction IMHO trusting only JAMA conclusions (and the like), downplaying other commentary and subject matter expert opinion when they don't agree with JAMA. RobP (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The trouble with the article is the crap sourcing. The JAMA source is unreliable; Buzfeed and podcasts are unreliable. One decent source (CDC report) seems to be saying, in effect, we don't know that anything caused anything, and if it did, we don't know what it is. That seems to be pretty much the state of "accepted knowledge" on this topic and what Wikipedia should be reflecting, so far as the science goes right now. Of course there's a shedload of politics on top of that which should also be covered. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

So it is my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong. A podcast can't be used if it is two (or one) podcaster(s) talking about a subject if they are just non-notable podcasters. But if it is an interview with a notable expert on a subject discussing their expertise on the subject then that is fine. If it is two notable experts discussing the subject then it is even more relevant. The recording over a podcast or video isn't relevant, it's just the vehicle in which the content is being listened to. What we are trying to avoid are non-notable people talking about a subject they are not known experts on. Sgerbic (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It depends, expert sources can be useful even if self-published - especially in WP:FRINGE areas where decent sourcing is otherwise thin. But putting such sources up against the CDC is a no-no. If we did that, imagine where we'd be with COVID-19, where a number of highly-credentialed, respected, and eminent scientists took to social media to show they were in fact blowhards who would say anything for attention. Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I personally have concerns about this trend of quoting experts in our articles. If a field has enough experts, some are likely to have minority or fringe beliefs, and can be cherry picked. And I find it harder to evaluate an expert's credentials than I do to just apply WP:RSPSOURCES or WP:MEDRS. Experts speaking directly also shortcut other processes, such as academic paper peer review, or a newspaper or book's editorial process. At its core, it really feels like WP:SELFPUBLISH to me, and a way for POV to creep into the encyclopedia. Plus don't get me started on quotations, which have their own problems. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and for biomedical content we should stick to WP:MEDRS. That Havana syndrome article is full of content in that realm which is not WP:MEDRS sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

According to Susan Gerbic "I love quotes in Wikipedia, seeing their own words written out as they were said makes the page more interesting to read and engaging". Gerbic later stated that she knows that the subject of quoting in Wikipedia articles is off topic for this specific discussion, so please go easy on her, she just woke up. Sgerbic (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks no doubt to nefarious Google tracking cookie monsters, I was spoonfed this old-news NYTimes op-piece with my morning coffee. Thanks for nothing, sheeple. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/havana-syndrome-disorder.html jps (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Although an op-ed, thanks, this includes links to other sources. —Paleo Neonate – 00:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Realm of Sweden

Is this a thing? Not reading Swedish I can't tell whether hits like this are using the term "Svenska väldet" in a technical sense or as a generic term for territories controlled by Swedish kings. This has been entirely unsourced since it was created in 2003 and has no corresponding page in svwiki, so I feel reasonably comfortable saying that this is not, in fact, a thing. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings:, this looks like a fork of Swedish Empire and probably should be merged and redirected, don't you think? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn, I'm not super opposed to that. Yet the phrase "realm of Sweden" does not appear in Swedish Empire and I'm not clear whether "realm of Sweden" has ever been attested in English in a technical sense as "a term that historically was used to comprise all the territories under the control of the Swedish monarchs" (as asserted in realm of Sweden). My sense is that the name of the article is one editor's translation of "Svenska väldet"—a term that (a) does not appear in sv:Stormaktstiden (although it does appear in sv:Kurland); and (b), while it is used in some sources, does not clearly refer to a defined period in Swedish political history. So I wouldn't mind redirecting but I also wouldn't mind nominating this at AfD. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is essentially an extremely obscure povfork, not having received only 50 edits since 2004. I'd recommend a bold redirect to Swedish Empire. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and only found Swedish sources like yours, where it's "svenska väldet i [...]" (i.e. "Swedish dominion in [...]"), not used as a standalone concept or to refer to a defined period in Swedish history. The article itself has barely changed since it was first written in 2003/2004 so it could well just be one editor's misunderstanding or mistranslation. I think we can ahead and redirect it to Swedish Empire. – Joe (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Interested to see if anyone reverts with sources, tbh. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It is probably just a translation of Konungariket Sverige, i.e. 'The Kingdom of Sweden'.--Berig (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Same old same old

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

[51] ID not pseudoscience! News at eleven! --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The article seems rather promotional, and similar to his biographies at the two ID institute pages (currently references 6 and 7), as though written by one publicist.

