Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

I found this being used as a source after reading "Junk Science or the Real Thing? ‘Inference’ Publishes Both." Here is its "about" page[1] which I see has a rebuttal to criticism by astrophysicist and science writer Adam Becker (see here).Becker's piece is discussed here and here. On my talk page I'm being asked to reconsider - the issue is can this be handled case by case as some famous scientists write for it, and links have been given me: "On Inference" by Peter Woit and "Something I wrote…" by David Roberts for some alternative points of view. Comments? The article by Roberts response by Sabine Hossenfelder to Woit's post is a bit worrying if it actually means that an author's work might be changed before publication. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I also found this blog post[2] discussing Inference's response to Becker and comparing their position to that of the Heterodox Academy. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Something looks off with the formatting of your second "here" link. Isn't the Mother Jones piece just a republication of the Undark piece, not a separate discussion? Also, I don't find anything in David Roberts' post about an editor changing the work prior to publication. Are you possibly referring to Sabine Hossenfelder's comment to Peter Woit's post? Will Orrick (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, no link to the blog post in your follow-up comment. Will Orrick (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the link is this one. And yes, I got turned around somehow about the changing of work. I wasn't suggesting the Mother Jones piece was anything but Becker's article, the other two links discuss it. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

In the "About" page of the Inference: International Review of Science, I found the below statement.

Although the editors have every intention of appealing to experts for advice, Inference is not a peer-reviewed journal.

Paul H. (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes—the question is whether it can be used as a source in the way Scientific American might be used—for example to document the development of a scientific idea, or to back up a non-technical description of a scientific breakthrough for the layperson. As an example, the current issue contains a reply by John Cardy, a leading expert in statistical physics, to an earlier article by Édouard Brézin in which Cardy outlines the history of the ideas that led to the work that was recognized by the 2016 Nobel Prize in physics. Could that be used as a source? Inference also publishes book reviews. I've seen book reviews used on Wikipedia as sources for biographies of academics. Would Inference's book reviews be allowable? Will Orrick (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There's new activity at Emotional Freedom Techniques. Not misbehavior, nothing that I'm complaining about; it may even be an improvement. But it should be watched (and I have to absent myself to attend to my paid job). -- Hoary (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look like an improvement to me. From the title I was wondering why effective field theory would pop up here. --mfb (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Me neither. Two of the three sources newly adduced are from Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing, whose didjaknow read '... that the Elsevier publication Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing has been described as a "sham masquerading as a real scientific journal" that publishes "truly ridiculous studies"?'. -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG applies. All the proposed sources are too flimsy for claims about therapeutic efficacy, especially given the exotic nature of EFT. Alexbrn (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

While reviewing photon sphere with the intent of adding a note about the M87* feature termed a "photon ring" I stumbled upon "The Photon Belt (also called the photon band, photon ring, manasic ring, manasic radiation, manasic vibration, golden ring, or golden nebula)" (Not to be confused with the indie band.) Looks like non-notable nonsense to me. Either that, or the recently imaged black hole is undergoing a spiritual transition as there is literally a ring of photons enveloping it. Thoughts? I plan on adding a redirect from photon ring to photon sphere after updating the latter. Given the extensive usage of "photon ring" in the Event Horizon Telescope papers readers searching for a definition are likely to land on a rather poorly sourced article here instead. --mikeu ^talk 18:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Photon Belt nonsense is certainly not new. Cecil Adams had a go at it in 1996.

https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/963/is-the-earth-about-to-enter-the-photon-belt-causing-the-end-of-life-as-we-know-it/

Notice that he can't seem to trace the chain of nonsense further back than a 1981 article in a UFO magazine. Read carefully, the history section of our article also doesn't go back farther than 1981, except second-hand from this no-doubt amazing work published in 1994.

ApLundell (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I've done some minor cleanup on that article, but I still think the "history" section is largely fantasy.

I'm particularly suspicious that the beliefs of a prolific author (Weor) is referenced only to a book by a nobody.

ApLundell (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the article started as recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Photon Belt by a long since indef blocked user. --mikeu ^talk 21:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... Then it should probably just go. There's not enough good material here to justify overturning an established consensus. ApLundell (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the original page is clearly an OR pet project. Interesting, but there are remnants of that lingering in the text. This page is a magnet for unsourced fringe material and there are few watchers to curate the content. I can't imagine the trimmed down sourced material meeting GNG. --mikeu ^talk 09:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon Belt (2nd nomination) --mikeu ^talk 10:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

More eyeballs would be appreciated; the relevant article talk page section is here. Neutrality^talk 21:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, Julian Assange.[3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Is HAES a fringe theory or pseudo-science? Is it mainstream? It has certainly entered the mainstream (alongside Fat Acceptance), with multiple opinion pieces in the NY Times and other major publications. I can't find anything from a RS actually calling it a pseudo-science. Though that should not be a shock, as actual scientists are often too busy doing real science than responding to pop theories.

I think the page is a bit neglected and at least needs more to add it to their watch list.

Right now, there's a dispute on NPOV on the talk page:

• Talk:Health_at_Every_Size#HAES_article_lacks_Neutral_Point_of_View

Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• It is pseudoscience. See just a few of the hundreds of articles on this: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] , although there's also a sad article showing Nat Geo preaching pseudoscience [13]. Natureium (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Specifically I can't find a source that says that HAES directly is pseudo-science though. The claims they make seem to be wrong, but few if any sources seem to directly criticize them or that phrase. Real scientists are often too busy doing real science, and often don't want to get drawn into public debates, so they often don't talk about public theories like HAES.

My instincts says this is a pseudo-science. It looks like a debate that's occurring in the public and not in the scientific community. They don't publish findings or do any research, and instead write op-eds in Huffpost, NYTimes, NatGeo, and other places. It looks like ideology trumping facts. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one problem. Another is that this is not a scientific term. It's more of a catchphrase. The scientific topic that refers to this most closely would probably be metabolically healthy obesity. Natureium (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Should the articles then therefore be merged? Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If it's merged, Fat acceptance movement might be a better target. Natureium (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Health_at_Every_Size#Merge? Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If you have an opinion on the title/content of this sidebar, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

On the Dan Crenshaw article, some editors have edit-warred the following bolded language out of the article:

• In 2018, Crenshaw said that climate change is real but that there is a "very reasonable debate going on" about the extent to which human activity contributes to it, "whether it's 100 percent or whether it's 1 percent" (the scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change).[14]

It is my understanding of WP:FRINGE that the bolded text belongs in the article, as it clarifies to readers that scientists do not disagree that human activity is a primary (versus a minor) contributor to climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Does Crenshaw name any sane scientist who considers 1% possible? The bold text is certainly right. We could even write "the primary contributor" and it would still be right. --mfb (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is core policy, and the mainstream view has to appear to contextualize the fringe view. Any editors edit-warring the text away should be warned of discretionary sanctions for this topic area. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the current composition in the article is misleading. In the source he refers to hurricanes, not climate change in general. He then goes on to say it is misleading to say "this hurricane was caused by climate change" and questions evidence that climate change increases storm activity. That is much more specific than the articles makes it sound. --mfb (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This is what the source says: "“I just think there's a very reasonable debate going on, on exactly what human activity does to climate change, whether it's 100 percent or whether it's 1 percent,” Crenshaw said. “Is there a percentage? Yeah, there probably is — certainly. But to attribute one weather event to it, and also there's plenty of other studies that show we're about average for the amount of hurricanes that we have in this country.” Crenshaw said there simply is not enough data to have a “good indication” of the impact of climate change on storm intensity, and those who say otherwise are “cherrypicking.”" He talks about both human contributions to climate change and whether climate change causes greater storm intensity. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The storm activity is also mentioned directly before: "Litton and Crenshaw agree climate change is real, but disagree over the extent to which human activity is creating more intense storms." The percentages could refer to the storms. I don't see him mentioning climate change elsewhere (he agrees with Trump's decision about the Paris agreement according to his website, but motivates it by the energy industry), so unfortunately that article seems to be the only useful source. --mfb (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The POV in this section is pretty palpable. In any case, since acceptance or denial of climate change, or the extent to which human activity contributes to it, isn't a political position, I've just removed the statement entirely. His views on related policy should probably stay though, like the bit about the Paris Agreement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Btw, here is the debate in question.[15] I don't have time to sift through it for the relevant part, but I'm leaving it here in case someone wants to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• While this source doesn't explicitly cover this, the question of how much can be attributed to human activity is covered in our articles on Attribution of recent climate change and Climate_change#Causes. Quick summary: anyone who puts the human percentage at 0% or 100% is an idiot who we should be discussing here on the fringe theories noticeboard. There are a bunch of scientists working on this, and there are also a bunch of politicians trying to spin it it various directions. Just to pick one source, [16] says "Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI interaction with the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year. According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained over many decades, could have significant climate effects." and "The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate." So the contributions of TSI are definitely larger than 0% and smaller than 100%. Is TSI a major factor? Probably not, according to Attribution of recent climate change#Solar activity. Does it have any effect? almost certainly yes. Is the evaluation of how big the effect is influenced by politics? Yeah, probably a bit. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a RfC on The Wall Street Journal article that relates to the subject of this noticeboard.[17] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

'Church' to offer 'miracle cure' despite FDA warnings against drinking bleach --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

See Miracle Mineral Supplement. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC).

Drink enough and it's 100%! Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

See also Rope worms ‑ Iridescent 20:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Extra content for the most fringy of my WP:FTN henchmen:

Look at these magnetic therapy products on Amazon:

• BeneFab by Sore No-More Rejuvenate SmartScrim
• MagnetRX Ultra Strength Magnetic Therapy Bracelet Double Magnet Pain Relief for Arthritis and Carpal Tunnel
• Self Heating Socks, Stcorps7 Tourmaline Self-Heating Therapy Magnetic Socks Comfortable Breathable Massage Anti-Freezing Warm Foot Socks...

That last one is extra special. It offers you magnetic therapy without containing any actual magnets. We have discovered Homeopathic magnetic therapy!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Bloody dangerous them homeomagmets. The further you are away from them, um, the higher, um, the um, attraction. ... Shall I stand in this corner? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This Shameless Plug (but I am plugging a proposed improvement to Wikipedia, so shameless plugs are allowed) is because I have a lot of respect for the abilities of my fellow noticeboard regulars. If anyone objects, go ahead and kill this cute little puppy delete this section.

The 2019 redefinition of SI base units is scheduled to happen on 20 May 2019. I would like it to be Today's Featured Article on that day. To make this happen, it needs everything listed at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria (some of which it already has), followed by a nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, then a nomination at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Any help improving the article would be greatly appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

So now you need the content-creation-bigots? Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

[Self-redacted] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Its not the number of hyphens. Its the type of dash ;) Viva la em-dash! Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I am not a content creation bigot who makes snarky comments all the time. No sir, not me. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, as a newbie content-creation-bigot, I'll give you a couple of hints. You rightly list the stages you need, but you don't seem to have looked at the relevant pages, and how long the processes take. To have any chance to hitting the date, you need to launch the FAC almost immediately, and then respond very quickly to any comments. The oldest current FAC began on February 12th. Something will already be slated for TFA that day, but you might be able to move it. You don't have time to be messing about with the copy-editors guild, who mostly do little FAC work. You don't have time for a peer review either. And you need to be very nice to everybody. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on the WikiLeaks article[18]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Cynical? Debased? Corrupt? Manipulative? Hyperbolick (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not an article I know anything about, but there seems to be some disagreement with a new editor's edits. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

http://smbc-comics.com/comic/fringe

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Not that I’m saying there is a problem, but that link took my iPad to some win an iphone contest, and I had to close the browser window in Safari. Just sayin. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Stargate Project#Defamatory content. I just removed some text added by the same editor, User:Brian Josephson which was sourced to a fringe site.[19] Also see this post about the author of the source.[20] Doug Weller talk 17:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Is he up to his tricks again. I'll have a look just so that I can say hello!! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Others may wish to comment following my own rather weak response. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

He is at the Talk page arguing his personal opinion that cited sources are wrong and he is right. A potential time sink for someone with free hours to waste. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, he says he is Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize recipient. I'm sure he is given his edits. See also this article. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought you knew he is the real BJ. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia appears to have trained Brian ‘’not’’ to edit his own bio in recent years, and he does normally use the talk page there, but he does have interesting ideas about evidence for his ideas! Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

A neutral third party is needed to mediate a long ongoing discussion about how to address fringe material in the Richat Structure talk page before it gets out of hand Paul H. (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This is in the Transhumanist series, so I think is fringeyish. Dunno why it's on my watchlist and I'm having a few twitchy moments watching what I discovered are LSE students using our article to workshop the subject, or something. I have done my usual leadfoot impersonation on Talk, and rather than reverting more workshopping, decided to ask a couple of questions here, viz.

