Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Just came across Ayurvastra. Using clothes coloured this way will "cure a range of diseases like diabetes, skin infections, eczema, hypertension, high blood pressure, asthma, arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatism  and paralysis". As far as I can see it will not protect me from -40 C/F weather. Looks like it could do with some work. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be a rejected article with the reject5ion notice removed by a naughty editor. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 04:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

<edit conflict> It was declined as an AfC, which the article's creator promptly moved to article space anyway. [1] -Crossroads- (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. Back at Draft:Ayurvastra again. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope it's not against protocol to mention how funny I found this note. Those clothes would not even protect us in Edmonton, let alone Cambridge Bay! Worrypower (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Turanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hungarian Turanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maghasito (talk · contribs)

These articles may benefit from additional attention. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology § RfC again

RfC on inclusion of the full list of awardees (virtually all of which are redlinked or unlinked and sourced only to the institute's own website). Guy (help!) 10:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Eg "The two-three primary current editors, Doug Weller and Gråbergs Gråa Sång took over and dominated the Roza Bal page years ago. This is why and when the edit wars, especially against Suzanne Olsson, began. These editors inserted derogatory and prejudicial remarks, mis-information, and negative reviews about the ‘Jesus in India’ theories intending to mislead readers, and conform to fundamentalist Christian beliefs" and more like it. It's all bull- I'm pretty sure no one here thinks I'm a Fundamentalist Christian, but it muddies the waters on the talk page and I don't see why User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång should have to put up with it, especially as it's the sort of nonsense that gets used off-Wiki to attack people. User:Sunami70 has been here only two weeks and has made only 27 edits, and has confined themselves to the talk page since their edits were reverted, so I'm willing to think that their talk pages posts are not malicious even though they are at best gross distortions of the facts.

I don't plan to reply right now if ever, I've got more important things to do than defend myself, but if anyone can do anything to ameliorate the situation it would be appreciated. Thanks. --Doug Weller talk 09:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

For my part, I can't agree on the "took over and dominated", that I should have EW:d, inserted mis-information, "intending to mislead readers" or make stuff "conform to fundamentalist Christian beliefs" (actually Olsson at one point thought I was an Ahmadi), AFAICT historians generally agree that Jesus probably was crucified in Jerusalem and died as a result. On the "inserted derogatory and prejudicial remarks ... , and negative reviews" I guess it's an eye of the beholder thing. I did insert this [2][3], happy to have found an unexpectedly brilliant source for a pop-cult bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I issued a warning to the user and will watch. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I've sockblocked per WP:DUCK. User:SuzanneOlsson and her previous socks are stale and can't be checkusered, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2. But behaviorally, there's not the slightest doubt in my mind that this is Suzanne Olsson. See my comment on Sunami70's talkpage for details. Bishonen | talk 16:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC).

Seems reasonable. Should it be noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2/Archive somehow? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it should, but I ran out of steam when I tried to put the sock tag {{sock|Kashmir2|blocked}} on Sunami70's userpage, and got a warning that there was no such category. And when I saw how complicated the SPI was. Stressful. Oh well... I suppose I could add the "suspected" tag, and create the category myself, and have another go at a SPI report. Bishonen | talk 20:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC).

 Done. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC).

It's why you're paid the big bucks, but thank you for the effort. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

New sock on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Eg Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism), Book of Moses Book of Joseph (Latter Day Saints), Book of Abraham and Critical appraisal of the Book of Abraham. The latter is probably the best of them all. The others are all to a very great extent use sources related in some way to the church. I've more oe less given up on the Anachronisms article.[4]. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Over the last several months I have almost completely re-written the article Joseph Smith Papyri and Book of Joseph (Latter Day Saints). There is a LOT of clean up that still needs to be done. I would encourage you to look at the Joseph Smith Papyri article from 6 months ago. It is getting better, and hopefully shows that I'm neither writing in the voice of an apologist or a critic. I do plan on continuing on just about all of the articles you mentioned (I lack expertise with the Book of Moses). I would add to your list, just about all articles in Category:Book of Abraham

I think if you did a dive into the sources, you would be content that it is not a semi-walled garden for the most part. I propose the following rubric of when and how to use sources, as there truly is a range of source quality. Epachamo (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Anything by Robert Ritner. Ritner is one of the most widely respected Egyptologists in the field. He is the cited no less than 15 times in the article. He wrote the definitive translation of the papyri.
• Anything by Brent Metcalfe. A well respected scholar of LDS studies.
• Books and Material from the Joseph Smith Papers project. While sponsored by the LDS Church, it is critically acclaimed.
• S. J. Wolfe books and articles. She is the leading expert on 19th century mummies in America.
• Most things published by Signature Books, Dialouge, or recognized by the John Whitmer Historical Society.

• H. Donl Peterson's books, including "The Story of the Book of Abraham." I think this source might be the one you are referring to that prompted the whole discussion. I adamantly stand by using this source. His scholarship in his books is universally well attested, especially when it comes to the history prior to arriving in Kirtland in 1835. S. J. Wolfe states of his book, "Peterson gives an almost overwhelming amount of evidence tracing Lebolo's whereabouts in Egypt and in Europe...at the present time believed to be the most correct and accurate account of Lebolo's colorful life. ... This is one of the better sources of all the arguments for and against the identification of the tomb from which Lebolo took the mummies." H. Michael Marquardt wrote an essay in Robert Ritner's book where he said of H. Donl Peterson's book, "Peterson's book ... is a good introduction to the topic." He is careful to separate History from interpretations, and is intellectually honest by not cherry picking source material.
• Most things by Brian Hauglid. Generally well respected with his peer reviewed articles and books such as "A Textual History of the Book of Abraham" provide primary sources never before available. Earlier in his career he did delve deeply into apologetics, which should be avoided.
• Anything by Dan Vogel. A well respected prolific LDS Historian. He does editorialize from time to time.
• Primary sources, such as the 1835 Messenger and Advocate, but not in an original research type way.
• Things published by H. Michael Marquardt, except his blog, in which he editorializes in a non-wikipedia appropriate way.

• Hugh Nibley writings. He is an apologist, but was part of the history of the Papyri, and therefore a primary source, and defined the most common nomenclature used by all to refer to the Papyri and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. He also defined the views of the LDS Church for a generation. He should not be used as an expert on Egyptology or history thought.
• John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein. These so called "Egyptologists" might have the degrees, but are widely criticized for their apologetics. They are also some of the very few who have access to the actual papyri. So for example, Muhlestein wrote a paper where he pieced together the back side of the papyri, and showed where it originated. This particular article is non-controversial, and provided important images and commentary.

• Anything from fairmormon.com, or anything . This is an apologetic with non-pear reviewed research and opinions.
• Things published by Institute for Religious Research. This is an organization dedicated to converting Mormons to maintstream Christianity.
• Mormon Studies periodical. Dedicated to scholarship and faith. Faith has no part in Wikipedia.
• Any blog to include MormonThink, Mormanity, Ask Gramps xmission, etc.
• jefflindsay.com or similar sites. Lindsay is not a historian or scholar.

@Epachamo: thanks for this. I'd also include jefflindsay.com as a source not to be used. I'm trying to get hold of Ritner's book from Inter-library loan but haven't succeeded so far. But I still think that where a source clearly believes in the authenticity of the BOM and related papers we need to be careful. This OUP book[5] to be published soon can be used as a source but as I recall at least one of its authors (good academics both) is one of those. So how do we handle it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

@Doug Weller: Added jefflindsay.com to the sources that should not be used. I 100% agree with that, he is not a historian. I would also agree that we need to be careful with sources that clearly believe in the authenticity of the BOM, but I don't think that this should be an automatic disqualifier. If you look at the Koran article for example, many of the cited scholars are believing muslims, and I'd be willing to bet that was the case for most articles on Holy Books. Richard Bushman comes to mind as a believing Mormon who is highly citeable. He is a recognized expert in early American History, having taught at Harvard, Columbia and the University of Delaware. His biography on Joseph Smith (Rough Stone Rolling) is justifiably cited dozens of times in the Joseph Smith article. I am super excited about the OUP book you mentioned, but also have reservations about using it as a source, I'd like to see how it is received by the broader scholarly community. Epachamo (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This needs a look at Seeds of Destruction (book).Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that Civilization state could use another pair of eyes. The article's focus could be roughly described as "China as civilization-state" as opposed to an account of the history of the theory itself, and most of the sources appear to either be limited to the analysis of a few authors, or possibly SYNTH-y inferences. Based on a Scholar search, it seems like "civilization state" has some traction as a concept in Chinese academia, but it's not clear that the current uncritical presentation of the theory is warranted (consider Nation state's composition for contrast). Of note, the primary editor of the article was banned for sockpuppeting following several investigations of pro-PRC POV editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

To say that that entire article is a bunch of racist, ethnocentric garbage is to be generous. 72.0.129.26 (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Gunpowder#India - The real inventor of Gunpowder - MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Gunpowder was invented in China during the late Tang dynasty (9th century). The earliest use of gunpowder in India may have been as early as the mid-13th century, possibly during the Mongol invasions of India in the 13th and 14th centuries. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday I started watching the not-so-great tv adaptation of The City & the City, which indirectly called to mind the invisible ships myth. I'm sure you've heard it, as it's much beloved by a wide range of pseudoscience peddlers and New Age self-help gurus. I think the first time I heard it was in What the Bleep Do We Know!?, and it goes something like this: when Columbus/Cook/Magellan sailed close to North/South America/Australia, the natives couldn't see the ships as they approached because it was so foreign to them or otherwise didn't match anything in their experience. It's a myth that comes up all over the place so I figured I'd look into starting an article about it. I've started a draft in userspace (not really worth looking at at this point), but for a myth that's so often referenced, I haven't yet been able to find much by way of good sources about it. I'm familiar with most of the concepts behind it, but I'm looking for sources that make those connections. This seems like something many of you who watch this board may be able to help with, so here I am. Apologies if this is not a good use of this noticeboard. If there's a clearly better place for this, I have no objection to someone moving the thread there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This may be related to the some north American natives seeing ships as giant birds or floating forests.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The myth is discussed briefly on p. 109 of What Science Offers the Humanities by Edward Slingerland. [6] The author reports that undergraduates repeated the myth to him because they had thought that one could see only what the social discourse allows. He criticizes this belief, using it as an example of how postmodern epistemology is flawed, including its understanding of culture (e.g. the "Noble Savage", etc.). -Crossroads- (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This brings to my mind a common explanation from ufology where the more Rod Serling-esque alien encounter reports, such as "men in black" appearing perfectly ordinary but having e.g. animal feet instead of shoes, are claimed to be screen memories of a real event, because the frightful sight of an actual alien abhors remembrance. In real psychology, the concept of a screen memory was, not too surprisingly, introduced by Freud. Daß Wölf 22:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone experienced with MEDRS needs to look at the studies and journals being added touting health benefits of cow urine. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Without it cows would explode.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

If you thought urine was bad... Daß Wölf 23:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This is about [7]. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

See also Talk:Adam and Talk:Tower of Babel. ¬¬¬¬

Can someone please give the User:Blue Hoopy Frood notice about discretionary sanctions? jps (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@ජපස: I wouldn't issue him such notice, because I am afraid he will take it as some sort of a personal attack. I have nothing against someone else doing it. He is drafting Wikipedia policy at User:Blue Hoopy Frood/Bible POV, so this made me issue him the ds alert. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I have an edit notice that people see when they try to email me that says "ill generally keep all emails sent to me in confidence, however, I reserve the right to publically post, some or all of any email correspondence you send on my talk page or any other other applicable page, or email it to any person. I may do this without informing you, or without seeking your approval." In this case he's requested a favor so it seems sensible to make it public. He thinks the Esquire article is a hatchet job and an unreliable source.

I'm trying to reduce my watch list - I've gotten it under 19,000 (plus talk pages) and that's one that I would have taken off the list the next time it came up. I don't seem to be able to edit my list, I always get an error notice.

Anyway, if anyone thinks there's any merit to this, should it be taken to BLPN? Thanks. --Doug Weller talk 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What exactly would he have us do? The article already makes it clear he doesn't like the piece. jps (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a proposal to add Natural News to the spam blacklist on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Natural News. — Newslinger talk 22:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like NN has expanded from quackery to rooting for their favorite team in the ongoing Team Blue vs. Team Red dumpster fire.[www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-02-bombshell-adam-schiff-fabricate-the-whistleblower.html] Not to worry, though. They still have stories like

• [www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-04-medical-horror-genetic-sequencing-vaccines-mrc-5-cancer-genes-modified.html MEDICAL HORROR: Genetic sequencing of common vaccine finds entire male human genome from aborted human baby... "a complete individual genome" with abnormal, modified genes... 560 genes linked to cancer]

and

• [naturalnewsblogs.com/harvard-scientific-paper-details-entire-geo-engineering-program-using-jet-aircraft/ Harvard Scientific Paper Details Entire Geo-Engineering Program Using Jet Aircraft].