The statement in the lede that he is "an advocate for intelligent design" is not specifically supported. What's known is that he is/was listed as a fellow of the ID houses, which is obviously closely related but not quite the same thing. There is also no indication of this connection having been mentioned anywhere outside Wikipedia or the institutes themselves. Despite this, Mims is placed in 4 categories on ID and creationism, against WP:DEFINE and WP:COPDEF. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It's possible that it's slightly promotional. Definitely notable for his popular electronics introduction/experiment booklets (I'm a fan, yet interestingly when I reread some a few years back I noticed a mix of good basic practical science and opinions questioning more complex science)... As for "pseudoscientific", same old indeed... I'd argue that "Intelligent Design creationism" would also be acceptable (with the link). —Paleo Neonate – 22:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I replaced some of the unsourced material on being an "advocate" of ID with the known fact of being a member of the creationist institutes. It's not clear why these affiliations belong at all in the article, since no secondary source appears to discuss this aspect of Mims' life. Wikipedia is not a kook documentation database and it is not incumbent on us (if anything, the opposite) to highlight connections to ID etc where others do not. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding in case anyone wants to work on this: I left a note at that article's talk page before about the extensive CV-like material citing primary sources. —Paleo Neonate – 21:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Robert Hare (chemist)

Robert Hare (chemist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Robert Hare is a chemist who died in 1858, but is remembered in certain circles today for his efforts to validate mediumship and spiritualism. An IP editor apparently does not like that our article on them includes criticism of those experiments, and has vowed to edit war 'forever' to keep it out. More eyes on the situation would be appreciated. - MrOllie (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for a month to start with. If they continue after that, I guess we'll have to protect it "forever" too. – Joe (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Unidentified flying object

Unidentified flying object (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the moment, disproportionally influenced by the opinion of recent gullible journalist Gideon Lewis-Kraus. This idea has been out there for many decades, and there is no reason to replace what has been learned during that time by one guy's collection of ignorance from this year. See WP:RECENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That's for damn sure. I have been trying to whip this article into shape for the better part of a decade, but it is a painful slog. jps (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the current problems arose from this section being introduced, which I will assume was a good faith effort to note the WP:RECENT increased attention on UFOs by the US government and the media, which has been interpreted by some to indicate a dramatic paradigm shift, i.e. all things UFO are now to be taken seriously. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Lawrence A. Tabak

I just corrected some cite errors at Lawrence A. Tabak. They were caused by an addition related to COVID and gain of function, so I thought it would be good if someone with relevant knowledge could caste their eye over it. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I reverted as a WP:COATRACK addition that is more suitable to COVID origins articles. And that's before getting into the potential selective citing (like the Yahoo News repost of a National Review link) and potential misinterpreted by those members of Congress to play politics (seems to have been a private letter, and I didn't find a source where Tabak addressed it publicly). Bakkster Man (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll also note, there's a few more COVID-adjacent edits by the user that could use a second set of eyes. I've reverted another using the same potentially-unreliable sources as the first one, but the chemistry related antiviral edits I'm unsure if they're trying to make unsubstantiated claims.[52][53] Bakkster Man (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Pumapunku, again

Hello all, eyes would be again appreciated on this article, especially with regard to the 'liquid stone' section; anyone with particular knowledge of material sciences or geology would be especially welcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Fucks sake, this shit again? Where have these claims got any critical secondary coverage? WP:GEVAL is dead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I feel very much the same way, but have perhaps too acute a sense of my own limitations. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Left a statement at Talk:Pumapunku#How old is this ?.--JonskiC (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

CfI @ RSN

WP:RSN § Center for Inquiry sources on CFI-related articles

A discussion that may be of interest to readers of this noticeboard, —Paleo Neonate – 05:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"Mainstream Science on Intelligence"

In response to points raised by Sesquivalent, I've tried to improve the lead of the article "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which describes a 1994 letter published in the Wall Street Journal defending the controversial book The Bell Curve. More eyes on this would perhaps be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Why not post a link to the actual points raised?