We have people who are good with student projects don't we? Where do I find them? Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

[21][22]

He says that it is all caused by climate change....

Interestingly, this is one of those cases where YouTube posts a link to Wikipedia to counter the pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Is he a professor? His page at the institute seems to identify him as an instructor. jps (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Good catch! One would hope that The Oxford Student would know the difference, but https://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/people/young-hae-chi definitely says "Instructor in Korean". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Could he be both?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It may be that what the Oriental Institute means by "instructor" is akin to "professor" in other scenarios. He is full-time faculty at least. jps (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please look at the latest edits to this article? I am not really up to speed on political fringe -- I mostly deal with science and medicine fringe. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't touched the article, but I did give the editor a DS alert and added 9/11 DS to the talk page of Global Guardian where the editor has made a similar edit - that article probably needs checking by someone, I've never seen it before. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking over this page (Thunderbird (cryptozoology), I'm having a hard time making sense of what's going on here. Usually, cryptozoologists graft on to something from the folklore record, and then make all sorts of claims about it, including either explicit or thinly-veiled Young Earth Creationist stuff. The subculture's intense hatred for academics is notorious and well-recorded (plenty of well-cited discussion about it over at cryptozoology, for example).

Yet what seems to be happening at thunderbird (cryptozoology) is that some cryptozoologists, such as Loren Coleman, have decided that the Native Americans have it all wrong (Thunderbird (mythology)) and, in typical fashion, have decided that here we have a monster to be hunted. And somehow this has yielded a second Wikipedia entry just for the obscure fringe notions of the subculture.

I'm thinking this entire page is simply undue emphasis (WP:UNDUE) on an obscure fringe theory. I'm also wondering if any of the supposed "sightings" in fact even mention the compound "thunderbird", or if this is something projected on to them by Coleman and crew.

Any idea how to proceed with this? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think these two pages should be merged because the subject is essentially the same. The split is not entirely unreasonable because Folklore/Fairy tales and pseudoscience are different things. As about deleting the page, I would vote "merge". My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

See[23] by User:Banquotruehero. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Biblical historical may be OK. However the rest of the passage there presents a minority view (even small minority) as factual. Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to waste your time, but we've got a sentence on the above page which reads ""According to historians, the bombings were coordinated by the Russian state security services to bring Putin into the presidency."" I know nothing about the issue really. It's a tough issue because it's an extremely sensitive and political topic.

We've already had some discussion about it here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Russian apartment bombings.

This is all about confirming what historians say in their peer-reviewed publications. It's as simple as that. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (modified)

• This is not a fringe theory, but mainstream subject because it has been described as something that had actually happen or a real possibility in a number of books by mainstream historians and other authors, like Karen Dawisha (this is just a random example). My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• While the theory has been mentioned in academic sources, I can find no evidence of any peer-reviewed sources that actually argue in its support. I note that Dawisha's book was published by Simon and Schuster, not an academic publisher. Even so, her actually wording is "the political group around Putin could have masterminded the apartment bombings" (my emphasis). I don't think we can say "according to historians," unless there are sources that historians actually say that. It could be that without access to the complete evidence or reliable judicial inquiry that no conclusion judgment can be made. TFD (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• I do not think this is proper place. The claims (whatever they are) were sourced to multiple RS on the page (the book by Dawisha is just one of many). If something was not properly supported by specific sources, anyone can go to the page and fix it. However, two things are important. (a) One should actually read specific sources cited on the page (I would say "Darkness at Dawn" by David Satter and a couple of books by Felshtinsky with co-authors are really important). These books do directly support the statement in my opinion. (b) The peer-reviewed scientific publications (if any) are primary sources per WP:RS and not good. The best secondary sources are books, and particularly such books where whole chapters are dedicated to the subject. They should be used, and they were actually used on the page. But of course "every version is wrong version" and can be improved. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Commented at RSN. We need to be careful with this subject as conspiracy theories abound. Furthermore, unlike 9/11, there is no definitive version on culpability - we need to attribute different mainstream theories.Icewhiz (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion regarding whether we may describe a pseudoscience and subculture as, well, a pseudoscience and subculture in an article space over at Talk:Thylacine#Cryptozoology,_Pseudoscience_and_Subculture. If you're not watching this page already, it could definitely use more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit stood for four days before I reverted it.

Watchlist, maybe?

jps (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a relevant RfC[24] on the MS-13 page which among other things covers the false conspiracy that Democratic politicians support MS-13, a transnational crime gang. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

To save some folks a click: the RFC in question is on whether to include a statement in the lead that rebuts Republican rhetoric accusing Democrats of enabling gangs like MS-13 through their policy choices. Not about a Democrat-MS-13 collusion conspiracy theory. Snoogs seems to have clicked on the wrong noticeboard by mistake. 199.247.45.106 (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Could I get a few editors to watchlist Hydrogen water. An enthusiastic editor made a problem edit yesterday, and I expect more to come. Also, would this article be suitable for inclusion on template:Alternative medicine sidebar? - MrX 🖋 19:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Following from the recent RfC at Conspiracy theory, I believe things have been resolved for most of the lead section. However, it seems that the definition is still a sticking point, so additional input would be appreciated. Currently, the issue is whether or not the definition should include the phrase "when other explanations are more probable." Sunrise (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

In Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Recent edits on Postwar Property Restitution a couple of editors are asserting that Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? is an appropriate source for anti-Jewish violence and Jewish property in post-war Poland. The book is edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (more later), Wojciech Muszyński, and Pawel Styrna (seems to have been Chodakiewicz's student - per his LinkedIn he has gone on to Federation for American Immigration Reform). This is published by Leopolis Press which per [25] - "The holder of the Kościuszko Chair at IWP, Dr. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, is the Publisher of Leopolis Press.. Browsing through worldcat - there are some 5 books listed with Leopolis as a publisher - [26][27][28][29][30] - 2 of which list Chodakiewicz as the first author. Chodakiewicz himself has been extensively profiled by the SPLC in 2009 and 2017 for his views/writing/speaking on anti-Jewish violence, Jewish property, white genocide, antisemitism, gays, a speech at a far-right Ruch Narodowy rally, etc. AFAICT the book is generally ignored in mainstream academia - it did receive short and unfavorable reviews - e.g. here and here - pointing out that one of the chapters in the book "accuses such historians as [list] of using neo-Stalinist methods in their articles and reviews concerning Poland. Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

TLDR summary - Self published. SPLC profiled publisher/editor/author. Many red flags in work itself, the most noted being a whole chapter devoted to accusing a long string of mainstream tenured academics at major institutions of being "stalinists" - which may be part of the reason no one was willing to publish this.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is really self-published. The publishing organization was established by someone else and apparently published a number of books. This is probably not the best source, but hardly anything "fringe". Yes, the book has been criticized. Yes, authors of the book criticized others too. That happens all the time. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The name was first used by Ulam or his family to publish his last book (reflections / memoirs) on his deathbed. Shortly after that it passed on to Chodakiewicz, who states he is the publisher. It is not apparent there was any "organization" (beyond Chodakiewicz and an e-mail to a printing press) at the time of publication. In total there are some 5 books published under this name. This is the definition of self-published - there is no publishing house here that editted and vetted. As for criticism - being designated by the SPLC is way beyond criticism. Calling every mainstream historian in the field a "stalinist" (whole chapter in the book on this) - is beyond criticism - it is the sort of drivel no publisher would be willing to publish.Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it in your last link/ref: Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? accuses several prominent Polish-studies scholars of Stalinism. ‘The Neo-Stalinist Discourse in Polish Historical Studies in the United States’ by John Radzilowski, smears [list of several names]. Unfortunately, I have no idea if these words by the reviewer were not distortion (yes, such things can happen), and who knows, maybe John Radzilowski was right, and several historians in question are indeed "revisionist historians". I know, there are a lot of them in various countries. I do not really know this subject and can not be a judge in their disputes. You think you can? OK. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It is in the second review as well (which was published in a peer reviewed journal, unlike the boook). And in the book itself - it is not a distortion - it is there black on white. Heck, as of 2019, Chodakiewicz still describes the backlash against him as stalinist - [31] - including the SPLC designation. (the backlash resulted in most publications rejecting him, he's still at IWP - but that is not an institution known for research, to say the least).Icewhiz (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Chod. is a nationalist with fringe-y right-wing views. His approach to historiography is dated (Janowski, 2012), his views of Polish-Jewish history tainted with antisemitism (Michlic, 2007; Wrobel, 2017), and his casting of opposing historians as "Stalinists" borders on the insane. Just to give a taste to a Western reader, in one 2008 piece laced with dog-whistling and innuendo, Chod. raised the spectre of Barack Obama being a radical communist raised as a Muslim, with ties to the extreme fringes of Black Power. Chod. is not an RS on anything (though as a public figure he can be used with attribution), especially not as an SPS as is the case here. François Robere (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Chodakiwiecz is a reliable scholar and historian, if clearly with some strong views. He is reliable as a scholar, and a book press by a minor NGO/educational institution is hardly a red flag. Yes, publishing in a press that you are an editor of is a bit of a COI, but I doesn't count as self-published. This really should be discussed at WP:RSN not here, since there are no fringe theories discussed here... Anyway, the best solution is just to attribute his views. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Chodakiwiecz is a far right figure covered by the SPLC - his viewpoints on gays, minorities, Jews, white genocide, etc (see SPLC) are far out. The press does not belong to The Institute of World Politics (which has its own press, reliability of this mickey mouse (or spy vs. spy) institution (founded in 90s, around 150 students, very small staff - including figures such as Sebastian Gorka) uncertain - but it is not the publisher here) - but is separate and run by Chodakiwiecz - Leopolis is (per its webpage) 100% Chodakiwiecz. This book, which is filled with fringe views/conspiraxy theories on history and social sciences, received some highly negative coverage in actual academic sources due to claiming that "The study scrupulously states that “neo-Stalinism” has certainly been dominant in the American social sciences since the 1960s. ... Furthermore, this Soviet-European-American implant seems to have been a danger to Polish social life since the 1990s. Finally, after a lengthy exposition, the author states that “neo-Stalinism may also be seen as a historiographic offensive bringing turmoil to Polish intellectual, cultural and social life in years following 1989” (p. 246). - should we place this amazing "fact" in articles on American social sciences? IWP is described as "There is something farcical about the conception of a crusade against the modern world professed by a few researchers from a marginal research centre,10 which is a recruitment pool of the CIA.11 from Krzywiec, Grzegorz. "Controversies: Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Wartime Fate of Poles and Jews." Holocaust Studies and Materials 3 (2013): 565-578..Icewhiz (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A minor scholar, but a scholar, who also held a post in USHMM and such, and wrote a speech for the US president. Anyway, since you chose to discuss this here rather than at RSN, what is so fringe about the claims in this book? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

As a "scholar", he is mostly unable to publish anymore in English - resorting to self publishing. In his early career, prior to major controversy, he got a board post (a polical apointee, not academic) - which given developments - was covered by the SPLC (and others) at the end of his term - SPLC 2009. His speech writing in 2017 was covered as: DID A POLISH FAR RIGHT ACTIVIST HELP DONALD TRUMP WRITE HIS SPEECH IN WARSAW, 2017, Newsweek. Self published works by far right activists are not scholarship. As for the book - the few reviews covering it note that it presents a narrative counter to the vast majority of published sources on WWII history and some note antisemitic language/motifs in the book itself. The book itself notes it is a response to a "false" narrative in published scholarship. Finally a book devoting a whole chapter to describing the whole branch of social sciences in the United States as Stalinist since the 1960s - and directed against Poland since 1989 - is making a highly fringe claim. Want to place this "fact" in Social science?Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

https://www.chron.com/local/prognosis/article/Texas-state-rep-calls-vaccines-sorcery-13826725.php --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Clarke's third law springs to mind. clpo13_(talk) 18:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• There's Nothing New About the 'New Conspiracism' --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• • What a weird thing to get upset about. It's something of an American Chopper Meme: "Conspiracy theories are different today!" "There's nothing new under the Sun!" jps (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This is another fringe book by Colin Wilson. I tagged it for notability but then User:FreeKnowledgeCreator removed the tag adding two reviews, both behind a paywall: "'Atlantis and the Sphinix received a mixed review from Norman Malwitz in Library Journal.^[1] The book was also reviewed by John Michell in The Spectator.^[2]

Malwitz described Wilson's thesis as "unusual", but credited Wilson with presenting his theories in "a sober and readable manner." He considered Wilson's claim that the Sphinx shows signs of water damage and is much older than has been thought to be his most interesting and believable statement. He compared the book to John Anthony West's Serpent in the Sky (1979).^[1]"

Maybe that scrapes by(?) but Norman Malwitz is just a senior library in a New York City branch library."The article reports on the presentation of a multimedia-collection about Sikh culture by Jagir Singh Bains for Queens Library's Glen Oaks branch in New York City to Senior librarian Norman Malwitz"[32] who I can see from an Amazon search does a lot of book reviews. I don't see why we should include his comments on the content itself. John Michell is of course a fringe author.