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, we have to also look at the positive side (from your first link): "The U.S. patent office has awarded Mike Adams [the author] patent NO. US 9526751 B2 for the invention of “Cesium Eliminator,” a lifesaving invention that removes up to 95% of radioactive cesium from the human digestive tract. ... He has also stockpiled 10,000 kg of raw material to manufacture Cesium Eliminator in a Texas warehouse, and plans to donate the finished product to help save lives in Texas when the next nuclear event occurs." Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

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

A perennial favourite is back, with WP:PROFRINGE attempts to advocate for this BS in the lede. As ever, fringe-savvy eyes welcome on this problematic article. Alexbrn (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm just happy it's on others' watchlists. jps (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how much more I can take. The Association fallacy#Galileo Gambit has been deployed.[8] Alexbrn (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

If that user gets tiresome, just take them to WP:AE. They've been site-banned/blocked many times before for similar sorts of histrionic behavior. They need to know better at this point. jps (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

User is now blocked indefinitely. jps (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

These have been fairly common in the past, but the Tamil government archaeology dept has published a book dating Tamil writing 3 centuries earlier than the conventional 3rd c BCE, so there's a flurry of edits in a variety of articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, this edit request is possibly related; I left it alone since I can't read the source. @Doug Weller: you got some strange characters instead of tildes when you tried to sign, it looks like. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I must've hit alt-shift by accident. I fixed it shortly after the above post. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You added negation signs to your message. Luckily you have an even number of them! Daß Wölf 22:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That may be the same book I'm referring to. In any case it's by the state archaeology department and not an impartial source. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

See for instance this edit ad Keeladi excavation site where text that said for instance Tamil-Brahmi was changed to Tamil with an edit summary "History should not be thought wrongly to our future kids, Its a very wrong thing that to Wikipedia like knowledge spreading should refine and look into inner details. Tamil is suppressed in India but real history shouldn't Go". Doug Weller talk 18:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This author Devaneya Pavana seems to be the source of these claims of Tamil as the oldest language, dating to 10,000 BCE. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Silly business. Languages don't start. They change and split. Digging up ever older writing is a pleasant pursuit, but all natural languages that are still in use were already old before anyone started writing any of them. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was well-established that the Brabant dialect of Flemish was the language spoken in Paradise, the oldest human language and thus the parent of all known tongues. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)#Conspiracy theory? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you rather it be called "Spygate (blatant lie)"? 2604:6000:FFC0:54:8555:75:4E1C:461 (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. It does not matter what I prefer. If multiple high-quality sources use that exact phrase as if it was an established fact, then "Spygate (blatant lie)" it is. If multiple high-quality sources call it an albino river otter, then "Spygate (albino river otter)" it is.

Can anyone have a look at the Creationist stuff in this article? The University and Steven Collins are Creationist. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Someone keeps trying to soften the climate change denialism language at PragerU. Extra eyes needed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

For this latest attempt, there's discussion at Talk:PragerU#Mark_Oppenheimer_Mother_Jones_article --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is now pivoting to whether the wage gap is real, as the user who has taken up the baton is apparently not interested in opening up the climate change debate and my edit struck two WP:PRIMARY WP:PROFRINGE sources from the article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

More than a few fringe theories being promoted with little in the form of supporting evidence. Someone with some time and patience may want to read through the list. Some of these entries are not unsolved in the same plane of reality where the Earth is round and fluoridated water is not a communist plot. Apparently rumors and unsubstantiated conjecture are enough to get your death on this list.

Courtesy ping Davidgoodheart I know you do a lot of work on this list. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#Snak2f: centuries old map disproves modern archaeology?

Probably dealt with shortly but just in case. Mangoe (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

A new POV warrior adding pro-Bigfoot argumentation to the article. Tried to reason with them here on the Talk page, but...it's not going well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Out of all that angry craziness, the one bit worth considering is that it *is* a bit synth-y to use an identification guide for bears to reference that bear footprints are being confused for BigFootprints. ApLundell (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven’t read the sources, but my guess is that the Nickell cite makes the assertion, and so some well- intentioned editor added the identification guide cite to confirm what Nickell wrote. Should probably be removed as unneeded and SYNTH. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Check this guy out. This is what his article looked like before I got there. Lovaas beat autistic children and shocked them with cattle prods in attempt to make them "normal". He reported great success, finding that 47% of autistic children became "indistinguishable from their peers" and their IQs even went up. However, all this is based off one study. The study contained fewer than thirty people, and he didn't even bother to randomize his trials, which allowed him to put all of the kids that were destined to improve in the treatment group and those that were not in the control group. He did basically the same thing to gay people too. He also claimed to have cured the gay children, and he presided over a bunch of gay conversion clinics, some of which are still in use today. Even though his claims were thoroughly debunked, they are cited as facts by his supporters, which even include a former US general surgeon. His methods are still in use today (but adapted to be legal), and form the basis for most early autism interventions.

Lovaas always said that his interest in psychology was inspired by the nazis. It shows. This is going to take some major clean-up.

Note-- The article has been reverted to its previous state by User:Alexbrn. Here is the pre-revert version.

• Ivar Lovaas-- Was in good shape before alexbrn reverted it. Now it promotes his work.
• Discrete trial training-- Still cites his claims as facts. Needs major clean-up.
• Applied behavioral analysis#Use_in_the_treatment_of_autism_spectrum_disorders-- Efficacy section needs clean-up.
• Judge Rotenberg Educational Center-- Could be better. Nothing here about the connection between their methods and Lovaas.
• Draft:Graduated Electronic Decelerator-- It's a draft.
• Autism Society of America-- Basically a stub, plus some info pasted from other articles. Could use further development.

There are likely more articles affected by this problem. If you find them, feel free to edit my comment and add them to the list.

• "Screams, Slaps & Love: A surprising, shocking treatment helps far-gone mental cripples". Life magazine, 1965. -- An editorial that promotes Lovaas' physical abuse of autistic children as ground-breaking and highly effective therapy.
• New mother reveals how she was drugged and locked up in solitary confinement until she became suicidal after she was diagnosed with autism -- Has nothing to do with Lovaas, but many readers may find it interesting.

--Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Looks to be some really suspicious sourcing forming the backbone of the Lovaas article, an "essay" by Kathleen P. Levinstein and stuff from "The Sun" magazine. Presumably this will get removed if the article is improved. Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If you must continue to oppose everything that I do here, go ahead and challenge it. Maybe you would prefer that we relied more heavily on this source. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Err what? I didn't check the edit history, just the article - I don't suppose any watchers of this noticeboard want poorly-sourced articles. Just looking now, rather than being some kind of Nazi kook, it seems decent WP:MEDRS sourcing rather supports Lovaas's work, e.g. PMID 21464190. So why is this at WP:FT/N? Alexbrn (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

That paper found that his studies were "limited by methodological concerns", which is a polite way of saying "completely invalid". In article citations conclude that his research is so flawed that no conclusion can be drawn. Regardless, the article doesn't even doubt that his methods can alter autistic behavior. It simple gives due weight to the question of whether or not we should. That you have chosen to stand up for this guy is proof that you will oppose me on everything I do.

Now, if you don't mind, I'll be AFK for some real life things. Don't reach any kind of consensus without me. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you think people will take you seriously if you recommend we read something from the Fail? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

More tag teaming by User:Roxy the dog. You two had better give it up, or I will take the pair of you to ANI for harassment. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a good point: Recommending the WP:DAILYMAIL at this noticeboard is an ... interesting approach. Alexbrn (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It certainly would be, it I had recommended we cite it in an article. But seriously-- are you two even pretending you aren't a tag team at this point? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a noticeboard fgs. You know, where people post things for other people to read. Yes? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m just saying. When I see one of you, I can bet I’ll see the other. Alexbrn decides to join the Third Reich, and Roxy the dog is right behind. I can’t imagine why— unless it’s because of their stance on animal rights. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

They're both regular posters on this noticeboard. Maybe there is some sort of conspiracy going on, but this thread isn't evidence of one. - MrOllie (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s not their having posted that’s suspicious— it’s their stance. These two would stand up for the fringe research of a wanna-be nazi just because I am pushing against it. If you want to see a great example of editing to hold a grudge, check out the talk page of cupping therapy. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, it's all gone full WP:GODWIN. I had a quick look at this "nazi" thing and see some problems in our article. It says Lovaas was a "farm worker" in the 1940s, and that he "often said that the nazis had sparked his interest in human behavior". Yet from the source[10] it seems he (aged 13 in 1940) and his whole family were forced to work on a farm by the nazis during the occupation of Norway, and this is the context in which his interest was sparked (the source also says Lovaas thought "he could have turned Adolf Hitler into a nice man had he gotten him to UCLA by age 4 or 5"). Incidentally, it's a problem that sections of the source are copy/pasted verbatim into our article, let alone that this is done out of context in a way which spins the source.

It seems to me the fringe problem here might be in Wikiman2718's stance towards this topic, rather than the topic itself, for which there appears to be plenty of sober RS (e.g.[11] - from which it seems Wikipedia is buying into the popular press "oversimplification" of his work, even going to far as to include copyright pictures from a sensational piece in Life magazine which this obituary mentions was seen as misrepresenting his work). The whole thing savours of WP:RGW. Alexbrn (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

There was never any accusation in the article or on this talk page that Lovaas was a nazi. However, it is well-verified that he did say his interest in psychology was inspired by the nazis. That "sober" source you cited is an obituary-- a complete whitewash of his life. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You wrote: Lovaas always said that his interest in psychology was inspired by the nazis. It shows. [my emphasis]. When it seems in fact his interest inspired by the nazis was how to stop such human behaviour. The article should make this clear. Your calling his obituary a "a complete whitewash of his work" rather shows you have a POV here, and by golly have you pushed it in the article! Alexbrn (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That statement you quoted is from this talk page, not the article. Stop trying to confuse the issue. I have already shown that his research is debunked, both in the article and on the talk page. Your attempt to show otherwise only added to the evidence. And that's not even to mention the inhumanity of the whole thing. Do you think it's a good idea to use electric shocks to change kids behavior? Because that's the POV you're endorsing. The guy also did experiments in gay conversion therapy, but the way. When homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, he objected and proposed that it be returned there. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so you admit you were implying he was a nazi on this page: progress. ABA seems a bad idea: a lot of that work is now discredited and of course Wikipedia needs to be plain about that. But that is not the point here. As Wikipedia editors it is not our job to have POVs and parade them in articles. What you have done with this article is turn it into a crude hit piece which fails to capture what decent RS is saying (and there is plenty of decent RS). Alexbrn (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Lol. I specifically stated that he was not a nazi. Just inspired by them. Please stop trying to misrepresent me. The article is reflecting the reliable sources-- not the WP:PROFRINGE nonsense that you would have us add. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm So what were you referring to when you wrote "the fringe research of a wanna-be nazi"? Alexbrn (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

He is a wanna-be nazi in the sense that his research resembles theirs in its brutality. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Riiiiight. At this point I'm going to disengage and hope other editors can step in (if they can bear to follow the above). Alexbrn (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

In view of the sensationalism, source misrepresentation, original research and copyright violation I'm seeing, I have performed a major rewind[12] of this article back to a prior state. I dispute the POV approach Wikiman2718 has taken. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The article now promotes his debunked fringe claims as truths, and makes no mention of his physical abuse of autistic children or his involvement in gay conversion therapy. Nice job, Alexbrn. I'm putting together an ANI report against you tomorrow. This harassment has gone too far. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

P.S. with regards to the free use photos, you have no right to delete them before I have a chance to rectify the error. --Wikiman2718 (talk)

• This is a link to the ANI report if anyone here would like to participate in the discussion. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Could some editors please take a look at the Reincarnation article? I think that much of the last couple sections seems quite credulous, and for instance they also contain semi-approving statements cited to Carl Sagan and Sam Harris which I doubt are a complete or accurate summary of their views. Sunrise (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Reincarnation#Academic research into claims of reincarnation is pretty bad, but Ian Stevenson#Support is even worse.

(I used to believe in reincarnation, but that was in a previous life. This time around I don't...) --~!Guy Macon (talk)

You should have seen what used to be there. Anyone who can clean up the stuff dealing with UVa "perception unit" and Stevenson's successor Jim B. Tucker would be appreciated. jps (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template:Effective_altruism - more eyes needed from outside the EA/LessWrong/transhumanist subcultures - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Just curious why this would be considered a fringe theory? I've seen the name come up here and there and just read the article, and while I'm seeing a criticism section, nothing there makes me think fringe theory. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The name sounds good, but the subculture of that name is heavily linked to the LessWrong rationalist and transhumanism subcultures, and "EA" the subculture keeps assessing "give all your money to avert Roko's basilisk" as an incredibly valuable charitable endeavour - David Gerard (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to trigger a long discussion, but I think it's important to point out that David's claims are simply untrue. The subculture of EA is not "heavily linked" to the LessWrong rationalist and transhumanism subcultures. The EA movement came into being when Giving What We Can was created by two Oxford professors, Toby Ord and William MacAskill. Several other individuals (Peter Singer, Nick Bostrom, and others), organizations (GiveWell, The Life You Can Save, and others) and internet forums (LessWrong, Felicifia, and others) were also influential. No effective altruism organization or prominent effective altruist has ever said "give all your money to avert Roko's basilisk" or anything remotely like that. To learn more about what causes effective altruists support, you may want to take a look at the latest version (2018) of the Effective Altruism survey. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Your claim is trivially false, in a WP:RS no less. The mosquito nets/AI-risk dialectic is extremely well documented. EA is saturated with fringe elements from these subcultures, which is why it's 100% on topic on this noticeboard, and the promotional tendency of the subculture completely fits that mould - witness the EA advocate who just literally claimed in the linked discussion that me not being an EA advocate constituted a conflict of interest. Claims that the weirdy bits don't exist or are unimportant are understandable, but don't match documented reality - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

David, your original justification for characterizing effective altruism as a fringe movement was that EA "keeps assessing 'give all your money to avert Roko's basilisk' as an incredibly valuable charitable endeavour." In my comment, I pointed out that this claim is simply untrue: the quoted passage does not remotely describe the views of any EA organization or prominent EA; it is a complete fabrication. By way of reply, you point us to a Vox article by Dylan Matthews that in no way supports that remarkable allegation. The phrase 'Roko's basilisk' doesn't appear at all in the article, and nowhere is the view that one should give all one's money to avert "Roko's basilisk" discussed or referred to, let alone attributed to the EA movement.