The more eyes the better, but I am curious what the relevance of FTN is here. On the one hand that page is already extensively monitored by race and intelligence guardsmen familiar with the whole story and context of the Gottfredson letter and associated sources. On the other, the letter itself has never had the odor of fringe (in 2009 Steven Pinker called it literally "the mainstream" in the New York Times) and it seems that all your edits are trying to tar it as fringe-by-iterated-association with a liberal dose of SYNTH. That's far beyond any Wikipedia RfC's, however those may be interpreted. Sesquivalent (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about a controversial letter published in support of a well known WP:PROFRINGE book, so its relevance to this noticeboard should be clear. You are of course free to cite Pinker in the "Response and criticism" section, and to point out any instances of WP:SYNTH that you've found. But characterizing what you believe my edits are trying to do will get you nowhere. Just imagine if the same standard were applied to you. Generalrelative (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, we can all discuss particular edits over at the article Talk page, regardless of whether or not this is FTN related. However, "defending ... The Bell Curve" and "in support of PROFRINGE" (and thus a link to FTN) are assumptions, or SYNTH. It's a not-uncommon claim, but the letter and Gottfredson's article on this say different, and (even excluding all 20 Pioneer Fund affiliates) the lion's share of respondents who expressed an opinion on the content of the letter agreed with it, which seems hard to arrange for a fringe position. There is at least as much evidence that the motivation for the author and most of those who agreed with her had to do not with embracing Murray and Herrnstein but frantically separating psychometrics and its funding from the scourge of public association with that one famous sentence in the Bell Curve. Much like the population geneticists after Nicholas Wade's book. (Pinker reference is https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/books/review/Letters-t-LETSGOTOTHET_LETTERS.html ) Sesquivalent (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"defending ... The Bell Curve" and "in support of PROFRINGE" (and thus a link to FTN) are assumptions, or SYNTH. Goodness no. I've even supplied a couple of sources to support the existing language in the article's first paragraph, which state explicitly that the letter in question was a defense of The Bell Curve. One is a scientific journal: [54]. And please note that SYNTH is something we're not permitted to do in article text. Of course we're meant to use our capacity for putting 2 and 2 together when discussing what belongs in articles and how to apply guidelines like WP:FRINGE. I hope that clears things up.

And thanks by the way for the link to the exchange between Gladwell and Pinker. I'm not a huge Gladwell fan but it was fun to see him get the better of a Harvard prof, whom he clearly caught out relying on garbage sources. It should be abundantly clear, however, that that passing and rhetorical mention doesn't count for much as far as sourcing goes. Especially when compared with the litany of criticism discussed in the "Response and criticism" section of the article. Generalrelative (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, SYNTH is fine on talk pages -- I've posted the same remark myself several times recently. I was using the Wikipedia term of art in a less formal sense to mean that the idea Gottfredson and supporters (again, excluding the 20 Pioneers) were defending the Bell Curve, rather than trying to avoid fallout from it, is something for which there is as much negative as positive evidence, and AFAIK no direct evidence to contradict Gottfredson's account, so is being constructed from speculation at various points. I cannot access the JSTOR link at the moment but (as I said) the existence of sources that merely call the letter a defense of the Bell Curve is not in question. The issue is whether that is likely to actually have been the reason. [Update: no, that journal article does not say the letter is a defense of the Bell Curve. Not literally, not in substance, no indication whether the author thinks so. Merely "supportive" if all commentaries are dichotomized into supportive or critical.]

The Pinker link, which comes from his bio page here, is provided for local comic relief. I haven't thought about it in connection with the article proper. Their exchange immortalized the unfortunate term "Igon Value" in online STEM and quant circles. Sesquivalent (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

no, that journal article does not say the letter is a defense of the Bell Curve. What?? Just like in the above discussion of Ann Coulter, you are advancing a distinction without a difference. The McInerney article is very clear about what is meant by "commentaries that are supportive". No one who has read the article could possibly interpret it otherwise. Saying no indication whether the author thinks so. Merely "supportive" if all commentaries are dichotomized into supportive or critical is utterly baffling since the author explicitly discusses Gottfredson's letter as a defense of both the The Bell Curve's evidentiary basis (p.85) and its pretension to inform public policy (p.91), and in the latter discussion holds it up as a paradigmatic example. But in any case, it's immaterial whether you agree on this since you've conceded that there are numerous other sources we can use which say the same thing. So let's both move on to other things now. You can go on doubting whether Gottfredson and her co-signers meant to defend The Bell Curve, and we will continue to abide by what reliable secondary sources say. Generalrelative (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Telling people what they can go do, and speaking in the majestic plural --- are those recommendations from MOS or something? I must have forgotten.

Searching the paper for all appearances of "Gottfredson", "Mainstream" and "1994b" gives an exhaustive idea of what the McInerney article says about this, which does not much resemble what you are saying. I am sure Murray was happy to read the Wall Street Journal the day the letter appeared but that is neither here nor there. (Come to think of it, even that might not be true. The letter could be seen as hanging him out to dry on the critical point of genetic differences, by showing that even right-wing psychologists were not willing to go as far as he and Herrnstein did.) You seem to have deduced some of this yourself though a few hours too late to modulate your tone above. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence&type=revision&diff=1047303881&oldid=1047302591 ).