Doug Weller talk 10:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Malwitz reviews anything and everything and that journal contains hundreds of reviews per issue, mostly by non-specialists. Malwitz (to the best of my knowledge) has not any expertise in the subject area which probably explains the inept review.

The other one is over here.

Overall, shall be merged to the parent article. Fringe nonsense by a semi-lunatic. ∯WBG^converse 11:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

John Michell (writer) is the right John Michell in this case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller questioned whether Malwitz's view of the book should be mentioned. Per WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Is Library Review now considered not an acceptable source? So long as it is considered acceptable, there is no reason not to mention Malwitz's view. It does not help the encyclopedia to look for reasons to exclude views one personally disagrees with from articles. Winged Blades of Godric's complaint about the "inept" review simply looks like a case of someone wanting to exclude something from an article on I-don't-like-it grounds. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Antony C. Sutton - one time Hoover Institute fellow turned conspiracy theorist. Article starts off bad enough, then goes on to explain his belief in a Wall Street-Nazi-Communist-FDR nexus. Later he turned his pen to Skull & Bones, the Federal Reserve, Gold and Cold Fusion. The only sources are his own books and a quick look around didn't spot anything mentions of him aside from by other conspiracy theorists. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the Andrew Neil page as to how we should describe his views on climate change.[33] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

See the discussion at Talk:Book of Joshua#Gerald Aardsma about a source which the editor discussed in the section above added to both articles. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm going to give up discussing with this editor - he's told me "maybe you prefer definitions that blur the distinction between science and history." which is just weird. But it can be very hard trying to explain things to a Creationist. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I just gave up as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(Cross-posted at WT:PHYS, but regulars here may be interested as well.) Please see Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit. There was an RfC started, but it should probably be removed as too vague. There are all sorts of back-and-forth claims of conflict of interest, socking, fringe science edorsement, etc. It's a pretty tangled mess, and I don't know this stuff well enough to really help, so I thought I'd post a notice here. It seems related to this bimetric gravity stuff that's been posted about a couple times here recently as well. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It's still going on, with complaints about the "right of reply", and chatter from an anon IP (it's probably this fellow). Anyone who wants to help sort out what is probably a pile of WP:BLP violations is welcome to try. XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, if anyone wanted to melt the entire article down to slag, I wouldn't object. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess I should post this here, too: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wearisome_accusations from 87.88.187.158 at Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit. XOR'easter (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

He believes humans will go extinct by 2030 and has a following sells books, shirts etc.. his page is being actively edited by himself and his partner adding promotional material, T-shirt pictures, removing critical sourced material etc. More at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Guy_McPherson. -- GreenC 05:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Could benefit from more eyes based on this thread on ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wearisome_accusations_from_87.88.187.158_at_Talk:Jean-Pierre_Petit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Missed the above thread, sorry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The lead of Room-temperature superconductor currently mentions some random patent filed by someone who works for the US Navy with a spectacular claim that doesn't even seem to have received much media attention. I think it's clear it doesn't belong there. IMO it probably doesn't belong anywhere in the article. I wonder if the whole "reports" section could do with a more general trim, at least requiring a peer reviewed article where the claim was made (and preferably a secondary source mention of this claim). This would exclude another controversial recent claim made in a pre-print which at least received more attention e.g. [34]. (Our article at least mentions the controversy, but is there any reason to mention such fringe claims at all?) Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I made some cuts. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on the off-wiki carbosphere and notice stirring are afoot to revise our content (e.g. this). Accordingly there has been an upswell of editing at Low-carbohydrate diet including from new/awakened accounts. More eyes could help. (For those unfamiliar, the fringe theory in play is that carbohydrate is the Great Satan of our diets, and this Truth is suppressed by The Man.) Alexbrn (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This needs a look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Amy_Sequenzia.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting dispute. The person in question is completely non-verbal, but she is credited as the author of a book and numerous articles via the miracle of Facilitated Communication.

FC is nonsense, basically a less innocent version of a Ouija board ... so is it OK to have a BLP that credulously accepts "her own" writings about herself as a reliable source?

ApLundell (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been to that noticeboard for the last time. Maybe I am generalizing unfairly, but it seems to be a wretched hive of bureaucracy and illogic where people's goal is to make Wikipedia as unreliable as possible, for example by accepting self-published sources just because they do not violate one specific other rule. [35] --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You know Ouija board was the frost thing that popped into my mind when I read about this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This case is particularly weird. Because she's incapable of speaking for herself, the BLP is written entirely from the perspective of the people actively exploiting her.ApLundell (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out why this offends me so much, and Ap has just hit the nail on the wossname. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

There has been another decipherment claim, immediately rebutted by Lisa Fagin Davis, who might merit an article here. Might want to keep an eye on this for a while. Mangoe (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

They're all immediately rebutted if they're not ignored completely. Nobody ever solves it. There's enough people watching the article that anyone who tries to re-write the article from the perspective that it's now a solved mystery will be reverted almost immediately.

The article has a brief list at the end of decipherments-of-the-month that have received notable media attention. It's mostly intended to be representative, not comprehensive. Every once and a while that list gets too long an needs to be pruned.

There's a debate about whether the current decipherment-of-the-month rises to the level that it should be added to the article.

ApLundell (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

User:JGabbard#Perspectives/Protesting abuses!

I didn't know that http://www.truthwiki.org/ existed before I read the above. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I altered the section title, but do not see why it is raised here? cygnis insignis 15:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect to alert us to keep an eye on their activitiesSlatersteven (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Or their own? cygnis insignis 15:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to have to request that those of you who are getting paid for your efforts as allopathic charlatanism and rabid members of the WikiMafia please disclose your COI in accordance with PAID. GMG^talk 16:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll be watching Cygnis insignis.-Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, it is mostly trivial facts about the species we are extirpating. 16:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that Roxy the dog is insistent that disparaging remarks about other users, as section titles, is a privilege worth edit warring over. cygnis insignis 16:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Then don't edit other peoples posts. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Openly admits to violate NPOV ("boost a marginal topic into more general acceptance"). --mfb (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"You are banned from all pages and edits related to complementary and alternative medicine, broadly construed for six months." --User talk:JGabbard#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

OK, so who wants to go and remove the WP:POLEMIC from his user page? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I considered nominating at WP:MfD but the other sections appear more relevant to Wikipedia. Part of the text is also about a now-banned topic, but before the ban... —PaleoNeonate – 14:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The section has been deleted.[36] I believe that we are done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Watch the video.[37] Doug Weller talk 10:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The domain is suspended so the video can’t be viewed there.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Working now, Doug Weller talk 22:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

History of chiropractic needs a lot of work. Like TNT-levels of work. The whole thing reads like a high-school essay written by an advocate.

74.70.146.1 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Those knowledgable about fringe topics and authors writing about them may want to weigh in about this. --Calton | Talk 22:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I am well-acquainted with Mr.and Mrs. Flem-Ath and their books. A summary of their unremarkable ideas about Atlantis being in Antarctica can be found at Flem-Ath, Rand and Rose in Atlantipedia. Despite what I have read and heard about Mr. Rand Flem-Ath, I (thankfully) lack any idea what is being discussed in his comments. Paul H. (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Flem-Ath seems to be suggesting that one of Professor John Hoopes' students is close to Nazis, and is accusing John of possibly coercing students to say negative things about him. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is an incorrect interpretation of his remarks. Flem-Ath is rightly saying that he doesn't want to be affected through guilt-by-association with a former neo-Nazi who also happens to be a prolific author on Atlantis. However, I think that the guilt-by-association interpretation is also incorrect. Most writers on Atlantis are not Nazis. Hoopes (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It needs AFDing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If Flem-Ath is talking about a fellow editor, is that a violation of Wikipedia policy concerning personal attacks? Also, his ideas about Atlantis are not at all notable. Paul H. (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Flem-Ath did not refer to me by name, but Doug Weller recognized it was me and introduced my name to the discussion. I would prefer that the hostile comments be deleted. Hoopes (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

He denies meaning the student and says my "tone and aggressive attack violates many BLP policies" I have found two Kirkus reviews and of course Hancock talks about him. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If he's notable he should have an article. He knows that a Wikipedia article will contain criticism and naturally doesn't want that. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven did you see this version?[38] Doug Weller talk 20:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC) oops, @Slatersteven: Doug Weller talk 21:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes and I still think its needs AFDing, Not really all that notable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hancok gives Flem-Ath a lot of credit for Fingerprints of the Gods. Then there's this book by Gary Lachman[39] There's pretty clearly enough and I'm sure there's more. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Graham Hancock in Fingerprints of the Gods (1995: 465-66), Flem-Ath was the bridge between Charles Hapgood and his own theories that revived the cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis and suggested Atlantis might have been located in Antarctica. The notion of a pole shift gained traction as part of the 2012 phenomenon and Hancock has since published two other major books about a "lost civilization". According to Gary Lachman in Beyond the Robot (2016), a biography of Colin Wilson, Flem-Ath also played a key role in Wilson's publication of at least two books about Atlantis, on one of which he was a co-author. Both Hancock's and Lachman's comments suggest notability in the influence and perpetuation of certain fringe theories. Hoopes (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Flem-Ath's claims and apparent hostility towards me suggest that I should not be editing this article given a possible BLP conflict of interest. Hoopes (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore runs a show that "peddles conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes"[40] and Seth Rich conspiracy theories[41][42][43]. However, there is gatekeeping going on at the article where we are not allowed to add content that relates to this conspiracy-theory-pedding. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This[44] is an example of the problems I'm talking about... regular editors adding YouTube videos from the subject of the article claiming that RS are reporting negatively on him because the RS are geared at "getting advertising off their competitor's platform." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Using a one line reference about Dore is a clear case of cherry-picking. This discussion has come up many times in discussions of far right topics, and editors regardless of political position have agreed that serious accusations require strong sources. I don't think that Jimmy Dore is far left as normally understood. There is no discussion on his show about Karl Marx or calls for violent revolution or terrorism. It's a serious BLP violation to make such claims. Dore's show of course mentioned both the Syria chemical attacks and the Seth Rich case, as did CNN and other mainstream media. TFD (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Why Anti-vax Doctors Are Ordering 23andMe Tests: Naturopaths have long been obsessed with a gene called MTHFR. Now vaccine skeptics are testing for it too.

Key quote:

"The anti-vaccine movement is decidedly outside of mainstream medicine, but it has always borrowed the language and trappings of mainstream science. By tapping into the wider interest in genetics, vaccine skeptics are attempting to tap into scientific legitimacy. The early hype about the power of genes and the early spate of now outdated research made genetics research all the more exploitable."

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This article could benefit from the attention of some knowledgeable editors experienced in handling fringe stuff. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Climate change skepticism" or "denial" again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Ricardo_Duchesne that could use some additional eyes. The discussion concerns how extensively we can cite fringe sources like Occidental Quarterly to describe Duchesne's unorthodox views of history. Nblund ^talk 01:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

See here[45]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The Freeman Dyson article contains a lot of content where he delineates his views on climate change (which go against the scientific consensus).[46] The text seems largely self-sourced, which seems inappropriate for someone who is not an expert in the field of climate science. Someone should take a look at the page to make sure it's compliant with WP:FRINGE and that it's not uses as a soapbox for climate change disinformation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think it's the worst I've seen but I did prune it a little bit. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Freeman Dyson's work for the JASON Group in assessment of the post-thermonuclear environment, his part in discussion of the validity of the TTAPS model and the nuclear winter hypothesis actually does establish Dyson as a competent voice in the field of climate studies. Freeman Dyson's views as a mathematical physicist who has studied catastrophic global clinate change in the wake of global thermonuclear war are notable. Are there competent WP:RS specifically calling Freeman Dyson's views 'fringe' for reasons other than they don't conform to the scientific consensus? loupgarous (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The fact that his views don't confirm to the scientific consensus is the very reason they are fringe. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 05:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the BIO: the views are balanced. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC).