As for the person "who just literally claimed in the linked discussion that me not being an EA advocate constituted a conflict of interest": the user in question never accused you of having a conflict of interest, nor did he object to your not being an EA. This is what he said: "Being the original author and an ongoing maintainer (1, 2 3, 4) of the snark-article on this topic in a famously non-NPOV wiki makes you an advocate on this topic, and it seems disingenous to pretend otherwise." Pablo Stafforini (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

"It doesn't agree with my personal world view" doesn't make something fringe. The article doesn't discuss Roko's Basilisk at all. An existential risk from AI is something different, and it is certainly not a fringe view. --mfb (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

From looking at some sources I don't think EA can be classed as fringe. However, it does look like our article suffers from some POV issues: from reading it (and especially the lede) one doesn't get the impression - which I got from RS - that this movement is seen as in some senses problematic. Our articles packs the criticism away in a WP:CRITS at the end of the article, a hallmark of POV. To get a flavour of what I'd be expecting to see in a more neutral article, see https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12176 (which is cited, but not in a way which brings out its argument):

[While EA is] understood as broadly welfarist, consequentialist, and scientific in its outlook, the movement is vulnerable to the claim that it overlooks the importance of justice and rights, is methodologically rigoristic, and fails to isolate the activities likely to have the greatest impact overall. In most cases, I have shown that effective altruists are able respond to these objections, though sometimes this would mean changing their modus operandi in significant ways.

Alexbrn (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Tim Noakes (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

South African doctor noted for early sports/diet work later expounding more controversial views about diet and dipping a toe in vaccination issues. An IP from Johannesburg has been adding content about antivax saying that Noakes "simply raises questions where appropriate and based on the scientific evidence, about the safety and efficacy of certain vaccines".[13] Also some BLP issues. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Gorski that is. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"I was a skeptic of Wikipedia at first (albeit, I point out to Mr. Null, never a “Wikipedia skeptic”), but now I grudgingly conclude that if people like Deepak Chopra, Mike Adams, Gary Null, and Joe Mercola hate Wikipedia’s coverage of them, alternative medicine, medicine, and vaccines so much, maybe Wikipedia’s doing a pretty good job after all, at least with respect to these topics."

a Quote. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That's high praise! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Final Demand for Removal of “Biography of Gary Null” from Wikipedia

Related:

• Gary Null
• https://www.credentialwatch.org/legal/null.shtml
• https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gary_Null
• https://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html0
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Null (2nd nomination)

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you know if the Foundation referred them to the reply given in Arkell Vs Pressdramm? Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Or if they had Mike Godwin write a reply [14]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to see if I can squeeze the phrase with all appropriate respect into my sig. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The below report discussing "Ritual ears" at the Tiwanaku Site appeared in the Tiwanaku article at Revision as of 11:47, 14 October 2019.

Arnaiz-Villena, A., Alonso-Rubio, J. and Ruiz-del-Valle, V., 2013. Tiwanaku (Titikaka Lake, Bolivia) and Alberite Dolmen (Southern Spain) ritual “ears”. International Journal of Modern Anthropology, 1(6), pp.61-76. Paul H. (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I have asked this editor to stop their mass changes until I could get advice here. Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience is confusing, because diverse topics characterized as pseudoscience (i.e. Alternative medicine), concepts related to pseudoscience (i.e. Charlatan), explanation about pseudoscience (i.e. History of pseudoscience) are mixed. There is also an advice "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories." in the article Category:Pseudoscience. I just followed this advice.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

So, you've created a new category called "Topics characterized as pseudoscience" and are in the process of moving things from the existing Pseudoscience category into that new category?

I don't think that's the right thing to do.

"Moved to subcategories where possible" is not the same as "create a new catch-all subcategory". It means that if there are a few items that can be grouped into an existing subcategory, that should be done. For instance, if an article is about an aspect of "parapsychology", it should be moved into that relevant subcategory. That way related articles are grouped together in an organized way.

Creating a new catch-all subcategory just for the sake of doing so doesn't improve the organization of the category, it just adds extra complexity. ApLundell (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that Category:Topics characterized as pseudoscience is maybe better "catch-all" category than Category:Pseudoscience, because it can exclude articles such as History of pseudoscience, include only the real cases characeterized as pseudoscience.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Bad idea to have a wordy, indirect category like this. Categories apply to subjects (e.g. homeopathy) not to the abstraction we editors call our "topic" of homeopathy. It should be deleted and these edits reverted. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. A category that catches 90% of the parent category isn't a good idea, we should revert the edits. --mfb (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

1. I think Category:Pseudoscience is confusing, because diverse topics characterized as pseudoscience (i.e. Alternative medicine), concepts related to pseudoscience (i.e. Charlatan), explanation about pseudoscience (i.e. History of pseudoscience) are mixed.
2. Alexbrn wrote, "Categories apply to subjects (e.g. homeopathy) not to the abstraction we editors call our "topic"...", but there are many categories such as Category:Topics in the arts, Category:Programming language topics, Category:Factorial and binomial topics. Therefore, I don't think Alexbrn's position is not a norm of Wikipeida.
3. Homeopathy itself is one of "subjects" included in the category "topics characterized as pseudoscience".
4. Is "topics characterized as pseudoscience" just "abstruction"? There is an article named "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience". If "abstraction we editors call our "topic"" can make list, why not categories? (By the way, I chose the name "topics characterized as pseduoscience", because of consistency in article titles. There is "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience".)--Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue (for me) is it looks forky. Your using weasel words "characterized" that may be seen as trying to imply its in doubt they are.Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

If "characterized" is only weasel word, then why are there the article whose main name is "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" rather than "List of pseudoscientific theories"? (Personally, I think Category:Pseudoscientific theories is okay. I chose the name "topics characterized as pseduoscience", because of consistency in article titles.)--Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There are particular reasons for that article's title (see the Talk page history). Those are not relevant to the category name. Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Even if it was (and that would require at the very least an RfC), you moved quite a number of unambiguous pseudosciences (e.g. autism pseudoscience, free energy conspiracy theories, phrenology, quantum mysticism). That last gives me pause: the Chopra cult are attacking Jimmy on Twitter right now because we don't reflect the world as they wish it to be. Guy (help!) 09:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup, "Why Does Wikipedia Want to Destroy Deepak Chopra?" is a legal threat. Besides, it makes very clear that Richard Gale, Gary Null and presumably Chopra are fighters against the pharmaceutical industry and are peddlers of Ayurveda and TCM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a problem: "Category:Pseudoscience is confusing, because diverse topics characterized as pseudoscience (i.e. Alternative medicine), concepts related to pseudoscience (i.e. Charlatan), explanation about pseudoscience (i.e. History of pseudoscience) are mixed." What is better solution than making a subcategory, to solve this problem?--Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Clearly it's now time for your edits to be reverted. You appear to be the only one who believes there is a problem. Are you going to do it, or should somebody do it for you? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Then, I accept revert, because majority's opinion is like this.
2. My edits are already reverted.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Exception: In case of Psychoanalysis, my edit is not reverted.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Was too.[15] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

If you request deletion of Category:Topics characterized as pseudoscience‎ it can be speedy deleted, if someone else does so it will take a week via a full deletion discussion. --mfb (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Bacopa monnieri (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Dietary supplement marketed as a supposed "nootropic" and as a treatment for Alzheimer's (attracting the ire of the FDA). Got some disagreement over categorization which could use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Bacopa is well known to be a nootropic. And because some people/firms have made false claims does not make the whole plant a fraud and does not justify this categorization. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Source? Just because something is claimed to be a nootropic, doesn't mean it is. Alexbrn (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

How about this one: Neuropharmacological Review of the Nootropic Herb Bacopa monnieri

Or you just might google for it. Want more? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Have you read that 'source' It doesn't say what you claim it does. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It says that Bacopa is a nootropic and that is does have health effects. So it DOES say everything I said. Or do you mean something else? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

On reflection, that might do in light of the fact Nootropics are defined (at least by WP) as drugs wich "may improve cognitive function". The Health Fraud category is apt however and the IP (sock?) is edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

...and the IP (sock?) is edit-warring. I am not and I was not, but even if I would this is not the place to mention it unless you want to bash and belittel me. And why calling me a sock? What did I do to you to deserve this? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring is a violation of policy, so is relevant (and yes you were engaged in it). Editors with accounts sometime edit logged-out (as an IP) as a way of WP:SOCKing to evade being identified. I suspected that may be the case here, since this topic has attracted controversy. If not, I apologise for impugning the no doubt good reputation of your IP address. Alexbrn (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I know the problem with the socks myself, nevertheless. Sorry if I warred, that was not my intention. WP is not the only thing I currently have on my screen. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Time to let others chime in.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources (listed here) supposedly supporting bacopa as a nootropic provides sufficient evidence of cognitive effects in humans, and all are 5 or more years out of date, WP:MEDDATE, based on weak animal research and inconclusive human studies with small (invalidating) subject numbers and dubious designs (refs 7-9). "Bacopa as a nootropic" is a fringe theory about actual human brain effects yet to be shown in any rigorous way – a status many years from succeeding through the formal drug approval process that the FDA has under scrutiny in 2019 with public warnings about bacopa included among other health fraud scams (refs 2-4). --Zefr (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is just false. Bacopa is an internationally well known nootropic, and even in older links in the article it is called so. Please do your homework first. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

BTW, why did you rev all me edits about the species and where it grows? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Three WP:MEDRS reviews^[1][2][3] find that bacopa improves cognition in healthy people. Of the three sources used to "refute" this claim, one says that the herb is untested for Alzheimer's^[4] (true, but irrelevant). The second^[5] is an FDA warning letter against a manufacturer who has made the unproved health claims that bacopa is "used to treat stomach disorders”, “to…stave off illnesses such as Alzheimer’s”, “…helps in protecting infants against neonatal hypoglycemia also known as low sugar”, “…reduces the risk of hypoglycemia in infants”, and is “…used to control blood pressure”. It is also irrelevant. The third^[6] is an FDA warning letter to a manufacturer who has claimed that “…Bacopa Monnieri is a natural … anti-anxiety aid.” It is also irrelevant. No sources exist to refute the reviews. The herb has also been shown to increase the brain's production of serotonin and acetylcholine-- two neurotransmitters important for memory formation. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In assessing sources for medical content, competence in critiquing published reviews is required: WP:CIR which states: "Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles." Accepting refs 1-3 above as reliable MEDRS sources is plain gullibility and inability to see the studies included in the reviews as poor science unpublishable in rigorous journals. --Zefr (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In assessing sources for medical content, competence in critiquing published sources is required: WP:CIR which states: "Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles." Accepting refs 4-6 above as reliable MEDRS sources is plain gullibility and inability to see that they do not address the disputed content. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Zefr has twice reverted my reply to his comment,^[1][2] and left me this warning on my talk page. I assume that he is not trying to deny me the right to reply, and is just very confused. In any case, I would like him to stop. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please take this to ANI, I think there is a two way issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have enough upcoming issues at ANI already, and this article is part of it (which is the only reason I have bothered to participate in this discussion). Good suggestion, but I'd rather just do it all at once. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Bastyr University (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Some dispute about the intersection of WP:BLP and this article's content (see also section at WP:BLP/N#Bastyr University). I think there are WP:FRINGE issues here which need careful handling ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

I am trying to delicately write about this person who has been concerned with Wikipedia's treatment of him for more than a decade. In particular, he is famous for claims of a very high IQ which, of course, is something that is notoriously hard to verify because tails of the distribution and so-on. How we explain this in plain NPOV language seems to be hard to figure out [16]. Help doing so would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Help! [17] jps (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Because of some ongoing health issues, I have been forced to limit how much time I spend editing Wikipedia. One of my essays (WP:YWAB is becoming popular, so I am asking for help in fixing obvious problems in some of the pages that essay links to. In particular, I would ask for help improving:

• Holocaust studies
• Mendelian inheritance
• Cargo aircraft
• Venipuncture
• Water treatment

So that they no longer need cleanup templates at the top.