In any case, you sent out the bat signal here and the effect over there was an edit ever so slightly in the direction I suggested on the talk page re Campbell. All good! Sesquivalent (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Just imagine if the same standard were applied to you. Using Steven Pinker as a touchstone is prima facie evidence of an ideological WP:POVPUSH in my opinion. jps (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinker is the quintessential example of an academic who is very careful to maintain his cultural and intellectual standing, and thus the last person to say something in the New York Times that would mark him as an outlier or give his enemies ammunition. So if he quotes from the Gottfredson letter that's a pretty good sign he sees no risk in treating it as mainstream or at least as a serious document. How does my thinking this and citing Pinker establish an ideology?

As to the standard, a well known guy around these parts cited NOFUCKINGNAZIS and threatened to have his admin friends eject me from the site (spoiler: that's not how the movie ended), GeneralRelative has at least twice vaguely hinted that I should be banned (spoiler: nobody took up the cause), and a certain Talk page buddy of his and yours has poured lots of similar passive-aggressive speculation and insinuations in my direction. So I don't have to imagine what it would be like, it's been a parade of vitriol from the day I posted on a talk page about their pet issues. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

If you think that because Pinker is IDW that's why he should be trusted, I think we're done here. Crow all you want. Accounts that adopt the self-satisfied and cynical right-wing rhetorical arguments of which you are fond do not last. jps (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

IDW?? Trusting Pinker??? Who mentioned that? I only think what I stated, that because Pinker is embedded in some very sweet high status gigs that he likes to keep, and because I have some other reasons to be confident in my suspicion that he works hard to stay respectable, him citing something isn't an indicator it's correct, but it is a great indicator that it's not fringe. All the more so when he riffs on it calling itself "the mainstream". Shoot First, Read Later doesn't work well online --- at least those IDW dorks preach epistemic humility. Sesquivalent (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That's some pretty strong contortionist logic there. It is, at least, consistent with the alternative fact that Pinker or other "IDW dorks" are humble. jps (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Counterpoint: “Rationality is uncool,” he laments. It isn’t seen as “dope, phat, chill, fly, sick or da bomb.” As evidence for its diminished status, he quotes celebrations of nonsense by the Talking Heads and Zorba the Greek. (Pinker is also vexed by the line “Let’s go crazy,” which he says was “adjured” by “the Artist Formerly Known as Prince.”) [55]

In any case, the relevance of FTN is pretty obvious; editors familiar with racist pseudoscience and its history on Wikipedia hang out here, so this is a better place than most to solicit informed opinions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how much you follow the Racist Pseudoscience topics here, but the editors concerned with fighting that battle are already patrolling and in some cases strictly OWNing a large group of articles including the one in question. If you think of those articles as topically organized in concentric circles (like Dante's Hell) centered on race and intelligence, the difficulty of making an edit without approval from this group is inversely proportional to distance from the center. The same editors summon each other on their user talk pages and posting here looked (to me) like the same sort of bat signal. The effect of posting at FTN in such cases seems to be a few fresh eyes from the FTN crowd that might edit independently of the collective, but also a signal to the latter that enforcement is desired. Both happened here as far as I can tell. Either way I don't think the question was an empty one considering all this. Sesquivalent (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I've followed those topics for a good long while, and I don't think your assessment is accurate. Also, WP:AGF. XOR'easter (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I hope you're right, but: when I detailed the OWNership situation of R&I on its talk page in a discussion with the alleged OWNer and her supporters, nobody disputed it, including the 850 talk page watchers, and the only meek response was 3 of her talk page friends saying that (be the OWNership as it may) they like the resulting edits. One of those friends posted this thread and shortly afterward the alleged R&I OWNer went over to argue at the very article talk page discussion it points to. So I'm not exactly seeing the error of a model in which a clique of like-minded editors control edits on a large number of interrelated pages. And R&I isn't even the page where ownership is most apparent.