What? He opened his mouth when a debate happened that had to do with climate, therefore he is a climate expert? That is... let's say, it's not the usual definition. Usually, he should, you know, actually have done research on the subject. Published it in peer-reviewed papers. Been a part of the climatological community. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in fact the article quotes Dyson as saying that "I do not know much [about] the technical facts," so Dyson himself says he's not an expert. I agree with User:Xxanthippe that the bio is balanced, but perhaps it would be worthwhile to put in a short quote from the NY Times Magazine article [23] criticizing Dyson (inserting it before "In reply, he notes..."). NightHeron (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I put in a quote from climate scientist James Hansen criticizing Dyson. NightHeron (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Young Earth creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cosmic microwave background (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Special:Contributions/ClareLiggins

Unfortunately the way diffs are shown it's quite difficult, but I noticed some text changes other than citation ones. Eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 12:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

They cannot be a newbie, surely? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It was a stealth revert, probably a troll hoping to wreak havoc. Marking as "minor" is especially bad. Unclear what the motivations are. jps (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this, —PaleoNeonate – 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Can happen by accident if you look at an older version, edit that and ignore the warning. --mfb (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, —PaleoNeonate – 00:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien visitation

Please comment.

jps (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

See [47] note the edit summaries and Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#Qualifications of Researchers. Love the "You can't remove citations just because authors are creationists or Bible college graduates." Doug Weller talk 19:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting; some extant material remains at Sodom and Gomorrah and Tall el-Hammam, I opened a discussion at the Sodom article but noticed that there already was a previous thread about the same topic, with no apparent new developments... —PaleoNeonate – 00:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

And at List of possible impact structures on Earth where it was restored. —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: the IP disruption ceased, but a few extant discussions are at Talk:Trinity Southwest University#Third party sources and Talk:Sodom and Gomorrah#Meteoritic explosion. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

How is she related to fringe theories? --mfb (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at the AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC).

I did that and then asked here because I didn't see a connection. Looks like a regular scientist with somewhat low notability to me. --mfb (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Atheist Atrocities fallacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist Atrocities fallacy

Fresh article now at AfD (may possibly be of interest to some readers here). —PaleoNeonate – 00:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Topic does not exist in any reliable sources. I see it on blogs on google. But I also checked google scholar to see if there was any scholarly discussion of it - sometimes it happens - and I literally found no hit whatsoever [48]. The sources in the article are very poor: Kierkegaard and Locke do not discuss such a thing, Baggini actually links communism with atheism but adds that it does not apply vice versa. Also most of the article has no citations whatsoever so that is pretty much WP:OR. Now, if some reliable sources can be found for this supposed fallacy, then under those conditions, I would say keep.

But that seems unlikely since the main and only source for the article itself is a blog The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot by Michael Sherlock. Actually, I suspect that Michael Sherlock himself wrote this article himself or a follower of this fringe theory since it follows his sections from his actual blog post almost exactly as it is in the article right now! The editor that wrote the whole article is a new editor User:Grace654321. Literally the article right now has similar structure and even the same wording as the blog post: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Tu quoque (“You Too”) Fallacy, False Analogy Fallacy, False Cause Fallacy, Poisoning the Well Fallacy, Slippery Slope Fallacy. Compare the article right now [49] with Michael Sherlock's original blog. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a RfC on the William Happer page about whether his remarks that the "demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler" belongs in the lede.[50] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The Carolina Bays section of the article about Antonio Zamora needs to be revised as it presents his interpretations, which are considered fringe by many Quaternary geologists, "...without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view." I would also argue that it lacks neutrality as it presents his interpretations as if they were accepted by mainstream scientists. Paul H. (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Just looking at this and it seems to already have been cleaned up by Doug. It would probably be possible to keep a mention but the section was definitely undue... —PaleoNeonate – 07:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Or... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Zamora. jps (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

".without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view." Unfortunately the section was deleted before I had a chance to address your concern. Mr Zamora's paper on the Carolina Bays was published in a peer reviewed journal. As far as I am aware all of the existing theories do not fully explain the creation of the Carolina Bays. Mr Zamoras paper offered an alternative and plausible explanation, although I believe certainly not watertight. He is a serious engineer and scientist and when I started the article I was not aware of his work on the Carolina Bays, I only knew of his pioneering work on automatic spelling correction and chemical abstracts. Ray3055 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

"are considered fringe by many Quaternary geologists". I am willing add back in the section on his theory and to specifically mention any papers that call his paper 'fringe', I am only aware of one blog that mentioned a problem with the theory, but certainly it did not use the word fringe, and is itself hardly a reliable reference for Wikipedia. Ray3055 (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

So far, Zamora’s ideas have been mainly embraced by fringe catastrophists since it was published in 2017. An example of the acceptance of Zamora’s ideas by fringe catatsrophists is Michael Jaye in his book, The Worldwide Flood: Uncovering and Correcting the Most Profound Error in the History of Science. Also, Graham Hancock in Chapter 27 of his latest book, America Before argues for Zamora's hypothesis. There is a corresponding lack of equivalent discussion and support in mainstream publications, which together speaks volumes about Zamora’s credibility.

In addition, peer review can be quite falliable. For example there the peer-reviewd paper, which also cites Zamora:

Jaye, M., 2019. The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, 19(1).

PDF of paper

Volume 19 - Issue 1

Paper available: The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary

Being accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not provide special dispensation to fringe nature of Jaye ideas.

Also, there is:

Cholleti, E.R., Vaddadi, K. and Yadav, A.H.K., 2017. Puratana Aakasha-Yantrika Nirmana Sadhanavasthu (Ancient Aero-mechanical manufacturing materials) Materials Today: Proceedings, 4(8), pp.7704-7713.

It was published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2017. Only in 2019 was it retracted because of its fringe nature. Peer-review is neither infallible nor always prevents bad science from being published as discussed in:

Wright, V.P., 2019. Memes, False News, and the Death of Empiricism. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 89(4), pp.310-311.

At the least, Zamora's hypothesis needs a credible, published, third party review of its significance to be mentioned as the lack of formal discussion just might mean that nobody, except fringe researchers, regard his paper serious or significant enough to discuss. A lot of bad science is simply ignored. Paul H. (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

He's been unable to get his books published and has published them himself, either through "Zamora Consulting" or https://www.scientificpsychic.com/ - the first few lines of his website are:

Scientific Psychic® is an educational web site dedicated to the exploration of the human mind with the objective of encouraging critical thinking, a healthy life style and improved communication skills.

Psychic Chat

Online Psychic Chat with Free Psychic Readings, Horoscopes, Tarot readings, and other interesting Paranormal Topics like ghosts and spirits.

Try a Personal Psychic Reading with a live psychic!

palm reading

Palm Reading, Extrasensory Perception (ESP) Tests and the Scientific Psychic Workbook will let you explore aspects of your subjective perceptions and understand the scientific method.

A section about the Solar System covers the timeline of the Earth, the evolution of the atmosphere, meteorite impacts, an analysis of the Carolina Bays, lunar craters and maria, and a geology ::glossary. This section also includes topics about human evolution, dinosaur classification and the tree of life.

Younger Dryas Ejecta Curtain

This video examines the geological traces left on a variety of terrains by the secondary impacts of ice boulders ejected by an extraterrestrial impact on the Laurentide Ice Sheet.

Here's an example from last month where fringe got past peer review.[51] Doug Weller talk 16:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I could use an esoteric manicure...[52] —PaleoNeonate – 16:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Aquatic ape hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Elaine Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here's a perennial topic, about which work is often postponed, but I would be grateful if more people could audit my changes at this article. Without it, my impression was that of undue fringe promotion. There's only one other person at the talk page (who contested my edit and may also have valid points). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: my particular edit and source did not stand, but there were obvious improvements, thanks to Alexbrn. —PaleoNeonate – 22:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

And Jim Moore got to do a short jig on her grave, anticipating the claim made ten years later and added for "balance" (because it is pseudoscience, and she was a pseudo-scientist, according to … erm, the Vulcan Science Council?). cygnis insignis 15:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

My source from Moore wasn't preserved. —PaleoNeonate – 15:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I said it was a "short jig" :-) Was it copied from the another article? cygnis insignis 18:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi all,

I'm pretty new so please excuse me if I do anything incorrectly! Two months ago I removed a reference to a study into the effects of atrazine in frogs, from the page on fish physiology. Shortly afterwards my edit was reverted, and a message left on my talk page advising that it shouldn't be removed because I hadn't provided evidence via citations. I can understand why it was reverted as the reason I gave was a bit ambiguous; I should have clearly explained that another reason for removal was that the study in question didn't involve fish or their physiology. I originally gave my reason for removal as relating to the poor quality of the study itself (controversy over the results and lack of data, lack of replication) and the fact that the findings aren't accepted in mainstream science (primarily as the researcher apparently won't release his data, protocols etc.).

The section in question was changed when my edit was reverted, and I'm happier with the new wording. But not completely happy - the new version really doesn't strike me as NPOV, plus it still uses the frog study as a citation (#28).

Could I please ask for some assistance on whether anything needs doing re. the "Effects of pollution" section of this article?

You can see the original comment left on my talk page if you'd like some background. Also, as explained on my talk page I have no COI, which the other editor seems to have concluded when first contacting me.

The truth is that I genuinely have no idea whether atrazine causes problems for any form of life, which ones are affected, how, why, dose/response, etc.

However, I don't think that weak studies that remain unaccepted by the scientific community in general should be used as evidence.

Plus frogs aren't fish.

For anyone who's interested, I've linked to an article on the study and scientist in question. You could possibly argue that this article isn't 100% NPOV (maybe the journalists don't like each other?), nevertheless there is a lot of interesting info and background provided here: ^[1]

Thanks in advance for any help you can give! Blue-Sonnet (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see plausible evidence that you would have a related conflict of interest, but also don't see anything that I could do (others here may know better). Wikipedia is not for environmental activism either but the section appears in due weight and the original citation did mention fish. There may be some synthesis issue with the current mention (but I can only access its abstract, the article with only two cross-references and about the wars, where I don't see mention of fish). —PaleoNeonate – 06:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Looks like a pretty standard woo article; came across it after seeing it come up here. Look at the opening paragraph of the old revision for what was there for the past month. The reverted edit mentions an additional study which the article should probably mention, but I'm not sure how best to do that. Vahurzpu (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

DNA replicates in a pure water sample? Even if we ignore the other nonsense that stood in the article way too long: Do the cranks now claim the atoms that make up DNA are produced in the pure water sample? Via cold fusion, or what? --mfb (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If I say his name, will he magically appear? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 05:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Spontaneous generation —PaleoNeonate – 06:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Some have been improving it already, thanks for that, —PaleoNeonate – 06:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, I see that overly-credulous articles on supernatural/fringe/paranormal phenomena are often flagged for maintenance here, so I wonder if people here can help with Woman in Black (supernatural). I just closed the AFD on it as "keep" but some keep arguments were concerned that the article is treating the topic in an unduly credulous/in-universe manner and I am thinking this forum might be the right place to ask for assistance with remedying the problem (or stating that it has been resolved). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is disagreement on if this entry in relation to climate change should be included and if so, how to present it. Input is welcome here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It has had its short description "Pseudo-scientific hypothesis that posits intelligent extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth" removed and a lot of tagging added. These are obviously good faith edits - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors#WP:BEFORE. A quick glances does suggest a need to fix the article. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Fingerprints of the Gods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed that IP editors tend to mess up the talk page regularly (I tried to improve this), but there's also a particular one now who edit wars there and posted an apparent attack at my talk page yesterday. My patience is a bit exhausted so am posting this here in hope that others watchlist it and/or answer to the latest talk page query. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Something to be on the lookout for[53]. Same as with Hillary and Trump. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Some fringes material has been added to his article that I've fixed, but I'm not happy with the new edits to the "scientific section". Doug Weller talk 15:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Chemtrails (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Contrail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Droughts in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stratospheric aerosol injection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

---

• User:Soniaprods ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Classic promotion of fringe ideas, blah blah blah... More eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 16:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The warning templates put on other user pages suggest familiarity with Wikipedia beyond the 34 edits they made so far (counting the one from the probable sockpuppet...). --mfb (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but I have a script that shows me if an editor is blocked, and those articles don't show up any blocked editors at all recently (none in the last 250 edits). So I don't think we can find a possible master. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CB reverted at [71]. More eyes needed. Stating described his professional scientific conclusion that Atheists could not be scientists is an insult to our intelligence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Religion and science go together. As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed. Without religion there is no charity. The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living Spirit that moves the universe."