Any help with these or any other pages I link to in my essay would be very much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I was reading the The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia article, and it struck me as promoting potentially fringe ideas. I don't know very much about the subject, so I came here to ask what other people think of the article? Thanks, Darthkayak (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyone working on this page should also make sure that our articles on Air America (airline) and Allegations of CIA drug trafficking accurately convey what the sources say.

I just removed a WP:CIRCULAR claim (The Enonomist used Wikipedia as a source. Can someone with access to the paywalled site please replace "The New York Times also reviewed the book"b with some actual content showing what the NYT said about it?

The topic of the US government dealing in drugs is a combination of some "they purposely brought drugs into the hood to kill off the blacks" conspiracy theories and some legitimate journalism documenting how the portions of the US government have at various times decided that the War On Drugs is far less important than Deciding Who The Leaders Of Other Counrties is. (Interfering with the elections of another country is only bad when someone else does it.) We need to take care to keep the legitimate journalism and keep out the conspiracy theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Annular Theory (Vailan Theory) is currently a PROD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sign me up for the Annular World Association in Azusa, CA.[18][19] Highly praised by the Fortean Society.[20] See also International Fortean Organization. --mikeu ^talk 15:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"Retraction Watch Database is designed expressly for finding out whether any given study is still legit. The next time you read an article or hear someone say, "studies show that talking is bad for you," you can head over to the site and see what's what."

• https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/database-18000-retracted-scientific-papers-now-online.htm
• http://retractiondatabase.org/

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Article takes the stance that Blackmore's reasoning is wrong, because someone disagrees with it. Should it? Does anybody here know more about this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Original research and undue. I have removed it. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After a heated few months, it looks like the interlocutors arguing about this article have settled down or burnt out. Our mediator had some health problems and seems to be waiting for some considerations of how to move forward. Perhaps this is a good time to ask you all for feedback. So far, we've worked on the infobox, lede, and the sections of the article down to "Molinism". There is still work to be done, but a lot of the concerns about this article may have been addressed, if perhaps badly. Input or help moving forward Talk:William Lane Craig/Mediation would be very welcome.

jps (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

There is an ongoing move discussion regarding whether to move Great Replacement → Great replacement conspiracy theory. The discussion currently only has 4 participants, and has been relisted. Additional input would be helpful. Nblund ^talk 16:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Intelligent design#Orange box overkill? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Solve this problem by awarding ten year veteran editors a "scroll past the yellow vomit" button. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Johanna Budwig (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Biochemist who later became famous for a supposed "anti-cancer" diet. Article appears to be under attack from a mini sock farm. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I've checked the debate and the article history. It's meatpuppets, looks to me like an enforcement issue. Heptor (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting input at Astrology (talk discussion here). The issue under dispute is whether the article should be in Category:Pseudoscience. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Edit warring to add personal commentary to the lead, watering down mainstream viewpoints, redefining Occam's Razor, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Now at AN3 - link is here. Sunrise (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it just me or is there something wrong with this article? Doug Weller talk 08:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe: much if not most of it doesn't seem based on sources talking about a conspiracy theory but about the "English-language political neologism of "War on Islam" which the article says was only popularized as a conspiracy theory after 2001 - although the source, pp. 559 and 560 of this book[21] seems to be referring to 9/11 conspiracy theories.[22] Doug Weller talk 15:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Many people use phrases like war against boys, war against christmas, war against emus, war against baking soda, war against the homeless, war against meat, war against nature, war against pyrex, war against vaccines, war against zebra mussels, etc. You need multiple high quality sources calling something a "war on" and calling it a conspiracy theory. There really was a Emu War, and Pyrex is just an example of someone making a cheaper product than they used to.[23] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

To me it seems like the title of this article is a neologism. What Guy Macon is referring to are mostly hyperboles, and most of those I never heard of. There is also a "this compares to that, so it is OK". Someone needs to see if the sources significantly cover the topic, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The article only uses the phrase "conspiracy theory" twice, both times in the lead, neither has a proper source. I also looked at Conspiracy theories in the Arab world which says " Variants include conspiracies involving colonialism, Zionism, superpowers, oil, and the war on terrorism, which may be referred to as a War against Islam.[1]" I can't find "War on Islam" in the source although it does mention "war on terrorism".[24] I think what we have here is a lot of original research and a lot of assumptions. AfD? Doug Weller talk 17:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Steve Quinn has asked me to post the following as he is travelling without convenient access to Wikipedia: "Over at the Fringe noticeboard - "War against Islam conspiracy theory" - I'm glad you discovered this. A mish-mash like this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. However, I have not had the opportunity to review the sources myself. The reason I would do that is to see if anything is salvageable. I will endeavor to do that with the next 24 hours. Just reading your last post, 17:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC), I concur with AfD. I'm sure your assessment is accurate. I will have plenty of time to review the sources during the 7 to 14 day AfD discussion period." Doug Weller talk 09:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War against Islam conspiracy theory

De-prod'ed by the page creator without explanation. I suspect that it is not a wiki-notable fringe theory, as fringe theories go. XOR'easter (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There's an editing dispute at the article Pyramid power involving User:Elspru, User:Roxy the dog and myself over Russian research supposedly proving pyramid power. Looking into this I ran into Alexander Golod whose article is all about his work on pyramid power> Doug Weller talk 15:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m not certain, but I think I’m up to three reverts, and was coming here anyway. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say it proving, I said there is scientific research in favour of it. and linked the references Elspru (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

there was false statement on page saying there was no such research, I corrected this error by linking the research. Just because the researchers are Russian does not mean their published scientific research is not valid.

I did not link any Alexander Holed you can if you like. Elspru (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• This is obviously howling crankery. I have reverted per WP:REDFLAG. It looks like there's been some edit warring going on. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Alekbrn so you denigrate minorities and deny the evidence? This is Science not reneissance philosophy. Science is based on Scientific Method. You are in denial if you are attacking me with baseless labels. Elspru (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

May be the references should be blacklisted. The book is self-published, but the journal is real, and if it really publishes such bullshit we really need to blacklist it as a source.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert posted.[25] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

And this editor's personal attacks don't let up, even after a final warning. Take a look at [26] - the abstract says "It was established that the dynamics of volatile compounds from samples placed inside chambers is affected by the shape of the chambers. The mechanisms of this effect were analyzed. It was shown that the experimental results obtained previously are consistent with the theory. It was also shown that all phenomena observed in constructions of various shapes are described in terms of the known physical conceptions. Chambers with outside pulsating heating are variations of the known "Brown motor devices"." What are "brown motor devices"? I can't find any mention of them outside the article. And it's not clear that this has anything to do with pyramid power. It might be, I don't know, but in any case the paper has no citations. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter I don't understand how proposing to blacklist a Russian Biophysics journal is anything other than pure racism. The results of the Scientific Method have no regard for your personal belief system, so while you may not accept some result, that just indicates you are in a state of denial, and has no bearing on the actual results. Elspru (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, the reference is to Brownian motion, "brown motor" is a mistranslation. The brownian motion is modified by the form of the geometric container. There is nothing mysterious about it. Elspru (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It's been a while since we've had much really good batshit insanity. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I've reported this editor to ANI for their continued personal attacks. I do agree that there's nothing mysterious about brownian motion being modified by the shape of the container, that's just not pyramid power though. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Just n oting that the editor was blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

We've discussed Dhul-Qarnayn before. I'm hoping that some people here are familiar with it, because User:Aminamin1 is changing it radically. Despite my warnings they are adding material to sourced text that doesn't seem to be in the text, adding unsourced material with pov language, etc. I've reverted them before and may again when I finish this, but they don't seem to care. Here's the diff since they started - take a look at what happened to the reference {{sfn|Wheeler|2013|p=16}} - it now is attached to completely different text and the original text it sourced has been deleted. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Now there's a second editor adding unsourced. The first editor tells me he's translating from the Persisn version of the article. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Theosophy and visual arts
• Theosophy and science

Other problematic articles created by the same user SERGEJ2011

• Theosophy and music
• Thought-Forms (book)
• Man: Whence, How and Whither, a Record of Clairvoyant Investigation
• Theosophy and literature
• What Are The Theosophists?
• Is Theosophy a Religion?
• Hinduism and Theosophy
• Theosophy and Western philosophy
• What Is Theosophy?
• The Esoteric Character of the Gospels
• Christianity and Theosophy

I could list twenty more, but I will stop there. This is also a long-term abuse issue. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• If nothing else, these articles need the attention of a good copy editor. The writing is quite clunky and at times hard to follow. Are these perhaps translations of articles taken from non-English Wikipedias? Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Excellent find! The user SERGEJ2011 states on their userpage they are "interested in Theosophy" and has a quote from Blavatsky, the founder of the type of Theosophy being discussed/promoted in these articles. The pages you list above say on their talk pages they are translated from Russian Wikipedia articles, which have also been authored by SERGEJ2011 and many of which are up for deletion there.

SERGEJ2011 has a near-singular focus on the topic of Theosophy ([27][28] and data therein). As an example of these articles, Theosophy and visual arts has a whopping 98.9% authorship by SERGEJ2011. [29] The religion in question appears to be very small as seen by Theosophy (Blavatskian)#Demographics.

I haven't thoroughly examined the articles, but from what I can tell so far, it appears likely that they consist of whatever little material on theosophy could be cobbled together from reliable sources, along with lots of sources from the religion itself.

Although these articles have a veneer of scholarship, it appears very likely that these articles exist to promote this religion, and that they contain, or by their very existence are, WP:UNDUE weight on the ideas of this tiny group. There does seem to be at least some original research (which is absolutely not allowed) as well. Given all this, I would not at all be surprised if most or all of the articles listed above qualified for deletion on TNT, GNG, and/or UNDUE grounds.

I do know this has happened before where a single minded user creates a bad article on a favored topic, or a web of them, that has a veneer of being well-sourced but is actually no good. (Some examples: [30][31][32]) So, I hope that while the spotlight is turned on this matter, we can examine and remedy it however is appropriate. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

If you check the archives, issues have been raised about this editor before, several times. Yet nothing is ever done about it. He creates about 6 of these Theosophy articles every year, sometimes more. An admin needs to look at this. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Theosophy and literature, this article reads as spam to me, it is like a promotional list and most of the references are not reliable. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Quackwatch has been removed from this article List of food faddists. See talk-page. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bilby keeps doing that, why? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:RSP, Quackwatch is self published. According to WP:BLPSPS, we should "never use self-published sources...as sources of material about a living person". Quackwatch is fine for attributed criticism, as Barrett is a respected expert, and it is very good for criticising psuedoscientific medical claims, per WP:PARITY - we're just limited in how we use to to make factual claims about a living person. So what I've been doing is replacing the self-published Quackwatch sources used for living people with non-self published sources, [33], [34], [35], if at all possible, so we can be compliant with BLP. - Bilby (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

And according to dozens of prior debates here, it is a reliable source for discussion of quacks and quackery. Your determination to be fair to charlatans as always does you credit, but as so often you err too far on the side of deference to them. Guy (help!) 08:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not removing the names - just looking for a source that meets BLP. And I do think Quackwatch is reliable, just that it needs to be used with caution in regard to factual claims about a person, as opposed to attibuted critcism of people and their ideas. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's time that they are taken to task for disruption. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

For following BLP? We went through this issue a year ago - which took a strong stance about the use of self published sources in fringe BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I think a topic ban on fringe would do the trick. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

ISTR we had all this drama before on the basis that Science-Based Medicine was apparently an SPS. It isn't.[36] And neither is QuackWatch. In light of the linked RfC's result, such removals would seem problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

SBM isn't self published, so I don't have any particular issue with using it on that basis. When I ask supporters they say that Quackwatch is not self published, detractors say that it is. So I'm going by WP:RSP as a neutral source, which describes it as:

Quackwatch is a self-published source written by a subject-matter expert. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be attributed. A 2007 Arbitration Committee finding describes Quackwatch as a "partisan site". As it is a tertiary source, it may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered.