I do AGF and the comment on the effect of an FTN posting does not require any assumption about the motive for the post. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinker has his share of interesting work and controversial claims. Evolutionary psychology is not an easy field and some hypotheses are useful, others very tentative or contested. In any case, he's notable and because of that, secondary sources will often report about his ideas or positions. When so, it may be DUE on a case by case basis. Then on fringe topics there's WP:PARITY, where a lower standard is acceptable when it's to cite someone who reminds of the scientific consensus, or that a particular idea is either nonsense or has not gained traction... Then there's CONSENSUS. But how is it possible to really understand what the exact request is, when instead of concise suggestions what we read are confused rants? Why not attempt WP:BOLD and WP:BRD? —Paleo Neonate – 06:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD is broken on the patrolled pages. "R" is almost guaranteed for edits toward neutrality, so changes have to start from "D" at the talk page. Talk page discussions of such edits or proposed edits lead to a lot of... talk... but no change to the article, for the same reason BOLD editing does not work. The upshot is that not only does the process have to start from a talk page but the "D"iscussion needs to be structured as some sort of legal brief.

The thread at Talk:Mainstream Science on Intelligence that led to this FTN notice is one example, another is my recent post at Talk:Noah Carl. They don't look like "confused rants" to me, and caused a lot of edits on the articles, generally in the direction if not the extent that I suggested. Does that mean the system is working? Not exactly: for every slanted source or statement removed, several new ones are added on the occasion. The overall trend is therefore to skew the articles further, with the BRD and Talk pages serving as "fight harder" instructions to the POVFIGHTERS. Sesquivalent (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"R" is almost guaranteed for edits toward neutrality This assumes that the "B" was "toward neutrality", which begs the question. Whether the changes were neutral is exactly what is to be discussed during the "D" part. It seems you want to skip the "R" and "D" parts because you already know which "D" result you would like. That is exactly the reason why we have BRD. It is not "broken". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Neutrality" was correct. Like its sketchy cousin "consensus", NPOV is a relatively objective assessment of other people's expressed opinions and can be assessed independent of one's own views. Nor do the edit histories follow a Neutrality or a Consensus Maintenance pattern. Under either of those (in, e.g., the very commonly occurring case of a subject where views tend to fall along a left/right spectrum) there would be many successful edits that make small movements in both directions, that on the whole tend to cancel each other out POVwise, or maybe a slow drift over a period of years (Wikipedia swims slowly, but it only swims left), with the (N)POV enforced by a broad set of contributors. Under an OWNership and takeover model, one sees instead: a relatively fast phase transition in the article's POV within weeks when the group or individual takes over; motion almost exclusively in one direction, with exceptions of the "one step back, 3 steps forward" variety; a high proportion of reversions on edits in the other direction, always by the same watcher or two or three.

And while neutrality is in fact the right concept, if you replace "edits toward neutrality" by "edits directionally against the POV of the OWNers" then it is not subject to your objection and amounts to the same thing as a breakdown of WP:BRD. Maybe in some lucky cases the group controlling the page has a near neutral POV but that's not something to rely on and not what can be observed. Sesquivalent (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV includes WP:GEVAL warning against there would be many successful edits that make small movements in both directions, that on the whole tend to cancel each other out POVwise [...] —Paleo Neonate – 19:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

GEVAL would be one of the mechanisms enforcing, not preventing, the maintenance pattern (of an NPOV or CONSENSUS equilibrium) that I described. But we don't see the pattern, we see forced drift. If you look at the recent ANI on the OP of this thread, and material linked and related to that, people are proudly and openly saying that they patrol not only the political content of Wikipedia pages but based on their perception of other users' politics, essentially assigning themselves the role of an immune system to surround and neutralize any rightward drift. No such welcome wagon in the other direction, which happens several multiples more often. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said, you want to skip the "R" and "D" parts because you already know which "D" result you would like. You have already determined that the "B" changes were "toward neutrality", because you assessed it in a relatively objective way, and therefore the "R" and "D" parts are unnecessary. In other word, other editors should not revert or contradict you because you know what you are doing, because you are the arbiter of neutrality. But they do revert you, and they do contradict you, and they do not accept that you are arbiter, therefore the system is broken.