— Albert Einstein, Third conversation (1948): William Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983), p. 94 Sfbmod (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding WP:CB as cited by me above to the article will be seen as WP:TROLLing. Ascribe a statement so utterly inane to Einstein is character assassination. Then Sfbmod went into a wild tangent about John 1:1. WP:AGF does not require us to allow other editors to insert inane rants into Wikipedia articles. He/she should be indeffed according to WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. "Einstein and Spinoza were Christians" is stuff for Uncyclopedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sfbmod this whole Spinoza / Einstein thing is pretty much the textbook definition of WP:SYNTH it's not going to fly and I recommend you relent lest you end up at WP:1AM. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It's just been changed from the former to the latter, I don't see sufficient sources in the article for either. It's a pretty poor article at the moment. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. For 12 years this has been up but it looks pretty empty. Has nothing else happened with Daniel Estulin? It does not look like it supports much on investigative journalism at least. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone keeps insisting that the article should cover an event that did not happen, plus the opinion of an unrelated person that it should have happened. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is a terrible WP:COATRACK being written from the perspective of Christian apologetics without nary an attempt to establish independent prominence of the ideas being lovingly promoted (e.g., that astrophysics proves God). Please come help clean it up. jps (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: currently at dispute resolution —PaleoNeonate – 22:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

After some failed starts, there seems to be some movement on paring down the article. Help would be appreciated. (It's not as hot in the kitchen any more!) jps (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 15#Category:Alien abduction phenomenon

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 15#Category:Alien abduction researchers

Help.

jps (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Deep trance identification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of words, little meaning. Before I AfD this, does anybody know whether there's any decent sourcing that might redeem this topic? Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

In 2014 with John Overdurf, Carson and Marion wrote and published the only full book on DTI available. Sounds like there is only one non-notable book about the topic. The other sources given don’t explicitly deal with it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

While I'm familiar with related Indonesian mythology-drama shows and various meditation systems (including some where we identify with an object or deity), I didn't know about this particular DTI version of it. I'm doubtful, but it would be interesting if regressive hypnosis would allow child-efficiency-like learning which seems to a claim here... The other more common claim is that under hypnosis one could tap into collective/higher resources, which is more a subjective illusion than fact... Assessment: fringe parapsychology? Then there's the pseudoneurology supposedly involving the mirror neurons... —PaleoNeonate – 14:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Recently User:Isabekian, who has made 25 edits in their 7 months here, has been adding material from a reliable source to both of these articles. I've managed to get them to accept that the source doesn't support the use of the word confirmed, but they are still insisting on not mentioning anything about the source saying that the issue as to whether Carahunge was a megalithic observatory is disputed in the source. I could have posted to NPOVN but as this is an archaeological fringe issue I think FTN is more appropriate, and most editors here are at least as well experienced with NPOV issues as editors at NPOVN.

Here is what I posted to their talk page. I thought that I had gone into enough detail to allow them to rewrite the article to meet our policy, but instead they have reverted me and accused me ov violating NPOV and not acting in good faith.

Your text was:

"Subsequently, different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs^[1], Irakli Simonia and Badri Jijelava^[2]) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) confirmed the astronomical significance of the Carahunge mega-lithic complex."

That's a misrepresentation of the source. The source has two relevant sentences: "The expedition supported the idea that Carahunge had an astronomical significance, concluding that the monument is aligned to rising points of the sun, moon, and several bright stars." It also says "The specific geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical significance" - so, "probably" and "supports" - neither word is anything close to confirmed. That's the misrepresentation.

Then there's our Neutral point of view policy linked in the section heading. The next part of the second sentence is "(but see also ▶Chap. 127, “Carahunge - A Critical Assessment” for a different view)." Your edit doesn't suggest that is in the source at all. To follow our policy you must include relevant information from chapter 127. I've reverted one edit entirely and am about to revert the other - please rewrite them complying with our guidelines.

I realise that you are new, but I would think that without even reading our policy an editor should understand that they shouldn't use words not backed in the source and should not cherry pick just one point of view from a source. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to assume good faith, but till now your actions are just agressive. If you believe a word I used is not fine, you could: 1) discuss it at talk at first, to not start an WP:WAR, 2) to change that word, but not delete the whole text. Your actions are against WP:NPOV. Isabekian (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone else please either tell me I'm talking nonsense or help this editor learn to comply with our policy? Doug Weller talk 16:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Newly created bio of UFO conspiracy theorist. Only content so far is a bibliography and a supposed top secret military document from 1948 that Good apparently hypes as proof of a conspiracy. Worth reviewing and watchlisting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I marked it for deletion, he seems to have no notability - Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

* Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Good_(2nd_nomination)

Reliably-sourced coverage does exist, but the issues raised by WP:FRINGEBLP definitely apply here. The sources all treat the individual with a WP:SENSATIONAL angle (Example: [72]), so there may not be enough serious, in-depth coverage with which to write an objective biography. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This particular article looks like a press release (and ending with an ad for a new book)... —PaleoNeonate – 12:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet the BBC source with the “Alien Bases Revealed” headline is being held up as authoritative. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we may have stumbled upon a new group of UFO-credulous active here at Wikipedia. This may get sticky. jps (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I think well meaning inclusionists will realize the problem when Good’s bio starts getting filled up with his actual views - which are frankly bonkers - and for which there is no published analysis or critique from any RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Will they? I am seeing people who look like they are very sympathetic to the idea that the new flurry of interest is somehow indicative of a "mainstreaming" of alien-contact mythology. jps (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Even if true, this isn't the hill you want to die on. The reasons why the sources fail WP:FRINGEBLP have been made abundantly clear at the AfD. Bludgeoning individual editors isn't going to change their minds. As mentioned, once the bio gets full of Good's wacky ideas, a {{Fringe_theories}} template will undoubtedly become a permanent feature of the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure I'm comfortable with a solution where Wikipedia allows BLPs to be permatagged. I understand the concern about fighting for naught, but I am more concerned that the relatively poor quality of our UFO content (compared to, say, creationism) is misleading people into thinking there is a there there. On my long list of things to do is to fix the main article. Perhaps I should get back to that. jps (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Could use some help in getting this article to a reasonable place. jps (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree. See the Talk page. It’s a start. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Theory,_hypothesis,_proof,_phenomenon,_...

I think there are some words not included at WP:WTA for which we could use some explication. What do you think?

jps (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi - just came across Coherent intelligence while doing a bit of NPP. Is this a thing? A google search came up with a few hits for the term, and a lot of them seem to be connected with the Igor Val. Danilov referred to in this article. The sourcing doesn't look great, and the whole thing smelled a bit fringey to me (quantum entanglement in neurons?) so thought I'd come here for a second opinion before doing anything further. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Article is based on dalinov primary sources, no secondary sources:

Google	Scholar	Books
"coherent intelligence" danilow	0	1 (facebook)
"coherent intelligence" danilov	0 (1 mentioning Nicholas Daniloff)	1 book by danilov

And reads like nonsense to me. Dump it. DVdm (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a mix of group dynamics and quantum mysticism... —PaleoNeonate – 00:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

With a pinch of Hundredth monkey effect, perhaps.—Odysseus1479 02:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If there are other sources talking about this idea other than Igor Val. Danilov, then perhaps it has some hope, but otherwise, no. I see that the article was made today so give it a week or two I would say for author to develop? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I was sure I had seen this before... I found a mention of a deleted draft at User talk:Tom Commeine. —PaleoNeonate – 00:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

But searching for the name I find a footballer and a computer programmer. —PaleoNeonate – 00:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: the articles Social reality, Quantum entanglement, Group decision-making, Collective intelligence, Social collaboration, Parapsychology and Extrasensory perception have been updated to include text about CI, audit and copyright-check welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 08:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

All reverted by DVdm and user warned, thanks! —PaleoNeonate – 12:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Copy of my comment at AFD Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Coherent intelligence:

Note: author of article is spamming links to their work in various articles: [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. Compare recurring phrase "...scientist, researcher in the field of communication and sociology Igor Val. Danilov..." - DVdm (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:SNOW. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A user has been rather zealously over-tagging the article on the premise that they don't believe there's sufficient historical evidence that Jews suffered oppression in Italy, particularly during WWII. This user has also been active trying to redefine Fascism without much success, so I fear the over-tagging is as a result of a fringe POV with regard to the nature of the ideology. Eyes would be appreciated. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I posted a request at WP:JEWISH-HIST —PaleoNeonate – 11:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'm not willing to edit war over an over-tagging situation, but it's really quite ridiculous. I'm sure some of the people at the Jewish History project will be interested in keeping the quality of articles so closely connected to the holocaust in some semblance of order. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea how many people saw it or care however, from the page information, "Number of page watchers who visited recent edits: 18". —PaleoNeonate – 12:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: tagging reverted, user blocked for general WP:DE —PaleoNeonate – 23:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Came here to say just that. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Unsure if this is the best noticeboard but since Waldorf is not mainstream, possibly: some criticism has recently been removed, I'm not sure if it was due, etc. Eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 14:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Waldorf is pretty fringey. And those deletions weren't copacetic. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It's fringe alright. As with any Steiner bollocks, there'll always be push back against anything critical. Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 audited it and restored the content (adding: copacetic is a great word), thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Lately, they've been in the news a lot as ground zero for epidemics caused by vaccine refusal. jps (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I checked that the article mentioned this (and it does). Will keep on watchlist, —PaleoNeonate – 14:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

When I was working at an IB school I had a friend who was interested in Waldorf for her kid and we had a few... disagreements... regarding the relative merits of the curricula. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

An editor has appeared at the Persecution of Christians article attempting to insert rather WP:PEACOCKed reports suggesting Christianity is experiencing a wide-spread genocide and is the most persecuted religion in the world. Eyes would be appreciated here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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

There a new editor active here, and this once again reveals how confusingly-partitioned this topic space is on Wikipedia - whether something belongs in Herbalism or Medicinal plants.

One thing I notice is that "herbalism" is a poorly-defined term. Our article currently starts by defining it (unsourced) as "the study of the botany and use of medicinal plants." Really? I checked the NHS, Harrison's Internal Medicine and even the NCCIH and see herbalism is not well-defined in these. On the other hand, "herbal medicine" (an alternative headword for the article) is well-defined. For example the NHS calls herbal medicines "those with active ingredients made from plant parts, such as leaves, roots or flowers". I think that renaming our herbalism article to "herbal medicine" could be a good step towards clarifying this topic space. Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I think herbal medicine is the correct heading. The confusion is that "herablist" is the appropriate term to describe a practitioner. Can you just move it? I doubt anyone would mind. jps (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It would need to swap with the redirect (Herbal medicine) so I think some admin jiggery-pokery is needed do this properly and keep the Talk together. Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

There's guidance for how to do this at WP:ROUNDROBIN - you need the page mover permission though, not sure if you have that? I don't, but Barkeep49 did something along these lines for me once, he might be willing to help out. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm leaving but could do it when I return later on (if noone did yet). —PaleoNeonate – 14:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that this swap needs a formal move discussion as this area seems rife enough with high passion editors that "someone could reasonably disagree with the move". Absent some discussion, or attempt at discussion, along those lines I would not feel comfortable doing a round robin page swap and using my page mover right. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The move was done, please ping me if any bug shows up, —PaleoNeonate – 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm I just noticed the above message. If this move is contested then yes formal discussion will be the way to go (after reverting if necessary). —PaleoNeonate – 21:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Scared Straight! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lately YouTube somehow suggested this video. Although I knew that boarding schools existed, I had to try to convince myself that this was only a TV "reality show" on the theme. On the other hand, I then found this article (and pass-by deleted a troubling comment from its talk page). What surprised me is that there's no mention of child abuse, I have not looked yet, but would not be surprised to find reliable sources about this. Since the belief that this type of authoritarian and abusive treatment could prevent recidivism is fringe, maybe this noticeboard fits... —PaleoNeonate – 23:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi FTN,