I'm ok with using it where attributed, which is what happens most of the time, and in most cases it is fine. But in a list of "People who are x" we can't attribute it individually to Barrett, so a different source is prefered. - Bilby (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have an issue with a source take it to RSN, but yes he is correct BLP forbids SPS,. We really do have to apply policy to everyone.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course, but is Quackwatch an WP:SPS? It is a network of people, has an advisory board, a legal team, and issues corrections and updates. If Science-Based Medicine is not SPS, what is it about Quackwatch that's different that makes it one? Alexbrn (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So lets see a case for its an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYBLP. The goal of BLP protections is to make sure that poorly sourced material is not added to articles. Making a determination that a particular source is poor or, in this case, an WP:SPS is an editorial decision like any other. In this case, it seems clear that the consensus is that QW is not such a source, so there is no problem using it. I take a very dim view of people who WP:CRYBLP to hide their editorial bent. jps (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm absolutely ok with using Quackwatch in this way if the community consensus is that it is not an SPS. But at the moment, the consensus as expressed on WP:RSP is that it is. - Bilby (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

perhaps a block? Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

wp:blp is a policy, cry BLP is not and so does not trump it. Now if QW is not an SPS the question has been addressed, but lets not just ignore policy when it suits us.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If the information at WP:RSP is accurate than Bilby actually has a point. I'm no fan of quacks, but we do have to address how we treat BLPs impartially. Suggest it might be worth going to WP:BLP/N for a clarification. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

RSN might be better, as this hinges on is it an SPS, but certainly there are issues here that need addressing sensibly.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I think, regardless, it's premature to be calling for any disciplinary action. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wholly agree, the OP is based upon policy, it needs clarification before you jump to sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I have raised this issue over at the BLP/N [37] 81.147.137.6 (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Declined prod; seems not wiki-notable (and having a conference be notable is an uphill task to start with, I'd say). People who have experience in religion/science overlap material might want to weigh in. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Holy Quran and Science Conference jps (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

SPA rewriting history. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am seeing a lot of press about "Immune Amnesia". We don't seem to have an article on it. Should we? It seems like it might be an effective argument against antivax.

• National Geographic: Measles vaccines protect against more than just measles. Here's how
• NPR: Scientists Crack A 50-Year-Old Mystery About The Measles Vaccine
• Science News: Measles erases the immune system’s memory
• The New York Times: Measles Makes Your Immune System’s Memory Forget Defenses Against Other Illnesses
• ABC News: Measles infection could cause long-term damage to immune system, studies show
• NPR: Measles Virus May Wipe Out Immune Protection For Other Diseases
• American Society for Microbiology: Measles and Immune Amnesia

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Might want to check these sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please translate [38] from medicalspeak to engineeerspeak? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Some here might be interested in joining the following discuissions:

• (Right place) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?
• (Wrong place) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Quackwatch as a source on living person articles, is Quackwatch a SPS?

(A third discussion here would be Another Wrong Place...) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

[39] Doug Weller talk 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Everyone knows^{[Citation Needed]} that these people[40] are behind both. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Is Sohini Sastri a type of articles we usually keep? Would an AfD stand a chance?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I think AfD would stand a good chance - I haven't done a thorough check, but the sourcing looks very weak, just a few puffy press releases from what I can see - I'm not seeing a cast-iron case for notability. Plus the article is promotional enough to raise concerns about UPE... GirthSummit _(blether) 10:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have one more look and probably nominate it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Basically about a fringe claim concerning carved stones in Puerto Rico that may be connected to the O"ld World." I see a recent rewrite relies heavily on such sources as hits[41] article by a free lance journalist which is behind a pay wall. This[42] is also heavily used, a recent English article in the same newspaper. A very large number of references (over 60) are from a YouTube video[43] of a conference talk by this person.[44] I'm pretty sure we don't use conference speeches as sources. This Haaretz article is also a source.[45] as the University of Haifa materials lab recently studied them. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Old Testament#Dogmatic stance. Please chime in. IMHO, the sources I have offered are impeccable. For the record, I was accused of WP:FRINGE for saying that "covenant=contract". My sources are:

• Barton, John (2001), "Introduction to the Old Testament", in Muddiman, John; Barton, John (eds.), Bible Commentary, Oxford University Press, p. 9, ISBN 978-0-19-875500-5

• Coogan, Michael David (1 November 2008). A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible in Its Context. Oxford University Press. p. 106. ISBN 978-0-19-533272-8..

• Ferguson, Everett (1996). The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-8028-4189-6.

• Ska, Jean Louis (2009). The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions. Mohr Siebeck. p. 213. ISBN 978-3-16-149905-0.

and presumably (I did not check it):

• Herion, Gary A (2000), "Covenant", in Freedman, David Noel (ed.), Dictionary of the Bible, Eerdmans, pp. 291–292, ISBN 978-90-5356-503-2 Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

From the titles, at least three of those books seem to be introductory works for lay people. That doesn't invalidate them at all, but it makes them less of an authority than academic works for academics, especially on fine semantic details like the one you're debating. ApLundell (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not even claim that they represent WP:RS/AC or majority view. I'd simply settle for "not fringe". WP:RULES say WP:PRESERVE, so the WP:ONUS is upon those who want to say "covenant isn't contract". I found a source for WP:ENEMY: Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi, eds. (17 October 2014). The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition. Oxford University Press. p. PT194. ISBN 978-0-19-939387-9. I.e. it is me who will introduce the source to the article.

• Berman, Joshua A. (Summer 2006). "God's Alliance with Man". Azure: Ideas for the Jewish Nation (25). ISSN 0793-6664. Retrieved 31 October 2019. At this juncture, however, God is entering into a "treaty" with the Israelites, and hence the formal need within the written contract for the grace of the sovereign to be documented.³⁰ 30. Mendenhall and Herion, "Covenant," p. 1183.

So, this WP:VERifies the claim that Herion said "contract". Adding another source:

• Levine, Amy-Jill (2001). "Covenant and Law, Part I (Exodus 19–40, Leviticus, Deuteronomy). Lecture 10" (PDF). The Old Testament. Course Guidebook. The Great Courses. p. 46.

Now the WP:RS are just too many and from scholars of such reputation that it is ludicrous to accuse me of WP:PROFRINGE. Count this WP:RS too:

• Hayes, Christine (2006). "Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible): Lecture 6 Transcript". Open Yale Courses. Retrieved 31 October 2019. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why the discussion was moved from the article to here, but in all my years of study it has been made clear that a covenant is not a contract. No sources. No interest in discussing here either. I have alerted an appropriate project about the discussion and pointed it to the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, you were the first one to throw around accusations of WP:FRINGE.

You started by claiming that your version was so widely supported that any academic papers that contradicted it were Fringe.

Now you will "settle for" an acknowledgement that your own version isn't fringe.

I think it's clear that this is an ordinary content dispute, and FRINGE is just being tossed around as a hyperbole. This doesn't belong here. ApLundell (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this does belong here. There are some claims that certain Hebrew words in the Old Testament mean something different than, for example, what the dictionary identifies them to be. It seems that this argument is being motivated by people who think that ideological should be weighted an equal or even greater amount than academic treatments. This is a hallmark of fringe POV-pushing. jps (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

To demonstrate, we just had a user claim without any irony that a sermon he heard in church was a reliable source for describing what life was like in the Bronze Age Levant. jps (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a RfC[46] on the Mark Levin page about whether to include Levin's promotion of Soros conspiracy theories on the Trump-Ukraine scandal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lipid therapy may be of interest. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Bringing this here as it is tagged as under wikiproject skepticism - is there anyone who can review these edits[47] to see if there is anything worth keeping? This is a clearly enthusiastic editor with no understanding of ours sources policy. Doug Weller talk 08:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't help much, but wanted to comment that this is one of those internet phenomenonenoneone like those "Incels", isn't it. I've considered it that way since it started arrived on my desktop. Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 08:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, yikes. I'd start by reverting the whole batch and then seeing if any should be restored. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

...OK, reverted. XOR'easter (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Frank J. Tipler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone versed in physics and cosmology needed to review coverage of Tipler’s fringe theory, and recent IP edits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have seem a lot of Flat Earth websites, but this one is especially entertaining:

https://www.flatearth101.com/

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, triggers all three layers of my web content filter! A feat matched only by whale.to. Guy (help!) 21:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on whether Quackwatch is a self-published source. This RfC also concerns the application of WP:BLP § Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS) to content from Quackwatch. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Quackwatch. — Newslinger talk 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a proposal to shorten the lead of Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see Talk:Homeopathy § The lead. Guy (help!) 19:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This is about [48] and [49]. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I am the editor who made the edits being discussed regarding books that cite people who have been raised from the dead. I am a former journalist covering Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Government Information Services), author of two books and approximately 350 published articles, and formerly syndicated through Griffin. It's my pleasure to address the charge that my edits are not neutral and that the books that I reference should not be allowed to appear in a Wikipedia article as source material.

Both edits are clear and within the parameters of what Wikipedia allows within its rules (see [50] and [51]) Wikipedia covers the topic of what may be cited and/or published in the article on Neutral Point of View:

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. [bold has been added]

With regard specifically to the topic of religion, neither religion nor prayer is considered pseudoscience. I recommend looking at the list of pseudoscience topics covered by Wikipedia, and in particular the quote by Carl Sagan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Religious_and_spiritual_beliefs An article about what is pseudoscience outside Wikipedia can be found here:https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-pseudoscience.html

In addition, Wikipedia addresses how the topic of religion should be covered with regard to neutral point of view:

Religion

In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources. [bold has been added]

The additions made to the article on Efficacy of Prayer are legitimate and should be allowed.

Theanswerman63 (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Religions are fine to treat as is, but as soon as claims are made that enter the realm of science, then WP:FRINGE may apply. So far as I know pseudoscientific claims have been made for prayer,[52] and such nonsense has to be clearly labeled as such. Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Prayer is not pseudoscience, claiming it would have an effect on the world (beyond the psychological effect on people praying or people seeing/hearing it) is pseudoscience. Links to Amazon are not reliable sources, they are advertisement. You are proud that your edits are against Wikipedia policies? A weird statement, but anyway, what is there to discuss then? --mfb (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Whether you believe that God hears your prayers may be a theological issue. Whether those prayers are an effective treatment for raising the dead is a medical claim. Citing a book by someone who has a degree in theology is not a reliable source for this claim. For the purposes of medical content, primary peer reviewed studies by qualified physicians are normally below what we consider a sufficiently reliable source. Referencing "numerous accounts have been written" is no more or less a reliable statement than that which could be said for the existence of big foot. GMG^talk 14:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• That article had (has) some serious issues - great swathes of text with one sentence sourced to a religious work, for example. It's not helped by the fact that RS' writing about it are sloppy, failing to distinguish between the effects of all forms of spirituality on mental wellbeing (with well-known attendant physical benefits) and the obvious lack of any evidence at all for any objective physical effect. All in all it reads as a POVFORK of the article on studies on intercessory prayer. Also what GreenMeansGo said.

Theanswerman63, it is fair to say that religious leaders believe in the efficacy of prayer. It is fair to say that money has been spent by religious institutions trying to prove it. It is fair to say that almost all forms of spiritual activity (including yoga, singing etc). have benefits on mental wellbeing that may well also benefit physical wellbeing. It is fair to say that at no point has anybody ever demonstrated a single repeatable, objectively testable effect from prayer itself. And as any student of quackery knows, an intervention that works only on subjective endpoints, or whose effect diminishes to zero as study rigour increases, doesn't actually work. Guy (help!) 15:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, isn't "intercessory prayer" as opposed to simply "prayer" mostly jargon? What is the "other type" of prayer that we are distinguishing between here in our article title? GMG^talk 15:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: CCC 2644: "blessing, petition, intercession, thanksgiving, and praise." Cheers, gnu57 15:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. I don't believe the Protestant community in which I was raised emphasizes the difference to the same degree. GMG^talk 15:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, we did hash out a scientific consensus statement over at faith healing awhile back specifically mentioning it as pseudoscience. I don't have time to dig into this one, but caution should be taken to make sure this article doesn't become a WP:COATRACK or WP:POVFORK with that scientific consensus statement in mind. It looks like some of this may be redundant with what was already discussed at faith healing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This did not stop Theanswerman63, see [53]. Time to show him the door? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That diff is from before this thread? ‑ Iridescent 22:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Nope, it's quite recent. At least if you look when it was posted instead of when it says it was posted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

There is an open deletion discussion on Ritual Violence that may be of interest to editors here.

The current text of the article focuses heavily on fringe theories related to Satanic ritual abuse and recovered memory therapies, but it's possible that there are reputable sources in anthropology or sociology that discuss actual forms of ritualized violence scientifically. If editors are aware of good sources and want to take a crack at trimming the crap and adding good content, that would be helpful as well. Nblund ^talk 17:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Rashidi was a close colleague of Ivan Van Sertima. Yesterday a South African IP remmoved "Heis also part of an afrocentric movement where he teaches Ivan Van Sertima's pseudohistory." from the article. I reverted but changed it to "Heis also part of an afrocentric movement where he teaches Ivan Van Sertima's pseudohistory.^[1]" Now someone from Temple University has changed my wording to "He is also part of an afrocentricAfrocentric movement where he supports the work of people like Ivan Van Sertima's". On the talk page they've written "You know adding negative labels to scholars is not NPOV. Now I am no fan of Runoko But that is my belief. I still think he deserves a fair article. And this is why Africans distrust what goes on here. Can't you restrain yourself? Look at the rest of the talk page. Clearly some agenda at work. Ivan Van sertima has a page. Why is he walking around with the title Pseudo historian? in the lead of Runoko? yet all those race and intelligence scholars pushing rubbish are exempt." On a different but still fringe issue the IP removed the book Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam from Pre-Islamic Arabia. I'm not sure whether that was a good call or not.