At least that is how you sound. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not about my edits being reverted. I don't edit the patrolled/broken articles much and when I do it's usually either bulletproof or starts on the Talk page (which currently requires the absurd legal briefs), so not much reversion. If you dispute that people are competent to assess Neutrality or Consensus independently of their own position I can only wonder what you make of RfC closures, and as I said you can just look at the pattern of left/right motion or use "POV of the OWNers" instead of neutrality/consensus and get the same result without any such competence assumption. During the same time as this FTN thread similar concerns have been raised at the Village Pump and ARCA, of far too strong POVFIGHTER tendencies related to fringe, politics, racism etc which is often where and why the BRD tends to get broken. This isn't the place for behavioral evidence on particular tagteams but there's also that if needed. Dismissing it out of hand as a person or two not liking the current ideological stance of various pages is not plausible, there's a large gap between BRD as described and how these pages work. Sesquivalent (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not "dispute that people are competent to assess Neutrality", I am saying that "I am competent to assess Neutrality, therefore I am right and you are wrong, and if a guideline leads to me losing a discussion, then the guideline is broken" is begging the question. Your reasoning is devoid of meaning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, i think that is the wrong part of WP:PARITY you are looking at, and should focus on the first paragraph. The last thing the topic area needs is a lower standard of sourcing. Consider this discussion. Trying to use a minor paper from Warne spirals into this. What a waste of time. A minor paper criticizing something that is widely used within introductory textbooks? WP:PARITY certainly applies, but you are highlighting the wrong side i think. Since that fringe RfC there have been many arguments to redefine "reliable" based on POV. Redefining in the way WP:MEDRS does, might provide a more streamlined and longer lasting improvement. fiveby(zero) 15:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, my comment was more intended as a summary and not to suggest that this was a particular case, thanks for noticing. —Paleo Neonate – 01:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Tall el-Hammam, Creationist sources

Too many of the sources are Creationists Steven Collins and Joseph Holden. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed the Holden one as redundant. However, the only recent excavation research (since 2005) has been done by Trinity Southwest University and Veritas International University College of Archaeology & Biblical History headed by Collins, so it would make sense that the publications about it would have Collins as an author. Reviewing who the publishers are and what the sources actually say (Collins may actually be doing legitimate archaeology) would determine whether they need to be kept. My concern is that removing them also removes about 2/3 of the article content. If the sources simply present what was discovered without leaping to faith-based conclusions, they may be OK.

I looked at a couple of them and they seem to be focused on actual archaeology as opposed to proselytizing. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

There has been considerable controversy over the last published paper in Scientific Reports. Check the last archive. I tried and failed to come up with a workable solution for how Wikipedia can explain this situation. jps (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the sources on the site when the meteor stuff struck, but didn't get around to doing much to improve the article unfortunately.

Collins et al. try hard to make what they're doing look like archaeology, but it isn't. They have no idea what they're doing and that comes through very clearly in their publications, which are almost always from TSU-affiliated vanity presses. Somehow they managed to get one excavation report through a university press, but the reviews are politely excoriating and consensus on the talk page is that that can't be considered a reliable source either.

They also try hard to make it appear is if they were the first to properly work on the site, but Prag's surveys and excavations in the 90s are actually quite detailed and well-published. I think between them and discussions of textual identifications in reliable sources (there seems to be a decent chunk of literature on the geography of Livias) we can have a decent article without reference to Collins et al. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I couldn't relocate it, but I remember of a source expressing concern that this may also affect the site negatively for future research by less ideology-motivated groups, —Paleo Neonate – 22:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Weil

Andrew Weil (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Proponent of various WP:FRINGE altmed ideas. Possible NPOV problems with this article. Alexbrn (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that there was obvious COI editing but it's been a while ago. I've seen a few recent improvements, thanks for working on this, —Paleo Neonate – 23:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Arkana Publishing

This is an imprint of Penguin Books that publishes on the occult. I can't tell whether I should trust books they publish to be out-of-universe, or whether it's a case-by-case thing. Any thoughts? Reason I'm here is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandanta; there's a brief discussion of gandanta here. It seems in-universe-y, but then again discussions of mythical things often adopt an in-universe style because it's easier than constantly saying "as believers in this thing believe …" AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

On the list of books they've published, the ones that look respectable seem to be reprints. Atlantis: Myth or Reality by Murry Hope, Mysticism and the New Physics by quantum-woo peddler Michael Talbot... I'd regard them as "in-universe" until proven otherwise. In the specific case of the book mentioned, Light on Life, the authors call themselves the only Westerner ever to become a licensed Ayurvedic physician and someone who has been studying and practising Vedic astrology since 1968. It's very definitely in-universe, not a view from outside. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Kerfuffle about Joy of Satan Ministries

WP:ANI#Edit conflict at Joy of Satan Ministries. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Now it's at WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Usenet newsgroup sci.archaeology - anyone remember it?