The educology article is nominated for deletion. The nominator, Crossroads1 has identified it as a fringe theory. I'm posting here because I'm not sure if that's true and it could use the eyeballs of people with experience identifying fringe academic concepts on Wikipedia. The article is a lengthy combination textbook/essay, largely written by one author and citing an awful lot of publications written by people involved with the development of this concept (and in journals dedicated to it). In other words, it has some of the hallmarks of an article on a fringe academic concept on Wikipedia. That said, there are indeed also lots of sources that could be independent (some of which are in languages I don't speak or otherwise don't have access to). Opinions welcome. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a tough one. I think it was basically invented by a husband-wife team who devoted most of their professional lives to unsuccessfully getting people to adopt their perspective. [80] It reminds me a bit of New Cybernetics (Gordon Pask). It's definitely WP:FRINGE, but I'm not sure whether deletion is the right thing to do. The most cited paper on educology is this one, but I cannot seem to find any of the mainstream citations dealing with the "educology". They seem to more-or-less ignore the neologism in favor of dealing with the substance of the praxis. jps (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The proponents of educology would argue that it is not a theory at all, fringe or otherwise, but a field of study (that can still be fringe of course). The debate at AFD largely centres around whether educology is any different from education, pedagogy, or educational psychology. By the way, this dates back several decades prior to the work of Mr and Mrs Maccia. See Harding, Essays in Educology, 1956. Something more than half a century old is hardly a neologism, surely at least a mesologism by now. SpinningSpark 13:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that book might be a joke: [81]. "being the first report from the archives of the Association for Preservation of Humor in Educological Workers." jps (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggest redirect to Pedagogy as it appears to be an outdated infrequently used term for the same. This might be more appropriate than deletion.Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That subtitle appears to be a joke, but the book isn't as the citations in this paper make clear. They also cite an even earlier work by Hardng, Anthology of Educology, 1951, discuss his work, and discuss the use of educology as a term. SpinningSpark 15:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that paper seems to have missed the joke (I can read the text on Google Books and, I can assure you, the book is very much tongue-and-cheek, and I assume the other three books about educology from the 50s and 60s are as well). In any case, Elizabeth Steiner admits that this earlier reference is joking and describes the coining of the term she uses here on p. 14. jps (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha, my mistake. Another researcher trying to prove the old adage that PhD != intelligent. SpinningSpark 15:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Lots of WP:SPAs active here. I wonder if there is some off-wiki coordination. jps (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

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

A SPA editor put it up for proposed deletion with the comment, "Only skeptical POV accepted" after re-inserting an image made by the SPA showing "Purported alignments among several mounds in the vicinity of the Face on Mars". --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what the issues are but it needs eyes. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The "purported alignment" of points on Mars is cited to Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. Somebody should check if it's contained in the source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The paper[82] does define those points on the surface, and point out what it claims are interesting properties of the pentagon A-B-D-E-G.

It also briefly mentions pentagon A-D-E-P-G.

...But the illustration being inserted in to the article is an original creation, apparently illustrating both those pentagons at once? I'm not 100% sure what it illustrates.

The paper, while a little over-eager and optimistic, doesn't seem entirely crazy to me. It's more a math exercise pointing out a potential new technique for SETI investigation. ApLundell (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Several BLPs associated with facilitated communication have been active recently. Currently the Amy Sequenzia article is at AfD here (opened 16 June).

It also looks like this has been at ANI recently - one editor has just been topic banned but another section has been opened here. Sunrise (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The topic ban for Anomalapropos was a good ban. He or she was only here to push fringe views without realizing how far fringe they are. (Which is common enough, I suppose.)

Oddly, it looks like one of the other users[83] that have "!voted" on the Amy_Squenzia deletion is now banned.

It would not surprise me if Wikiman2718 also winds up banned, he's rather ... zealous in his interpretation and implementation of WP:Fringe. (And he has the irritating habit of adding yellow highlighting to other people's comments on talk pages.)

That would make three. Of the relatively small group of people who are even aware this article exists.

This topic is really bringing out the worst in people. ApLundell (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh good. Looks like Wikiman2718 is going to be ok. ApLundell (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a fringe publication with minimal impact, mostly notable for promotion of racist views of intelligence. Currently under discussion here. It doesn't look like a reliable source, but I know there are some preeminent bad-journal hounds here who could probably help demonstrate whether this suspicion is correct. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be a fringe scientist, a lot of OR in his article. I just reverted some and was told " I shall be putting it on again, don't you worry - till it sticks !!!" - see User talk:Rudolf Pohl. He's an anti-Creationist, which is nice, but as his article says, "He subsequently received fierce opposition from the established petrology community. Therefore, he decided to write books, and in 1997 he created his own website and published his findings digitally." Forgot, the editor I've reverted is in touch with Collins, perhaps writing this on his behalf. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

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

This page caught my attention when I discovered that it was incorrectly tagged as {{in-universe}} rather than {{fringe theories}}. There is absolutely no scientific perspective whatsoever. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Does it need a scientific perspective?

The scientific perspective is simply that astrology is all nonsense from top to bottom. Not really much to get into that's specific to this one technical detail of astrology, is there? ApLundell (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Any attempt to write something like that in the article should be immediately reverted, in my opinion, as introducing POV and hence a breach of the WP:NPOV policy. Don't get me wrong, I think astrology is nonsense, but it is not Wikipedia's place to say so. Just describe the subject and leave readers to make up their own mind. There is no scientific evidence for the beliefs of Christianity either, but its article doesn't feel the need to say so (although it does cover the interactions of Christianity with science). A better question is "is there a scientific perspective at all?", or has science just simply ignored it. If the former, we can report it, if the latter, then there is nothing to write.

I would also dispute that this is a fringe theory, given the large number of adherents it has. If it were a scientific theory, then it would certainly be fringe science, but it is not. It is not within science at all. Claims that astrology is a science is certainly fringe, but we have astrology and science to cover that aspect. SpinningSpark 08:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The article is a bit fawning and needs to be toned down (it's really an article on precession of the equinox with added woo). It is definitely a fringe theory because WP:FRINGE is not about the number of adherents, it's about whether there is relevant WP:MAINSTREAM acceptance of claims in the relevant epistemic community. jps (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The relevant community here would be expert practitioners of astrology would it not? Are you saying astrological age is not generally accepted as part of the canon of astrology? I'm not arguing either way, just asking. SpinningSpark 18:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Um, no. There is no such thing as an "expert practitioner of astrology" just as there is no thing as an "expert practitioner of creation science". jps (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The relevant community for this article is experts in the field of astrology. Regardless of whether that's a reality-based worldview. ApLundell (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Experts in astrology need not be practitioners. jps (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

We can, should, and already do say that astrology is nonsense (Astrology is a pseudoscience that...); it's absolutely a fringe topic. It would be relatively easy to take a chainsaw to the uncited and badly-cited material, but without an infusion of reliable and independent sources that won't make the article good, just short and full of holes that anyone interested in the topic will notice. Smowo (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Saying something is a pseudoscience is not the same as saying it is nonsense. It is just saying that it is not science (usually of something that is couched in scientific language). Rationalists will likely consider that much the same thing, but Wikipedia shouldn't take an opinion on people's beliefs. SpinningSpark 10:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Subhash Kak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In April a one edit SPA added a long complaint to the talk page saying that Kak was being treated unfairly and a new editor has now chimed in. Looks like Hindutva vs science. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Additional input is needed on the Sharyl Attkisson page about how to described her coverage of and personal views on vaccines, and what sources to use. There are on-going disputes (that the subject of the article is herself personally involved in on the talk page) as to whether she's promoting fringe claims about vaccines or not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Just adding that the primary current discussion is an RfC (section link). There have also been claims that Snopes.com is an unreliable source, which have just been brought to RSN here. Sunrise (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

When I came across this article, which is barely more than a stub, it was effectively saying that the IDW was a loose agglomeration of academics with no ideological connection. However for an article about academics, the principal citation is Bari Weiss - a second-rate opinion columnist. Now we all know how famously I love political articles being sole-sourced to mass media, but in the absence of any indication this neologism has attracted non-fringe academic interest, I'm tempted to AfD under WP:TOOSOON. Before I throw that particular molotov though, I thought I'd check in here and see if any of the other denizens of political fringe articles can point to any mainstream sociological, anthropological or scholarly literature writers who have covered the concept.

I mean besides Natalie Wynn - She's great and all, but Youtube doesn't really count as an RS. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've definitely heard of the term before. It's a neologism to be sure, but there seems to be no shortage of sources available, not just using the term but also examining the subject directly. As an article about a concept, we can probably do a good deal better but I don't doubt the sources are available to do so. They don't necessarily need to be academic, because it's (as far as I understand) more of a fuzzy pop-culture term than a sociological grouping. Having said that, if we're trying to write an article about this group as if it is a clearly distinct sociological grouping, then we're probably wrong, and the current article is probably a great deal over simplified in its presentation. GMG^talk 17:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• My concern is, right now, the article is a WP:COATRACK for listing Bari Weiss' favourite racist pseudoscientists. I mean, within this article, Wikipedia is effectively calling Stefan Molyneux an academic! On the basis of an opinion columnist with no remit in what constitutes academia. I mention WP:TOOSOON because, in five years, if people are still talking about the IDW rather than having moved onto whatever the newest racist buzzword is, it might warrant discussion. But right now I'm just wondering if it's worth keeping in anything resembling its current form. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, well...like I said, it's a fuzzy pop-culture term...and like a double misnomer. You call someone like Molyneux an academic when he's clearly not, while at the same time people are acting like someone like Steven Pinker (who actually is a highly prolific academic) is a) somehow something to do with the dark web, and b) somehow something to do with the alt right, neither of which is any closer to the truth than Molyneux is. Personally, I've always understood the term to be more about medium than political agreement, more of a new vs. old media thing, but then again, lots of people seem to have their own opinion about what the term means. GMG^talk 18:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not buying that Intellectual Dark Web = people who like to talk about academic topics on Youtube. Otherwise everybody would have Contra Points and Folding Ideas on their lists. But if we're absent a clear definition beyond the Weiss opinion article and primary sources, well, again, WP:TOOSOON exists for a reason. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

For the time being, I'm stubbing out the member lists, the editorializing about what is or is not a joke and the information sourced only to the opinions of Weiss and (sigh) Hamburger. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, we can't make the term be nice and neat when it ain't. What does Sam Harris really have in common with Joe Rogan intellectually or politically? One is a neuroscientist and moral philosopher, and the other is a comedian who got famous for making people eat bugs. All we can really do is follow the sources and report their own disagreement when they disagree. GMG^talk 18:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I think Weiss fundamentally misinterpreted the phenomenon, and that most of that member list was a WP:SYNTH between her, and Hamburger's even more... iffy... attempt to delineate who's who on Youtube's racism and sexism section. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried Google Scholar? There's a few sources there that mention the IDW. Scott Hargreaves "A Culture of War and Peace", Steve Lagerfeld "In with the Out Crowd", Jonathan Murphy "Reclaiming the Left", Michael Shermer "Have Archetype Will Travel"... even an article in 'Dissent', which I assume just calls everyone in the IDW literally Hitler. The articles in question do counter the assertions that Joe Rogan isn't IDW, or that IDW is just race theorists. Give me a Google Docs link and I'll upload all those articles for you (I'm assuming you don't have university journal access) in a courteous manner, trusting in your desire to neutrally evaluate the article and what can be done with it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm just gonna take things over to the talk page rather than have two concurrent discussion. GMG^talk 19:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in a discussion at WP:BLPN#Sharyl Attkisson related to the theory that vaccines can cause autism. R2 (bleep) 05:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

A fairly inexperienced editor User:Neighborhood Nationalist has arrived at this article and is complaining that "The presentation of an organization’s identify should never be presented by its opposition, that’s an incredible show of bad faith." and stating that they are going to try to give it "some semblance of neutrality" - a not uncommon misunderstaning of NPOV. But this has involved removing the anti-Semitism sidebar and the description of Harry Barnes as a holocaust denier (which he clearly was). Similar problems at other articles, eg[84] but I'm not sure if I can call them fringe. Barnes Review however is I think clearly fringe history. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. Due to the contentious nature of this article, I recognize why one might have concerns that someone engaged in such an effort as I’ve stated might be interested in furthering an ideological agenda. The purpose of my original announcement to which you referred is to clarify my neutral intentions to clean up this article and to invite both dialogue and critical review of my efforts.