Doug Weller talk 11:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Is the term pseudohistory sourced? I didn't see it a quick glance through the sources cited. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

My point being that if the term isn't sourced and the content is challenged, then perhaps a longer more complete explanation would be in line with Wikipedia. A thought. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson § RfC on self-sourcing, an issue previously discussed here. Guy (help!) 09:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This feels a little advertisementy, and also as if it's kind of sidestepping around the issues. The presence of Uri Geller in a film that purports to be about "interviews with renowned scientists and authors" to explain consciousness makes one suspect it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 03:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No real FRINGE issues with the article, but coverage by independent sources is insufficient to justify a stand alone article. Should probably go to AfD. -LuckyLouie (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, Agree. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staya Erusa. Guy (help!) 01:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Loehle

Please comment.

jps (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The project that is the subject of this post is WP:ARS has been brought to the Village Pump for discussion by a regular here. I had no idea it existed until I saw this. Its purpose seems to be to WP:CANVASS wiki eds to AfD discussions, and prodded articles to deprod, or ivote "Keep". I think people here might be interested. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 12:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"Squadron" indeed. Hadn't paid much attention to this before, but seeing how it works I now understand the complaints here that FT/N is some kind of "groupthink" mobbing exercise. It's classic projection. Alexbrn (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• That's not what it is, but hopefully people will look at the information before jumping to a conclusion. Also look at the actual edit history that shows cases where not one person shows up to help the regular member that tagged something for Rescue, that people only show up to comment if they can find sources, and those who make these ridiculous accusations are usually just upset someone dared disagree with them in an AFD. Dream Focus 16:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Speaking of CANVASSING, this is hardly a neutral notification. GMG^talk 16:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Good news then. The "Squadron" had a discussion on their talk page and seem to have come to the conclusion that those rules don't have to be followed. ApLundell (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Is that how this works? I was unaware. GMG^talk 20:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think turnabout is not a good approach here. Nblund ^talk 21:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with GMG here: @Roxy the dog: this isn't a neutral notice and should probably be reformatted. Nblund ^talk 21:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for the notification of what may be a relevant discussion. There are deep philosophical differences between certain editors here and editors over there, but ultimately this isn't really about Fringe Theory issues in the encyclopedia. Now get back to work, ya goons! jps (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• That's not what it is
• No, historically, it's EXACTLY what it's been. Some random reminders of past discussions of ARS as a canvassing vehicle:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive301#Article_Rescue_Squadron/Template:Rescue_demands,_and_Fosnez
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_(4th_nomination) (2009)
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_13#Template:Rescue (2012)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron (2012)

• Not an exhaustive list, just what I found in a quick search. --Calton | Talk 02:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This is drifting away from being relevant to this noticeboard.

There is an ongoing discussion on Village Pump about the 'Rescue Squadron" [56] where this might be more useful. ApLundell (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is pretty clearly just a retaliatory proposal aimed at goading jps into a rage, which seems not to have worked. I wouldn't worry about it; most people can see through the ruse. Reyk _YO! 10:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This user, User:Eohsloohcs seems to intend adding List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming to the "See also" paragraphs of all the scientists in the list. I see no encyclopedic purpose to that. What do others think? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the list should be deleted. Can't seem to convince the rest of the community to do so, however. jps (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

At the very least it should be called "List of scientists who have disagreed with the scientific consensus on global warming" since much of the sourcing is over ten years old! Lumping all these people into this dunce club is probably a WP:BLP violation. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The whole article should be deleted. I'd agree with an earlier statement by Ronz that the list is OR, and agree with above that the sourcing is old-who knows what these people think now. (Some aren't thinking at all anymore, I guess) Plus some sources are only borderline compliant for science/ research contributing to a highly simplistic article. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I would support deleting the list given the numerous problems with it. Bulk adding see also adds little value and might give undue weight to some bios. --mikeu ^talk 20:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• comment I couldn't find any past AfDs on this, so I went ahead and opened a deletion discussion for the page. Nblund ^talk 21:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Go to article's Talk page and click on the 'Article milestones' pulldown near the top - there have been a number of AfDs over the years, but not one since 2013. The page name has since changed, hiding the previous examples, the most recent being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (6th nomination). Agricolae (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel like a lot of this list is suffering from holywood-inspired idea that "science" is a single field and that all scientists are equally qualified to opine on any "science" topic. ApLundell (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What, you don't think inventing the polymerase chain reaction makes you a noteworthy expert on global climate? It also ignores the fact that scientists sometimes quibble just to demonstrate their credentials as independent thinkers, but this doesn't mean they reject the 'big picture'. It is a false construct of Wikipedia that having expressed a critique of a specific 2001 report somehow makes that first list of scientists among those who 'disagree with the scientific consensus' for all time thereafter. Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Might I ask that you discuss at the deletion discussion rather than reinforcing your clique mentality here. Dmcq (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I dunno. Could you assume good faith rather than cast aspersions? Or do you only respond to requests in kind? jps (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussing things in a separate area and going along to a discussion as a group is simply wrong. And it is doubly wrong when people there are not told about it. What is here is a social bubble of editors of like mind reinforcing each others ideas and forming a clique that resists outsiders as in your call to have me topic banned. I fully agree with the fringe theory guidelines, but this noticeboard very often as in this instance does not publicise when it takes an interest in a subject and that has I believe lead to groupthink. How much discussion was there on the talk page with interested editors before the AfD? Did editors from here go to the AfD with an open mind? Dmcq (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This shows it's possible to get into quite a pickle with such a heady mix of bad faith assumptions and "feelings". But even if your assessment was right (it isn't) it wouldn't matter since AfD is not a vote – at the end, a savvy admin will weight the balance of policy-based reasoning to determine consensus. Defenders of the article would do better to see if they can contribute some of that, rather than attacking other conscientious editors! Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I am attacking this noticeboard and in particular its guideline at the top. Editors here have resisted putting a notice onto article talk pages when they start discussing the article. If you feel some identity with this noticeboard then you are already slipping into groupthink. Dmcq (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh well. I tried. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could also try the injunction at the top of this page "The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained." Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has some great articles on fringe theories, and many of them have been improved thanks to work on this very noticeboard. The list article currently at AfD is not, however, a great article and it has no prospect of becoming one. Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• In retrospect, I should have added a mention that I had left an announcement on this noticeboard at the AFD. However, the announcement has since been added to the AfD page, and so that seems like a moot point. This is a widely watched general policy noticeboard, not some obscure project for people with a certain POV. I suspect most of participants here are fully supportive of covering fringe theories on Wikipedia. Nblund ^talk 16:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I wish this noticeboard worked like most of the other noticeboards on Wikipedia. Having a lot of editors here doesn't mean there is much overlap betweeen an article's editors and this noticeboard. The other noticeboards don't have this sort of thing happening on them. And as to Alexbrn's idea of how mervelous editors from here are at improving articles - yes I'm happy for instance with how Aquatic ape hypothesis is now but the rabid deletions and legalistic policy following to break down opposition in its history produced many awful versions some of which hardly mentioned the topic at all. You can see the battles even now being fought on the talk page but at least it has quietened down and a reader will get something reasonable to read on the topic as is the function of an encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"rabid deletions". Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Can I point you yet again at the top of this noticeboard when thinking about the discussion in the section section below on Information Flow Theory. No mention there on the talk page of the discussion here. The prod says 'Promotion of an idea that has had no discernable influence within the scientific community' as if that was a valid reason for deletion. Nor is it being a fringe theory a reason for deletion. Nor is some editor on FTN saying it is complete bullshit a valid reason to delete. And the idea has been around long enough - it is basically the same as that of the aware anthill in Gödel, Escher, Bach for instance. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Anybody may PROD an article. What makes this "rabid"? Are you a rabid proponent of anything by your own standards? Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That the reason for deletion is that it is fringe which the top of this noticeboard says is not a reason to delete and the prod seems to b just because someone thinks it is bullshit. Nothing about notability or citations, deleting fringe is considered as more important. Dmcq (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason for deletion is exactly what the "reason=" parameter in the {{prod}} tag said: Promotion of an idea that has had no discernable influence within the scientific community. In other words, because it is not notable, as demonstrated by the lack of citations. XOR'easter (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Policy noticeboards like this one are probably a better reflection of site wide consensus than individual articles on fringe topics. That's the point. If there's a discrepancy, that probably reflects a problem with the articles, not this board.Nblund ^talk 17:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is this noticeboard doesn't put notices onto talk pages. Other noticeboards get lots of people from the articles being discussed. This page is a social bubble. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality requires us to omit fringe information that cannot be contextualized within mainstream respectable scholarship, so if indeed it is true the subject has made no impact that would be reasonable grounds for deletion. You are free to contest the proposed deletion.

Noticeboards generally only require notification when an individual editor is named, so this noticeboard is typical in that respect. In point of fact, it's quite common to share on an article's Talk page if that article is being discussed here. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

How much discussion was there on the talk page with interested editors before the AfD?. WP:RTFA. Amirite? There's nothing to stop you from putting up snarky notices onto talk pages for us, darling User:Dmcq. We love you greatly! jps (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN requires one to discuss on an article talk page first and WP:BLPN requires a notice on the talk page. Most disputes relate to the actions of specific editors rather than articles and that's why they ask for the relevant editor to be notified. The only other noticeboard I know of which might refer to an article rather than a particular editor is the original research noticeboard which I admit does not have a written requirement but as far as I can see they do actually discuss such problems on article talk pages first and then say they are going to WP:NORN if they aren't able to resolve the problem. I don't know why things are so different there. Why did the discussion below avoid mentioning an editor when that is an obvious thing for a prod? You think putting a notice on a talk page to inform interested editors woud be 'snarky' thing to do? Why are editors here so reluctant to notify editors on the talk page of an article they are discussing? Dmcq (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN does not "require" prior discussion (though it does recommend it). Like WP:RS/N, WT:MED or other WikiProject talk pages (this page is part of WP:SKEP) this noticeboard does not require prior discussion (though it can be good practice) and only requires notification if an editor is named. There is nothing unusual in the MO of this noticeboard and there has been no irregularity in how List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming was discussed here. If you want to change things, you are of course free to make proposals. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm really confused here. In general editors watch-list articles and notice boards as I do here with this notice board. That way I can take part or not dependent on my interest. Generally, no one is notified. Sometimes if a discussion moves from an article talk page too a NB then a notice may be left on that article talk page notifying all editors that a discussion has moved. In my experience, in very few instances would anyone actually alert individual editors. AfD is a discussion but not specifically a vote. When discussion is closed discussion points and arguments will be weighed by the closer to determine consensus. Consensus is not determined by a vote count. There are real issues with the kind of list we are discussing in my opinion. I'm sure editors here will tell you that I, at least, am not a member of some inner circle. Quite the contrary. I can understand your frustration but this is the way Wikipedia works. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite, Olive. The AfD will stand or fall on its merits and no amount of tiresome prior discussion would have changed that. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree in general with what you say, but I think you're a bit idealistic about how AfD works! I am not asking for individual editors to be informed when a discussion is about an article. As you say if an editor is interested in an article they will have it on their watchlist. And it is general good practice to leave a notification on an article talk page if a discussion moves to a noticeboard. What I am complaining about is editors raising concerns about articles here without leaving a note on the article talk page. It is not reasonable to expect all editors on Wikipedia to be watching this page in case their favorite pages are discussed here. As Alexbrn above points out this could happen at other noticeboards, fortunately that does not happen much. I perceive a real problem with this noticeboard that isn't shared by other ones in that by not encouraging interested editors to contribute it seems to have become an echo chamber encouraging groupthink. If they just followed the WP:FRINGE guidelines that would be fine but it doesn't by a long shot. Look at what it says about deletion (nothing) or removal (some but not what this noticeboard seems to think). And think about what it says about a walled garden and its applicability here. Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It would be quicker if you'd just said you don't agree with the way Wikipedia works. You don't trust AfD, you don't trust editors to behave in good faith, and you are in favour of obviously bad articles. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE doesn't use the word deletion, but it does have a lengthy discussion about notability. XOR'easter (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)::::And a good description it has too, as I said above about Information Flow Theory if they thought it failed notability criteria they should have specified that in the prod, fringe is not a good reason for deletion. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

So my describing this noticeboard as dysfunctional is an attack on Wikipedia? As to AfD go and tell off the one from here who said "The last AfD closed as "no consensus" six years ago. It's time we revisit this question. We are not bound to the mistakes of the past either." AfD is a place where a disagreement is resolved. Nobody is saying the result is always perfect. As to editors I expect them to be human beings and act like human beings, and that seems to be exactly what happens here. It is the environment here I'm complaining about and I believe should be fixed. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

(Indenting here, cuz why not, but not really replying to anyone specifically). Ya know, it might be good to have a "Fringe topics" WP:DELSORT list. Things that wind up at AFD would ideally get sorted there, and there would generally be the automatic notice placed. It would also cut down noise of the "so and so at AFD" sort of posts here. I'm not sure what all would have to get updated, but it would seem like at least a step in the right direction. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Um, just reading WP:DELSORT and it looks like meatpuppets are a problem there and it might have even less visibility than this noticeboard. As you might guess I really dislike meatpuppets and the canvassing that go with them. But at least they don't have a separate discussion area. Overall I'd prefer this noticeboard was just fixed. Anyway fringe should never be a primary reason for deletion. Dmcq (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis, I've occasionally wondered why there isn't a "Fringe topics" or "Fringe theories" deletion-sorting list. The visibility and activity of such lists tends to vary, in my experience, which makes sense ("Actors and filmmakers" has more going on than "Mathematics", which in turn is more active that "Philosophy"). But they generally help bring in knowledgeable opinions, and in addition, they make it easier to find old AfDs. XOR'easter (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thinking on it again I've no objections. That would be for articles that are fringe rather than the reason being they are fringe and there is no separate discussion area (except here of course). Dmcq (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I recommend that participants here add WP:WikiProject Skepticism/Article alerts to their watchlist. This gives a daily overview of what's going on in fringe space (assuming articles have been tagged as being of interest to WP:SKEP). Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW: I watch this page along with a number of articles on topics that are covered here. I sometimes agree with a post claiming that a page like the list in question is problematic, I sometimes disagree, and sometimes I express an opinion one way but then change my mind after reading a well reasoned point. It is understandable to me that someone that doesn't participate here regularly might see participants' activity as "piling on" but in my experiene there is more diversity of opinion here than some of the criticism above implies. I took the time to review this list and I honestly would have commented in the same critical manner had I not seen a post here. My participation in this forum is motivated by a desire to improve (and if necessary recommend removal of) material that veers outside of policy. I stand by my early comments on this list and I find the recent "keep" comments unpersuasive in changing my mind. --mikeu ^talk 16:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough that's your opinion, but it doesn't explain or justify editors being so reluctant to put a notice on an article talk pages when the article is being discussed here. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

In fact I just checked every single discussion on this noticeboard and not a single one has a notice, and moreover even for users mentioned by name I could find no notice on their talk page but at least a User template will give them a notice. I hope that doesn't mean use of that template will be stopped! Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you done that same research on other noticeboards for the sake of comparison?