Just wondering. I used it when it was on bulletin boards. Then came the Internet. And then modems that I didn't need to stick my phone into! Doug Weller talk 16:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Usenet was on the internet, but you may mean the web... I do remember reading usenet via a Fidonet gateway before internet was mainstream, so likely in the early 90s. I also used it a bit later occasionally and ran a small NNTP server (these were an alternative to email lists and predecessor to web forums so various organizations used private NNTP networks). It still exists but NNTP access is rare today (almost every internet provider used to provide a link), most people access it via web gateways including Google Groups. At the time, I was unfortunately also reading a lot of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and esoteric material, including on BBSes, Fidonet and Usenet. On the other hand it gives me a perspective on those topics today... —Paleo Neonate – 23:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I remember it. I still remember the endless discussion and debates between Andrew M. and Ed Conrad about Ed's claims that Carboniferous (siderite?) concretions are fossil human bones and miscellaneous other pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. That I think is where I became acquainted with Doug. Paul H. (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I certainly remember it! I usually posted as Aelfric back in those days. I do recall feeling like there was quite a bit of woo involved; and in those blessed times I thought such beliefs were inconsequential and only held by a small fringe. How innocent I used to be. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Remember Yuri anyone? Or Inger? @PaleoNeonate: Bulletin board systems seems to suggest BBS was pre Internet. Fascinating that you ran an NNTP server. Ed Conrad drove me nuts. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes most BBS were indeed pre-internet. Then some were connected to it, or indirectly could serve as gateways to usenet as well (just like some FidoNet nodes also provided usenet to their points). The concept mostly moved to web forums later on, although some more traditional text BBS still exist that accept telnet or SSH connections. I'm not sure about those names off memory alone though, but I worked on software projects with people that I remembered from usenet CS groups back then, it was good shared memories. —Paleo Neonate – 03:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Since this is mostly a forum thread already, Noah's Ark found drifting around in Vancouver BC! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK6w6Vnp8hs ^[Humor] —Paleo Neonate – 09:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Dennis Prager

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

A reliable source is not sufficiently denialist to copy Prager's anti-science propaganda word by word, therefore it is not reliable and cannot be used. Discussion on Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Numerology

Numerology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article could stand a little attention. It's rather drastically under-sourced and sports an "in popular culture" junk drawer. XOR'easter (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted the 'popular culture' section as WP:OR. As for the remainder of the article, it could certainly do with scrutiny. Even ignoring the lack of sources, it is an inconsistent decontextualised mess. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Race and crime

The Race and crime article has long been problematic, and has been discussed on this noticeboard several times before. A fundamental issue, beyond the obvious one of attracting proponents of fringe perspectives, is that it doesn't cover the supposed subject matter from any sort of global perspective. As has been noted on numerous occasions, in practice it only discusses the supposed relationship between 'race' and crime the United States in any detail at all, while managing to imply that it is giving some sort of broader perspective. This is of course entirely misleading, and contrary to Wikipedia policy, given that the article Race and crime in the United States already exists: it is either redundant, or a POV fork. I'd appreciate WP:FTN regulars taking a look, to se if anything merits merging elsewhere, because beyond that, it is an obvious candidate for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This arguably because "Race" is primarily an American construct that doesn't really apply elsewhere, with "race" often being a euphemism used for black people. I'd recommend a redirect to Race and crime in the United States. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The supposed relationship between arbitrary 'race'-based social constructs and crime has certainly been discussed beyond the United States. Not that it really matters though when discussing the content in question, since it doesn't actually cover any broader studies. Which of course couldn't be discussed without pointing out just how arbitrary it all is anyway. Quite likely explains why the POV-fork doesn't do that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a redirect to race and crime in the US is appropriate. Race is absolutely not a US concept, it's just that race means a different thing to each culture and so there is a US "version" of race. The US is also not the only country that has a race disparity in crime. That all being said, this article is 100% a fork. But we should get WikiProjects Discrimination (and probably BLM) to help decide what to do about it. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Nominate it for deletion or redirect to R&C in the US. The alternative is actually edit the article to a point where it reflects the varying situations worldwide rather than the current US-centric construct. Since no one has seemed interested in doing that (probably because it would be a mountain of work) the first two seem more appropriate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the WP:POVFORK concerns. I've started a proposal to redirect the article. Pinging those involved in the discussion: Only in death, Hemiauchenia, AndyTheGrump. ––FormalDude ^talk 11:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

US vaccine mandates and the Third Reich?