• Regarding the removal of the “anti-Semitism” sidebar, it is not my intention to minimize or downplay this categorization, but the placement of this very large sidebar at the very top of the article at the expense of a general infobox is rather unorthodox. I’m currently still in the process of emulating more developed articles in this category by featuring this information in a more proper display and I plan to finish this task today.
• Regarding Harry Barnes, I have no issue with calling him a “Holocaust denier.” He was. My concern lies in whether this classification is best presented before even the most fundamental biographical information of the man if our goal is a neutral, dispassionate, and encyclopedic presentation of his life and work.
• Regarding my noted inexperience, I am indeed a neophyte, but an earnest learner. For that reason I sincerely hope that any oversight, omission, or error on my behalf will not be misinterpreted as a willful act of bad faith or defiance.
• Regarding your remarks on “fringe” history, I’m not quite certain of your implication, but I hope it isn’t that such an view precludes the treatment of this publication’s article as fairly and neutrally as any other publication’s article? I must point out that contested history is not categorically “fringe”.

For what it’s worth, my interest in this publication has nothing to do with any particular interest in Holocaust scholarship, revision, denial, etc. My interest stems from my reading and studies of pre-war cryptology and the breaking of the Japanese JN-25 and “Purple” diplomatic codes.

Thanks for taking the time to engage with my small effort here. Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

An IP keeps slowly but repeatedly removed information from this article which makes Gundry's theories about lectin being the cause of numerous modern diseases seem as if they are accepted by the scientific community when they are not e.g. [85]. I'd appreciate if you could review the content and provide input. SmartSE (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the CJR Event on Covering Climate Change and its implications on Wikipedia articles on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion is related to climate change denial. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Climate coverage, starting in September. — Newslinger talk 21:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Looks like a great deal of pro-fringe editing, if not outright whitewashing, this year. While the article has never been very good, I'd say 12 Jan looks like a last good version.

Looks like multiple UPEs. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yunshui: You CU blocked Rashad Naqawah there. Could you look at these or should I file an SPI?

• Robertnicky (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• RamSingh00222 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nilanda2019 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) SmartSE (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Struck one as they were replacing the controversy not removing it. SmartSE (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

A check shows no technical connection between Rashad Naqwah and the other two accounts, a very tenuous (bordering unlikely) connection between Robertnicky and RamSingh00222, and a confirmed connection between Robertnicky and Tejpal007, who I believe may be part of the same paid editing ring as Rashad Naqwah (although they are not connected technically). Yunshui ^雲_水 06:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This article by a fringe historian (who backs "the idea that the Greek Dark Ages can be drastically reduced and arose solely from a misreading of key elements of the history of ancient Egypt)" needs attention. His book is used a bit in articles.[86] Doug Weller talk 08:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC) See this as a possible source.[87] Doug Weller talk 08:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears that the ongoing war between Team Red and Team Blue has expanded to Talk:RationalWiki. We could really use some more eyes on the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... GMG^talk 14:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I am probably overly paranoid but is this article (a kid inventing a fusion reactor, or something along these lines) for real? Such extraordinary claims often are hoaxes or pro-fringe POV-pushing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you try reading the sources? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Some of them seem to be broken, and with some others I am not sure if they are dependable sources for such claims. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The following are reliable sources for the claim in question:

• Time Magazine: "At 14, American Taylor Wilson became the youngest person to achieve fusion — with a reactor born in his garage."
• Power Engineering: "At age 14, Taylor Wilson became the youngest person ever to build a working fusion reactor. "
• Popular Science: "...build a reactor that could hurl atoms together in a 500-million-degree plasma core—becoming, at 14, the youngest individual on Earth to achieve nuclear fusion."
• Techcrunch: "...the youngest person to have ever created nuclear fusion, Taylor Wilson."
• Gizmodo: "Taylor Wilson built a functioning device that can detect nuclear weapons smuggled in cargo containers. He's 17. It works via a nuclear fusion reactor that he also built. When he was 14."

We have pages at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) that will help you to determine whether a source is reliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hrm. Seems like this is for real after all. Thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit, it sounds like something from The Onion, but it is real. Here is another strange one: David Hahn. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Contains Conservapedia. I raised the subject on the Talk page, and I expect resistance to the removal. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

As much as I totally disagree with the content and viewpoints of Conservapedia, I don't see why it should be removed. It's still in essence an online encyclopedia, just with a conservative viewpoint. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:List of online encyclopedias:"encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title". That is not what Conservapedia does. It's not just "a conservative viewpoint". It's a nutjob viewpoint, all the parts of the fringe that appeal to the right wing. "A conservative viewpoint" would be in line with the sane wing of the Republican party. (I don't know if it still exists. Here in Europe, we mostly hear from the other wing.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say include it... but note its reputation in the description column. Remember, the topics we write about don’t need to be neutral... WE (as editors on Wikipedia) need to be neutral in how we write about them. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A brief mention of his fringe book on America but no secondary source. See [88]. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

In experienced editor adding OR and weasel words and accusing me of censorship. They've had problems before.

"However it is worth noting that all of these civilisations (especially the Aztecs)^[1] have also been known to use Datura,^{[2] [3]} a highly poisonous plant entheogen and deliriant which has been linked to psychotic, bizarre, and violent behavior.^[4] I'll revert again. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Damn. I reverted by accident without another edit summary and add now User:Barbara (WVS) has restored it. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I reverted it with a suggestion they use the talk page -----Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I went back to revert myself but it looks like someone restored the content before I could. I hope that helps. I was patrolling edits and have figured out a way to catch content deletions by using a tool I discovered that finds large deletions. Is there something else I can do to help Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 19:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Stuart Brody against WP:MEDRS. Brody, Stuart (April 2010). "The Relative Health Benefits of Different Sexual Activities". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 7 (4): 1336–1361. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01677.x. has been advanced in order to WP:Verify the claim that I feel that this research should be presented in this article in the health effects section, especially as a statement to the contrary (i.e. "It is held in many mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression and lead to a higher sense of self-esteem") is included in this section. See Talk:Masturbation#Research presenting a negative correlation between the frequency of masturbation and various mental and physical benefits is not presented in the article. Problem with that source: it is at least WP:UNDUE if not outright WP:FRINGE. As I have stated, He wanted to do unto Kinsey, Masters and Johnson what the Intelligent Design movement wants to do unto Darwin. And And, yes, it fails WP:MEDRS because it is a pathetic attempt at writing a systematic review (you don't review just papers by yourself and by your pals). To be sure, this applies to other papers by Brody, not the present one. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Of greatest importance for the present exposition is the extremely low risk of HIV transmission through PVI for healthy persons of reproductive age, ... In contrast, PVI is associated with HIV-relevant immune benefits that were obliterated by condom use [137]. The authors concluded: “Unprotected sexual intercourse might result in alloimmunization stimulated by HLA antigens in seminal or cervicovaginal fluid. Mucosal alloimmunization may reduce infection by HIV-1” (p. 518).

— Brody, 2010

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And does Brody conflate correlation with causation?

Other sexual behaviors (including when PVI is impaired, as with condoms or distraction away from the penile–vaginal sensations) are unassociated, or in some cases (such as masturbation and anal intercourse) inversely associated with better psychological and physical functioning. Sexual medicine, sex education, sex therapy, and sex research should disseminate details of the health benefits of specifically PVI, and also become much more specific in their respective assessment and intervention practices.

— Brody, 2010

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Specifics are not relevant as WP policy merely states we must not give undue weight to non-mainstream points and is not a rationale to censor. This attempt to remove well referenced and differing views by attacking the credibility of the study, author, etc. doesn't change the fact they are well referenced—and that is the primary requirement for inclusion. And frankly, if not included here, where would this editor suggest the reader go to find opposing views if doing research, etc. if not Wikipedia? While I appreciate the commitment to accuracy, this seems a bit overzealous as eliminating all opposing views, if successful, would just destroy the utility of Wikipedia. My ask here is that well-referenced, but non-mainstream views are simply included in the article with appropriate cautionary language if applicable. That's it. Lexlex (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Brody is the apostle of PVI über alles in sex education. I believe this says enough about him. If facts were on his side, he would have produced a scientific revolution. But neither DSM-5, nor ICD-11 bought into his claims. He just did not have his picture on the cover of Time (magazine). If he succeeded, he would have had it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Who else had to look up PVI. Doh. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Using appearance on the cover of Time Magazine as a way to judge who is correct cedes authority to its very human editors (see 1938's Time Person of the Year) and is a good example of why using argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Lexlex (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I had already invited you to read WP:VERECUNDIAM. The gist that it isn't always a fallacy, e.g. when learning the theory of relativity from a physics professor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? WP:VERECUNDIAM is not a policy, it's an essay you wrote three days ago. It uses the same logical fallacy you're promoting here. Lexlex (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

First, being a mere essay does not mean that it would be unreasonable/false. Second, read any treatise of logics, ad verecundiam is a fallacy only in specific cases (e.g. when the person asked is not a proper authority or as in denying that science is fallible). Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is something of an aside, but I just want to interject something here... that a statement be verifiable (well referenced) is indeed a requirement for inclusion - but verifiability, on its own, is NOT a guarantee of inclusion. There are many other policies and guidelines that play a part in any “inclusion” determination, and many reasons why a particular statement might not be included... even when it is easily verifiable (well referenced). Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. As PiCo wrote, Being a reliable source is only the beginning. If that reliable source is holding a minority position, then we don't use him. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

What is your solution when the body relied on to determine truth is wrong?. How would you prevent a self-righteous environment similar to those underpinning the Salem witch trials, the Sophie Scholl trial, DDT being considered safe and effective, etc. where the majority gets it spectacularly wrong—if not by at least including opposing views for consideration? Lexlex (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of determining right and wrong. But it does not care about general majorities either, only about those among reliable sources. What you call a "self-righteous environment" would not contain any reliable sources (as in: sources you can rely on). --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming reliable sources are always correct, but this is demonstrably not the case. If the reliable source(s) are found to be wrong (e.g. in DDT's case), and all contrary, well-sourced information had been scrubbed or ignored, we have an empty sack. Lexlex (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:BALL, it is not Wikipedia's task to speculate who might be right according to the 2069 AD medical consensus. "Science is fallible" is Captain Obvious stuff, every scientist worth his salt knows this. What we do know is that in the year 2019 AD Brody's views are regarded as marginal opinions, his views are quite contrary to the medical consensus from evidence-based medicine. I could tell you how Brody's methodology fooled him into becoming a Kinsey, Masters and Johnson denialist, but the gist is that he is outside of everything WP:MAINSTREAM in medicine and psychology. Seriously, scientists who analyzed his methodology consider it synonymous with "ludicrous". See e.g. [89] and [90]. Yup, he even has a conspiracy theory about the lack of acceptance for his research. As Petra Boynton stated, The discussion and conclusions are more of a polemic against modern sexology than an exploration of the data found in the research. And he is pretty close to AIDS denialism when discussing PVI (in his opinion getting infected with HIV during PVI is as likely as being struck by lightning). According to WP:LUNATICS Wikipedia simply is not a venue for endlessly re-litigating the medical consensus. I take WP:ARBPS very seriously and I am not willing to make any compromises against it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary. For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected. You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola. In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them. In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages.

Edaham (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

So, we reject citing Brody as either WP:UNDUE or as WP:FRINGE: whether he gets bitten by the dog or by the cat it's the same outcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"You seem to be assuming reliable sources are always correct" That may seem to you, but I am not. If a reliable source turns out to be incorrect in spite of all evidence agianst that, and Wikipedia has quoted that source, then Wikipedia will be wrong.

We have to accept that risk. The alternative is to find another system that has a lower risk of articles being wrong. Can you suggest one? I don't think so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing on Talk:Cryonics - more eyes would be welcome - David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

More eyes from less involved people would be good. This discussion started because the lede included a statement that it has been "characterized as quackery". It is true that multiple WP:RS (journalists, book reviewers, and anti-quackery activists) have used the derogatory term, and I have no issue with documenting this somewhere on the page, but making it the first thing people see may not be WP:NPOV. Lsparrish (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn’t the first thing people see... it’s the second (the first thing is a definition). This order is appropriate. First define what proponents say it is, then state what medical professionals (ie experts) say about it. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case, we should perhaps be citing medical experts rather than random journalists using deliberately emotive language to sell copy. Moreover, it already reads 'regarded by scientists with skepticism', which is fair enough without the quackery angle. Lsparrish (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The quackery angle seems prevalent in usable sources, and we should reflect it. "Characterized as quackery" is right per the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Advocate now edit-warring to get advocacy into the lede - more watchers would be appreciated - David Gerard (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Noting that another article to watch is Suspended animation‎ —PaleoNeonate – 17:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I've given the editor in question a discretionary sanctions alert for pseudoscience. Bishonen | talk 18:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC).