I just randomly spot-checked a few articles being discussed by WP:NORN, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:RSPAM and didn't see any notices being placed on article talk pages.

It seems like you're chastising us for not following a rule that doesn't exist.

To propose a new rule or policy, you should try WP:VILLAGEPUMP ApLundell (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This noticeboard says you should notify users. As to articles I just checked the first on WP:NORN working backwards from the end and yes the last entry didn't - but it directly called for discussion to be done on the article talk page. The one before that did actually have a reference to the discussion started on the noticeboard. Then looking at WP:RSN I looked at the last entry which had a discussion and yes you were right on that - it was an RfC about a publication that had an entry for it in Wikipedia and I'd have thought it reasonable to put a notice about that on the relevant ublications talk page. They did however widly publicise the RfC. The one before that was on the use of RottenTomatoes audience scores, the Rotten Tomatoes page wasn't notified but the talk page in dispute about Dave Chappelle: Sticks & Stones was notrified. Then on WP:NPOVN the last entry was a bit nutty but no real discussion. The one before just notified the users in dispute with them rather than the talk page. Before that there was a dispute on a users page and that was moved to the article talk page. The next discussion rather than a cal to discuss at a talk page was Climate Change Redux and the first response was "Why didn't you ask this question on the article talk page before coming here?" and the answer was "Because this isn't about the article, it's about terminology across Wikipedia" and then it all degenerated into talk about forum shopping. I'm surprised so many are not about specific articles. The next one back about a specific article Jack Posobiec had a straightforward visible notification on the talk page. I don't think WP:RSPAM is really relevant here - it is about large numbers of pages having spam put on them and it doesn't matter if the thing being spammed is good bad or indifferent. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This noticeboard asks that "specific editors" be notified if they are "mentioned". There is no guidance to publicise discussions here otherwise. You are getting your knickers in a twist over a rule that does not exist. If you want to change that, here is not the place. Alexbrn (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you prefer that editors of a page under discussion not know? If so why? If not then wouldn't a note on the talk page do the job perfectly well? Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Depends. Sometimes it's wise to leave a note. Sometimes it's an obvious case so no note is necessary. Sometimes a note might needlessly escalate the WP:DRAMA. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no justification in WP:DRAMA for having private discussions about the content of an article. Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

If you're saying that a noticeboard discussion constitutes "private conversation" then that is too stupid a contention for this to be worth continuing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Even at ANI there is no requirement to post a notification when you talk about the content of a page. Instead it says:

Dmcq, I haven't given it much thought, but right off of the top of my head I have no objection to a new rule saying that we should post a notification on the talk page of the article being discussed, but it would be a new rule, so you need to get consensus for it by posting an RfC. Until you do that, please stop haranguing editors for not following a rule that doesn't exist.

BTW, we have a way of discussing things in private. It is called "e-mail". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon (talk · contribs) please see Wikipedia:External discussion: "As a note of caution, using external forums to make decisions about Wikipedia content is frowned upon (see the guidance Consensus-building pitfalls and errors). Dmcq (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's a fun bit of history. The non-existent rule that DMCQ is chastising people for not following, was actually proposed by him in 2012, and solidly opposed.

Now, years later, he's acting like he won that debate and getting angry at us for not also pretending he won that debate.

Unbelievable. ApLundell (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Might I quote from an editor here who went to the AfD referred to in this discussion and said "The last AfD on this article was in 2013. Things have moved on since then", and "It's more about a smarter, more conscientious community than any particular article. As an example I offer myself: a rather more conscientious and WP:PAG-savvy editor than I was in 2013". If my arithmetic is right 2012 is even further back and the crowd here might be even more savvy than back then. As to 'private' might I point out that avoiding drama by going here to avoid editors at an article page is what that describes. As to quoting WP:ANI that is principally about disputes between editors, not articles. And the head of this noticeboard talks about promoting dialogue with avocates of pseudoscience by putting a template on their page - which lists policies but doesn't mention this noticeboard which is where if anywhere they should post their questions.

As to just doing an RfC the most likely result would be that it would be rejected unless the specific problems that editors see here are teased out first. And there are all sorts of contradictions in what people say as is clear above. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want to propose adding such a notice to this page and believe this argument, why not start such a Request for Comment on the talkpage of this noticeboard, then? Maybe you can convince enough people that this is a good idea? jps (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it is a good idea? Dmcq (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If you insist on continuing this crusade, Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is the appropriate venue for 'meta' discussions about the noticeboard and its rules. Oh, And the head of this noticeboard talks. . . . What? did I miss a meeting of the cabal where there was an election? There is no 'head of this noticeboard'. It is a forum, not an organization. Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said 'top' or 'header' rather than 'head' for the part of this noticeboard saying "To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page.' Or perhaps the fact that it is contained in the template at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Header Or maybe that I used the word 'talk'? Anyway I hope that is enough for you to find the relevant bit.

Back to the question - do you think it would be a good idea to put a notice on an articles talk page when a discussion about the article starts here like the one that should be put onto a user's page when a discussion concerns them? Or do you think some advocate of fringe theory might come here if that was done and it is better to avoid drama? Dmcq (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't see a problem that needs fixing. Proposing such a regime for just this noticeboard would look like a WP:POINTy stunt, I think. Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

So you are not worried about drama but think it would be pointy in some way to actually warn interested editors by putting a note on the talk page of an article? Well in that case why not have the discussion on the article talk page and just put a note here that you tthink there is a problem there? Would that be okay by you or what problem have you with doing that? Or do you think having a discussion here helps avoid drama? Dmcq (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Controversial edits should be discussed on the article's Talk page - that is its raison d'etre, and is typical practice. It it counterproductive to try to divert that discussion anywhere else. Agricolae (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Bingo! But actually a discussion on a noticeboard can often help by getting more people with specialized knowledge of a policy or guidelines application. I want this noticeboard to stop acting like it was set up to delete spam, that is not like what the other content noticeboards do and it is not in line with what WP:FRINGE says. As to the people who think it would be good to make Wikipedia a haven of pure truth; that will simply turn off any fringe theorists and conspiracy theorists, remove information for the interested leaving just the fringe sites, and overall be completely counter-productive. Currently it has a quite good reputation as a source of unbiased information. I want this noticeboard to work well like the other noticeboards. Dmcq (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's been made painfully clear that you're the only one participating in this discussion that thinks this noticeboard doesn't work well.

Also, you're the only participant that believes this noticeboard is especially delete-happy. Typically intervention that starts at this message board involves fixing articles so that they make clear what is fringe and what isn't.

And especially it's been made clear that nobody participating in this discussion is interested in your proposed solution. (Which you initially pretended was an established rule and are now trying to gain a consensus to create as a new rule.)

Continuing to go around in circles like this is wasting everybody's time. If you really think everybody here is being unreasonable, then your next step should be to escalate to either Village Pump or ANI. ApLundell (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I already explained I wanted to see exactly why informing editors at an article was so extremely infrequent that I could not find a single case of it on the current page. Informing people is very common on other content noticeboards. Perhaps there is a good reason and you can enlighten me? Do you think its function is improved by avoiding involving any possible advocates of fringe? Dmcq (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is obligated to answer your leading questions. ApLundell (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Try framing the question about involving editors from an article in discussions here in a way you don't consider leading. Dmcq (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you were asking that all noticeboards have some direction that notification should be placed on the talkpage of articles that they were talking about, that would at least alleviate the concerns of singling out particular noticeboards over others. It wouldn't alleviate instruction creep concerns, however, so perhaps you could show exactly why not having this notification on various noticeboards (not just this one) has caused problems. Demonstrating those clearly would cause me to support such a proposal. Absent that, I do admit to not seeing a problem except for, perhaps, a disdain for certain active community groups. And it's okay to be disdainful of active community groups, but in that case it might help to explain why you think these suggestions might offer some chance for "reform" (which I have yet to see explained clearly). jps (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That is a good idea, I can't see people from the other noticeboards objecting much as they tend to do it anyway. Yes it is instruction creep, I'm sad about that but I wouldn't be so concerned if I didn't consider it quite important. Dmcq (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend starting out with a Request for Comment on WP:VP or something to that effect. If you outline your proposal and make it clear that it is for all content noticeboards and the community agrees that this is a good and legitimate requisite for all the noticeboards, then that settles it. And it removes it from the particular conflict here which will make it less contentious. jps (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Where is User:Tumbleman when he could actually be useful occupying his time in this thread, then we could get on with something useful. That's fifteen useful minutes wasted trying to figure out that this is just time wasting. Close this discussion with a "Nothing to see here" note please. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 14:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussin at WP:VPR#Discussions about articles on Noticeboards should leave a note on the relevant talk page about what I think is needed and made it non-specific for noticeboards in general. 13:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• List of homeopathic preparations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I suppose I should not have been surprised that most of the entries in this list had garbage sources (e.g. homeoint.org). Also no surprise that once the garbage is removed, the majority of the article has no sources at all. I guess the question is whether we should even have a list of things that homeopaths use: essentially there's nothing they don't use (including excrementum tauri, shipwreck and the light of Venus) but perhaps it could be pared down to the ones notably covered by reliable sources? Marsh's owl, for example? Would we also include the real and fake diseases they claim to cure with them? Or is the whole thing just too fringe to be salvageable? Guy (help!) 15:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably a select list, where RS covers a preparation. Ososillium e.g. Alexbrn (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I am going to suggest a different approach... first, the article needs to establish that homeopathic preparations are notable AS A GROUP.

An introductory section should be created that talks about such preparations in general terms. Discuss why “homeopathic preparations“ are noteworthy and what people say about them (good and bad). Of course, This introductory section needs to be cited to reliable secondary sources.