Vinay Prasad (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Some interesting recent edits on how to deal with a celebrity doctor's view on all this, a WP:FRINGE connection I'd say. Note potential BLP and COI considerations may apply. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

My initial thoughts… we are giving the entire incident (both the initial blog post and the various reactions to it) too much weight, and should not mention it AT ALL. It was a blog post, not something published in a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it got picked up by The Cancer Letter lends a certain amount of weight, no? Alexbrn (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

He's a signer of the Great Barrington Declaration and involved with a dubious new think tank.[56] The Cancer Letter article is here also here. He's recently been accused of anti-semitism and racism by Arthur Caplan reported here. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The irony is that the Third Reich was against vaccine mandates, as were their core supporters. TFD (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, trying not to let people die, it's not a million miles from what Hitler was doing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Claim that an anti-Islam professor has proved statistically that a large part of Islam is political, not relgious

This is Bill Warner (writer) (a pen name}} where someone has added the statement " Warner with the help of statistical methods proves that a substantive part of the Islamic doctrine is not religious but falls within the domain of politics." There are three sources for this - all are the subject himself. I think that the use of mathematics to define a religion is fringe. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article for a long time. This diff maybe a better one to see the changes made.[57] Doug Weller talk 09:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"I think that the use of mathematics to define a religion is fringe". Stupid would be a better term, I think. Does Wikipedia need a stupid theories noticeboard? As for the article, recent edits certainly haven't improved it. Given the subject matter though, I suspect that might be a losing battle. Just how notable is this guy and his ' Center for the Study of Political Islam' anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Its incredibly bad wording they have shoved in the article but its not actually a stupid idea to statistically model what is political and what is religious in a given text - thats actually used in a number of places on historical documents to analyse what the motivations behind a document are. (eg X % devoted to human rights vs much bigger % devoted to commerical concerns would indicate money was more important than people to the writers). The 'proves that' part is publisher hyperbole however. Its what you read on a dustjacket. What Warner did was show with statistical methods how much of the Koran is concerned with certain topics. The conclusions however are the fringe bit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Bullshit with added numbers is still bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec)The idea that religion and politics are closely intertwined is about as surprising as the idea that water is wet. Both are systems of social organisation. Start reading at Divine right of kings... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dodger67: of course they are closely intertwined. But trying to apply statistics to what must be subjective interpretations - GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). Doug Weller talk 16:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Warner has committed violation #1 of "doing bad science" which is that he started with a pre-determined conclusion (that Islam is a political, and not religious system) then generated a set of data that "confirms" what he already believed was true. This is bullshit, and if it is to be mentioned, should not be presented as though he "proved" anything; at best we can say he "claims" that he showed it. But it is bullshit, plain and simple. --Jayron 32 13:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is even worse now, using Warner as a source far too often. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Trimmed, but I expect that'll be edit-warred over, because that's how these things go. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Just trying to understand: In a biography article persons' own opinions whether those are right or wrong, mainstream or fringe can not be quoted or how it is? Idk if I have misunderstood the issue here.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

These opinions certainly can be quoted, but not stated in Wikivoice as happened here[58]. –Austronesier (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Further, in general Wikipedia does not use the article's subject as a source for themselves. The only exception is that when a secondary source has commented in a noteworthy manner on the beliefs of a person, it is legitimate to clarify with their own words (because it is not uncommon for critiques to mischaracterize a target's beliefs). This is entirely driven by the coverage given and any quoting should not be disproportionate to the original claim - one should not give an elaborate explication just to clarify an off-handed comment that may not merit mention at all. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform to propagate/proselytize beliefs the person happens to hold that have not drawn particular notice in independent secondary sources - not every opinion a notable person holds is inherently a noteworthy aspect of their biography. Agricolae (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Per Agricolae, if a secondary, independent source notes that Warner holds a particular opinion or has published a particular bit of bullshit he calls science, it would be appropriate to cite the original bullshit as a source alongside the secondary source, since it is likely that a person may want to read such a thing. What is not appropriate is using the original bullshit to write its claims into Wikipedia's voice uncritically or to make those views more prominent than should be. If Warner is a noted critic of Islam, and that is a key part of his notability, then perhaps mentioning his bullshit calculations would be appropriate. However, unconnected to any discussion of such in a secondary source, then it also isn't appropriate in Wikipedia. That Warner did such <fingerquotes>"research"</fingerquotes> is only worth mentioning in the article if other sources have also mentioned it.--Jayron 32 18:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

[1] It may be that the article contains so few citations it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags. Consider then tagging a section with {{unreferenced section}}, or the article with the applicable of either {{unreferenced}} or {{more citations needed}}. For a disputed category or on a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.

[2] When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind such edits can easily be misunderstood. Some editors object to others' making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular point of view, as that may appear to be a contravention of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.

[1]

[2]