Always good to know that we don't have to mess about with tinfoil any more. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I may be vieux-jeu but I prefer Mindguard on Amiga. —PaleoNeonate – 09:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Upon searching for the article Slavic mythology, I noticed that it had been folded into a redirect for Slavic paganism, a different topic. Looking the article over, I noticed quite a few red flags. First, the very few sources that provide Slavic deities are very murkily mentioned and couched next to cherry-picked theories, many of them quite dubious, and claims of a certain monotheism lurking behind said paganism are provided without context. The whole thing is a mess and seems to be a platform for fringe ideas. More eyes would do this article a lot of good. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

There's certainly a whif of islamophobia in those articles too. Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Meet the New York couple donating millions to the anti-vax movement --SFGate --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I checked if we had an article, we have one on Bernard Selz —PaleoNeonate – 01:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

American Indian creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) major changes including turning the lead into an argument about oral history. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I noticed related material recently removed from creationism. —PaleoNeonate – 01:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the editors there may have a point. There is a possibility that this term was invented as an invective to refer to a vanishingly (even perhaps n=1) small group of people. It may be rightly excluded from the encyclopedia. For example, I am sure there are some African animists who might argue against certain scientific proposals relating to origins, but if a few critics called them Animist creationists, we probably would not be justified in having a whole article about them. jps (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I got the ball rolling with a discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Indian creationism. jps (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Over at Mapinguari, which I've rewritten from scratch, we've got a couple of cryptozoologist users (one invited from a cryptozoologist board) attempting to present, for example, founding figures of the subculture as simply 'zoologists'. It's the typical sort of shenanigans we see in these corners, but this article is pretty obscure and could use some more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Also note behavior like this. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Somewhat related to Sahaja Yoga (section above), this currently looks like a big ball of religious woo to me, based largely on primary and/or in-universe sources. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of decent secondary sourcing so not entirely sure what to do with this. Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't personally see it as particularly problematic. It makes it fairly clear that we're not saying "this is what happens" in Wikipedia's voice, but "this is what people who believe in it thinks happens". Any article on a religious concept is by definition going to be 'in-universe', particularly something like this that doesn't have any particular relevance to non-believers so won't have been written about extensively by anyone other than believers. ‑ Iridescent 16:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Should the article Post-classical history "imply" or give "any weight" to the transoceanic human contact theory based on sources about potatoes, chickens and word familiarity that some think is fringe science ?

.--Moxy 🍁 06:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed a bunch of random Youtube videos and website declaring—in bolded comic sans—"THIS IS WHERE WE BEGAN TO BE SUSPICIOUS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA" over at Thylacine#Unconfirmed_sightings (discussion: Talk:Thylacine#Unconfirmed_Sightings_Section:_Very_Poor_Sources). Since this particular FA-class (!) article seems to be a playground for edit warriors and pseudoscience-peddlers, I'm requesting more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to fix this. Can someone add RS text and clarifications to the Pipes article, noting that Obama is not in fact a Muslim, so that the page is compliant with WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The article also fails to clarify that that this dude is a fringe figure. The page makes him seem like a serious and credible scholar. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I’ll start by saying I don’t know anything about this guy, first I heard his name so my initial impression could be wrong, but... Just because he expressed a single fringe viewpoint in 2008 about Barack Obama does not mean he should be described as a fringe figure. The first question would be, does he continue to believe Barack Obama was once a Muslim? Does he hold other fringe viewpoints? I definitely agree that neutral mainstream sources should be added that debunk the Obama used to be a Muslim theory.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've killed the entire section for now as a clear violation of WP:BLPSPS; too many of the sources there were self-published and contained claims about a third party, which means we'd need secondary sourcing. Debunking makes sense, but runs into WP:SYNTH issues unless we can find secondary sources directly analyzing what he said in particular; IMHO the proper approach when a source makes an obviously-controversial claim about a third party that has little secondary coverage to provide context or analysis is to omit it entirely or limit it to the bare minimum. It could possibly be cobbled back together into that bare minimum (one or two of the more cautiously-worded ones are op-eds rather than self-published, though anything cited to his personal website has to be left out), but with almost no secondary coverage I'm not sure it passes WP:DUE for an entire section in any case. I moved the one secondary reaction to the reactions section. For the more general question of how Pipes is characterized, we would need to find more sources first. --Aquillion (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Good job.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which Wikipedia user this is - but she states she was topic banned for FC and RPM. This article was brought to my attention yesterday where (near the end) she asks for people to "step up" and mentions several AfD discussions. Including one that I had voted on which is why this article was brought to my attention. https://theaspergian.com/2019/07/10/fc-rpm-and-how-wikipedia-became-complicit-in-silencing-non-speaking-autistics/ Sgerbic (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

As one of those involved I hardly know what to say. Nor sure it is canvasing though, so much as self serving misrepresentation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is what the blog says "At this time, three articles have already been deleted, and Wikipedia editors are currently considering the following others for deletion (that I’m aware of): Tito Mukhopadhyay, a non-speaking autistic author who uses RPM “The Mind Tree”, Tito Mukhopadhyay’s second book “Autism is a World,” the Oscar-nominated documentary featuring Sue Rubin (whose page has already been deleted)

Expect more to come if no one steps up." So it isn't exactly saying "go vote in the deletion discussion" but it is pretty obvious by the statement "expect more to come if no one steps up". Just sayin' Sgerbic (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Sgerbic, see User_talk:Anomalapropos#Topic_ban. ∯WBG^converse 18:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

OMG that was something else to read. Actually I learned a lot reading the whole thread and I've been editing for years. What frustrates me so much is that the new person kept asking questions and people kept responding with policies to read. The new person is clearly confused and everything could have been handled so much better with clear explanations. I know it seems like its a time waster to have to explain over and over to someone. But in the end it would have saved a lot of time overall. Plus that one specific editor might have caught on and became an outstanding editor (probably outside of fringe topics) they clearly understand the importance of Wikipedia. Thanks for sharing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgerbic (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

From your description of what went on there Susan, I thought I must have been involved, but couldn't find my name on that page. But that is exactly what I do. For me to try to explain policy would be silly when I can say "read this" that's what we mean. It even has a handy summary highlighted in easy to understand language. Should I regret asking you to marry me? ;) -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That was tried, more then once.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of misunderstanding policy, it's refusing to even consider the fact that the sciency-sounding thing they've been believing for years isn't actually scientific. If a person has been scammed into believing that a flim-flam medical procedure is legitimate, it will take more than a few paragraphs from a well-meaning Wikipedia editor to make them understand that it isn't. ApLundell (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The sentences containing the The-Aspergian author's main mistake are these:

Let’s be quite clear: the evidence did NOT show that every single message was influenced by the facilitators. It is only possible to show clear facilitator influence in a situation where the facilitator knows information that the communicator does not.

In situations where both of them have access to the same information, you simply cannot conclude with any certainty that the facilitator is influencing the message. There’s no way to know.

So, every time it is possible to say who did it, it was the facilitator. Arguing that it could have been the autistic person in the cases where it is not possible to tell is like arguing that Carl Sagan could have had an invisible dragon in his garage. Classic argument from ignorance.

And the conclusion is "I say this with absolute certainty as someone who actually read the damn studies myself: there is NO actual evidence that either FC or RPM are “pseudoscientific” or “debunked” methods." - As if simply reading something would be enough to automatically understand it! There is no "actual evidence" against Sagan's dragon either.

So, no, this person will not even be convinced that the opposition may have a point. Not by Wikipedia editors giving sound reasons, nor in any other way. Fallaciously generated "absolute certainty" prevents it. Topic ban (at least) was unavoidable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

They also state the test backwards, don't they? The usual method of debunking is for the patient to know something, but the facilitator doesn't know it. And then test to see if they can successfully communicate that information. And they never can.

The fact that this essay-writer doesn't even explain this properly exemplifies how they're fuzzy on the science and don't care. They just care about their imagined justice. (Which they ironically achieve by supporting abusers and exploiters.) ApLundell (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

With one potential exception, currently Ennedi tiger is entirely sourced to fringe sources, all of them cryptozoologists. I'm looking to rewrite this article, but I have yet to find a single reliable source on the topic. Anyone know of any? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've punched it through Google Scholar and the only stuff I can find are cheetahs and crocodiles (which aren't even mammals). Trying with "smilodon" didn't work either. I am wondering if this fails WP:N. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, same here. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Tagged for notability. Should this proceed to AfD? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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

There's some disagreement about how we should handle this. From the source [Coney, Judith (1999). "Chapter 6: A woman's role in Sahaja Yoga". Sahaja Yoga – Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement. Routledge. pp. 119–144.]:

She has attributed this loss of regard [of women] to the increasing decadence of the age of Kali Yuga and to the machinations of demons who are intent on dragging human beings to hell. However, she views the Western feminist tradition as another route to damnation, on the grounds that it has meant that women try to behave like men rather than being true to their own gender.

An editor is opposing making any mention of demons because it is apparently scandalous. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (Alexbrn) 05:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking for more like-minded types here I see Alexbrn? You said it was "weird" and I'm arguing that is your primary motivation for including this from the source. I'm happy for you to create your own new section to put the founder's statements and views on demons into proper scholarly context. Including it in the section on the role on women is irrelevant and only for the sake of sensation.

All this is while you are insisting on including a quote with no scholarly discussion and deny the insertion of scholarly discussion and another quote (in context) from a scholarly source. As pointed out, your behaviour is tendentious and your are not attempting to create a balanced article but instead are engaging in a hatchet job. Freelion (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

As noted by Harizotoh9 when this came up here earlier this year[91], one of the problems with this page is WP:SPAs and fans trying to whitewash the topic. This is more of that, I think. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, providing accurate information from reliable sources is not whitewashing – it is consistent with policy. However, obstructing the provision of context in an article for the purposes of POV is bad, very bad indeed. Freelion (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

People can view the article history and judge for themselves which edits "provide accurate information from reliable sources". Here is your edit:[92]. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

What is "provocative" about that quote and why is it irrelevant where she sees the source of something important? --mfb (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

And what is unscholarly about p. 122 and p. 123 ? This seems to be the same book but another edition, those two pages appear relevant. What would you consider more scholarly about the topic that should be used instead (non primary)? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Freelion: Are you going to answer these questions from other editors? Alexbrn (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

In answer to PaleoNeonate, I don't have a problem with those two pages from the Coney source, in fact I'm trying to include more info from those 2 pages to provide context. The contentious part I think is the aside that Coney mentions about "Attributing the loss of respect for women to the increasing decadence of the age of Kali Yuga and to the machinations of demons who are intent on dragging human beings to hell.". It's an aside in the Coney source and secondary in importance to the point she is making about the different descriptions of the roles of women by Shri Mataji. I feel it unnecessary to include those words for the sake of "providing weirdness" as Alexbrn seeks. In any case, Alexbrn has created his own new section on demons in order to further his purposes. Shall we continue the discussion on the talk page? Freelion (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

We have have the WP:SPA trying to remove cult allegations from the article. More eyes on this would be welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPA?! Another mischaracterisation! All my edits have been discussed but Alexbrn is refusing to engage reasonably on the talk page. Rather he is being dismissive and pushing his own POV. As I've said on the talk page, the source Alexbrn has chosen is questionable. Furthermore the text from the source has been cherry picked and inaccurately summarised. I have removed this pending further discussion but Alexbrn is reverting multiple edits which relate to other parts of the article, without discussion. Freelion (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Most of your edits and ~100% of the edits since April have been about Sahaja Yoga. How is that not a SPA? All the edits have been discussed, you seem to be the only person who likes your edits, you keep repeating the same things over and over again to fight against well-sourced information that other people consider relevant. I can understand that Alexbrn gets tired of replying to the same stuff for the 10th time. --mfb (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Somebody added a link to this hypothesis on European history to the Ming / Qing Transition article, where it's certainly inappropriate, but something about this article is setting off my fringe theories sense, and I'm not quite versed enough in European history to identify quite what. Eyes on this article might be good. Simonm223 (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't be too hasty: the article's first cite (viewable as a pdf if you go back a version) clearly counts the Ming breakdown as a major part of the general crisis, along with 18 other events in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. The article is not exactly FA-quality but if the subject itself were fringe I don't think Rjensen would have contributed a section. Smowo (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Some whitewashing and something about a 2018 conference in Skanderborg is mentioned in the lead although there are no details about it in the article, there seems to have been an attempt to keep it secret. Look at this in Google translate. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion about whether and how to include repudiations of the fringe views of the subject of the article Patrick_Moore_(consultant). --JBL (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)