THEN, having established that the broader topic of “homeopathic preparations” is notable, the details in the list itself can be supported by the sources written by homeopathic practitioners ... as PRIMARY sources... simply to establish that they do indeed use these preparations. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Repeat after me - "Homeopathic preparations are notable cos ther's nothin' innem" -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, how sad is it that I immediately understood that as oscillococcinum, the canonical quack remedy? Guy (help!) 00:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I nicked this from David Gorski who called it "o-so-silly-o-coccinum".[57]. I'd forgot we have a Oscillococcinum article. Alexbrn (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, if oscillo did not exist we'd have to invent it. A "flu medicine" that contains none of the liver of a duck that isn't infected with the nonexistent bacterium that doesn't cause flu. Fractal wrongness. Guy (help!) 00:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I took a stab at salvaging it, with comments and questions at talk. There's not much left and the remaining entries rely on an NHM database which is no longer online. --mikeu ^talk 20:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Mu301, thanks Guy (help!) 00:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced it meets LISTN. I'm waiting on a couple of references to arrive. In other news: I learned that diluted anthrax is not recommended as a homeopathic "remedy" to prevent contracting anthrax or treat it, but topical use on the skin is supported.[58] I'm now having an existential crisis about a thought experiment asking if I would drink such a potion... --mikeu ^talk 00:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Philosophy of conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Conspiracy theory that gives primary weight to opinions that express the idea that conspiracy theories shouldn't be denigrated because, philosphically speaking, it's possible some are not unwarranted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I find it ... interesting ... that a brand new editor would be able to create a properly formatted article after 5 days and ten edits. The rest of his posting history ( Knuteson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ) is also ... interesting. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

What exactly are you implying? Knuteson (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am implying that, while I don't know for sure, the WP:DUCK test says that you are not a new user who started 22 days ago and has made 38 edits. Please note that there is no rule that says that you can't create a new identity: see WP:FRESHSTART. That being said, you are editing in areas where a lot of people get blocked for behaving badly, and if you are one of them you are not allowed to edit under another identity. See WP:BLOCKEVASION. You are also not allowed to keep editing under the old identity and pretend that the posts are from different users. See WP:SOCK --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I will take what Guy said a step further: So far, you have edited in only one topic area, and within that topic area your edits appear to be pushing an agenda (we have a term for this: a “single purpose account”). I am not saying that you are intentionally doing so, but it is how your editing pattern can appear to others. If this isn’t the reputation you want, I would suggest that you step away from editing articles related to conspiracy theory for a while. I am sure you have other interests. Work on articles in those other topic areas. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

New users writing a new article with properly formatted reference tags and citation templates in their first 15 edits are extremely rare, too. Most of them "happen to" appear in topics where bans are common. --mfb (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Great. Now that we have something explicit, I can address it directly. I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor. Other than toying with it about twice years ago, without a registered name, I really am very new to this. As for the single purpose, I don't want to edit pages that I don't know much about, and which I don't have an interest in. It did seem to me that the philosophical literature on conspiracy theories was being left out, and since I've already done the reading, I decided it would be good to add a page on that topic, and also to help fix some problems with the conspiracy theory page, which I'm able to recognize given the reading that I've done. I've made every effort to follow the rules and play nicely with others, despite opposition that often appears to me to be relatively uniformed. Knuteson (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Lets assume a little bit of good faith here everybody. If you have compelling evidence then take it to WP:SPI. Concerns have been raised, and this should be a satisfactory response. New editors are not forbidden from having a clue, and they're not forbidden from having an area of interest. They've not done anything thus far that I can tell but remain civil and constructive. Feel free to prove me wrong, but do it at SPI, and not here. GMG^talk 21:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I noticed Philosophy of conspiracy theories while skimming AfD, and it looked fundamentally OK. It basically reported what some philosophers had said about the general topic of conspiracy theories. As best as I could tell, it was not trying to push a POV or advance one philosopher's view as the correct one. (And the formatting looked pretty typical for a new user who has maybe looked under the hood of a few pages, has the academic background to want to use footnotes, and maybe hasn't quite been around long enough to absorb all of our house conventions. There's nothing remarkable or malicious about any of that.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A little history to help clarify the context of my original posting here on FTN. Regulars will confirm that over several years, there have been periodic and ongoing attempts to either subtly or overtly alter the text of the conspiracy theory article so that it becomes, by default, more favorable to belief in a conspiracy theory. This can take the form of arguing that not all conspiracy theories are unwarranted…or that the phrase itself is a pejorative label that has been applied unfairly…or that dictionary definitions are fairer because they don’t make judgments about the legitimacy of conspiracy theories. After reading the recently created Philosophy of conspiracy theories, I recognized the familiar pattern: lots of rebuttals to the established definition of conspiracy theories, but this time selectively extracted from various philosophers published in high quality sources. When I saw the article’s author has an WP:SPA-like focus on the topic, feels skeptical sources are biased [59], and expresses kinship with an editor who recently attempted, against consensus, to change the definition of conspiracy theory to something more conducive to belief in them [60], naturally, I was (and remain) suspicious. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Philosophers are naturally going to argue that the lay or folk definitions of "conspiracy theory" are inadequate (and then disagree with each other how to define the concept more precisely; that's their job). Regarding this edit, they replaced a citation to a magazine's website with one to an academic book, removing a claim that conspiracy theory has always been a derogatory label. The book chapter argues that early uses of the term were neutral, and the pejorative connotations arose later. This seems entirely appropriate to include. Would I be so zealous as to erase the existing citation? No, but I can see why a novice editor might (and I can appreciate why an editor with an academic background might view that replacement as an obvious improvement). XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, but my objection was to the edit summary given: "the Skeptical Inquirer is a biased source". - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The Skeptical Inquirer is a biased source which uses cherry-picked examples. I’ve replaced it with a much better source, which has a much more nuanced conclusion based on a much sounder methodology. That sounds like a reasonable complaint to me, even though I would regard CSICOP publications reliable sources by default and would have taken a different course of action. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I was surprised that my edit was reverted—actually removing the better reference. By replacing the Skeptical Inquirer (SI) sentence and citation, I was actually protecting SI from potential embarrassment. The alternative is to leave the sentence with the SI citation, and then add a sentence with a much better citation that contradicts SI’s conclusion (which I may now do). Those aware (given the new reference) of the better-established finding who then look up the SI article will see it for what it is: an exercise in cherry picking. (Although I don’t deny that it may be reasonable sometimes to cite SI, the idea that it does not have an axe to grind on this issue astonishes me.) Knuteson (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The closing admin made some pretty outlandish accusations about this noticeboard: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of conspiracy theories. I suggest a WP:DRV be filed as the discussion was cut off for what seems to me to be arbitrary reasons. jps (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I User_talk:Barkeep49#Your_AfD_closing asked the admin to reconsider. If there isn't a decent explanation for this supervoting, I would recommend DRV. jps (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

ජපස, I'll be responding to you directly on my talk page soon (came here to check a fact as part of my response) but I made no accusations about this noticeboard. I suggested that the original posting here, while perfectly fine for this board, ran afoul of nWP:CANVASS in the context of an AfD in that it failed to be neutral. Just to emphasize I don't think postings to this noticeboard need to be neutral, only notices that will impact something like AfD. However, that's a behavioral policy and as such shouldn't affect the closing of the AfD in this instance which I noted it didn't. Given that this posting was brought up in the course of the AfD discussion I did also think it important to address that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me that people here just don't like what qualified academia has to say on the matter.80.111.44.144 (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this article though I haven't had a chance to wade through the sources. I did however find this reference which claims that "...many scholars have taken a relatively charitable attitude toward conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theorising in recent years." (I assume that "scholars" is specifically referring to philosophers.) I haven't read enough on this topic to decide if the article is biased or if the philosophers are contrarian, compared to what I've seen published in psychology and sociology. Below is an extended quote for those who can't get through the paywall. --mikeu ^talk 23:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In the above discussion, LuckyLouie said something important that I would like to focus on:

"Regulars will confirm that over several years, there have been periodic and ongoing attempts to either subtly or overtly alter the text of the conspiracy theory article so that it becomes, by default, more favorable to belief in a conspiracy theory. This can take the form of arguing that not all conspiracy theories are unwarranted…or that the phrase itself is a pejorative label that has been applied unfairly…or that dictionary definitions are fairer because they don’t make judgments about the legitimacy of conspiracy theories. After reading the recently created Philosophy of conspiracy theories, I recognized the familiar pattern: lots of rebuttals to the established definition of conspiracy theories, but this time selectively extracted from various philosophers published in high quality sources. When I saw the article’s author has an WP:SPA-like focus on the topic, feels skeptical sources are biased, and expresses kinship with an editor who recently attempted, against consensus, to change the definition of conspiracy theory to something more conducive to belief in them, naturally, I was (and remain) suspicious."

I think LuckyLouie hit the nail on the head.

Let's look at the definition on our Conspiracy theory page:

"A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof."

Notice how different the above is from what we see at Philosophy of conspiracy theories#Definitions of conspiracy theory? Did you notice that the difference is pretty much exactly as LuckyLouie described?

I am also seeing a pattern here. First, a conspiracy theorist redefines the phrase "Conspiracy Theory" in a way that goes against what 99% of English speakers means when they use the phrase. The usual redefinition is "any theory about a conspiracy, no matter how strong or weak the evidence is." Then the conspiracy theorist acts as if they are completely unaware of the standard definition. Finally they put together an argument based upon their redefinition, and having knocked down the straw man that they created, declare victory.

It hinders communication when you don't use the ordinatry definition for common phrases. Yes, you can use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about the Blorgkity-blorgk stuff, Guy, but IMO it would be uncanny that all the academic sources being cited in Philosophy of conspiracy theories have objections to the denigration of conspiracy theories as their major theme. I don't have the time or access to the sources cited, but someone should. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I have access (but not much more time today than I have already put in). I would not say that objecting to "the denigration of conspiracy theories" is a major theme. They're much more like, well, what you would expect if you put a bunch of philosophers into a room and asked them to define "conspiracy theory" — somebody will have a counterexample to every proposal that anyone else makes. Maybe an actual "reptoids did 9/11, Google Shokin Affidavit!!"" conspiracy theorist would point to that stuff to try and create a smokescreen, but that's not itself an indictment of philosophy, any more than creationists quote-mining arguments about the details of how some species evolved is actually an indictment of evolution. XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Philosophy of conspiracy theories#Requested move 24 November 2019. --mikeu ^talk 12:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

DISC assessment seems to be based on a number of questionable and irrelevant sources. I suspect that this page has been amped up because one of the companies used as a source is actually a vendor of a software product based on this obsolete theory in psychology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Could someone more familiar with the topic please review the sources in Quebec Coalition for Homeopathy. Thanks, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere:, I'm not sure what the concern is. From what I can tell, a prominent Canadian politician has allowed himself to become a shill for quackery and is being called out on it. The sources in the article, both English and French, are definitely or probably WP:RS and are factually reporting on this development. I don't see any indication either in the sources or the article that there's any kind of excusing of homeopathy, just the opposite in many cases, in fact. Is that what you're are looking for? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Eggishorn, Yes thanks very much. I was limited on time when I came across it in the new pages feed and didn't have the time to look into the sources thoroughly. It seemed very much like it could go one of two ways, and at least for me, would require a bit of sleuthing to sort out. So thanks for helping look into it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 07:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere:, no problem. Glad to help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

... is a state endorsed quack in Germany. We have an article (a stub) that was recently replaced by a translation of the german wiki article. I have twice now reverted to the stub, because I feel that the stub is better than the translation, which is far far away from our P&G. Could somebody take a look and tell me if I'm being over critical? Thanks. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

On one hand, there's some decent information in the translation, but on the other hand, the way that info was written was a bit too fringe.

I guess the answer to your question is "yes", but you have good reason to be. 2604:6000:FFC0:54:5D97:40B6:3599:6C13 (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• For reference, the translated article can be found at this diff. jps (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  I would hesitate to call that version a translation. The German article is far better than the English stub, and more neutral too. It would be a lot of work, and I don't want to take it on at the moment, but a proper translation would be a significant improvement. Vexations (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The long way: [70]

Then go to The SAA Archaeological Record Table of Contents, click on "Digital Edition" in "Number 5, November Digital Edition."

They make in quite complicated. Or you can download it from:[71]!

He's discussed in:

Y Not a Pacific Migration? Misunderstandings of Genetics inService to Pseudoscience by Jennifer A. Raff

The Cerutti Mastodon, Professional Skepticism, and the Public Carl Feagans

Whitewashing American Prehistory Jason Colavito

The Mysterious Origins of Fringe 21 John W. Hoopes

America Before as a Paranormal Charter 26 Jeb J. Card

“I Don’t Believe, I Know”: The Faith of Modern Pseudoarchaeology David S. Anderson

Doug Weller talk 14:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

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

I started to clean up this article on mobile but quickly moved to a desktop after seeing how much nonsense there is. But frankly looking at the sources I'm not sure if there's any point. Should we just send it to AfD? Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say so. There doesn't seem to be enough to build an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I have a soft spot for this story as it is such a good example of how the ufology community operates. Unfortunately, there are only three citations to the book! [72]. It may not be that important. Can we perhaps discuss it on George Adamski's page? jps (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

These older stories are fun because in hindsight they make it very clear how much ufology is based on the science fiction of the time. They seem so quaint nowadays.

I wish there was an article that marginal ufology stories like this could be merged to. "List of Contactee Stories" or something like that. Sadly, I think That'd be bordering on creating a list just for the sake of saving 'interesting' content. ApLundell (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't do before, before posting here wondering if anyone had info making it unnecessary. Now that I've had a quick look I did find [73], I guess Springfield News-Leader is some local paper although I expect if that's our standard we would have way more than our list at Contactee#List of contactees. Still considering this fellow organised his own annual "conventions"/meetings for a time, and allegedly had mile long lines to his home [74] (not an RS), and his name seems to come up in RS and non RS sceptical sources [75] [76] [77] it sounds like he is one of the more significant claimed contactees. I somewhat agree simply covering these base stories is mostly harmless even though I don't think we should unless they've also been covered in decent RS, probably one of the reason these articles seem to have survived. Still a risk if we just leave them is they are probably also magnets for nonsense [78] with the caveat I expect that those where this happens most are also those cases where there's a stronger case to keep. E.g. Dana Howard (contactee) doesn't look that much better but seem to have avoided such additions. (It also survived an AFD.) But I'm now leaning to holding off on an AFD personally with just paring it down and tagging, with no prejudice to anyone who wants to AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul Hellyer (he was Canada's Defense Minister - scary) and To the Stars (company). Doug Weller talk 09:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg has a 19th-century doppelganger, so naturally people think she's a time traveler

Look at [79]. She even braids her hair the same. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense, everyone knows she's an alias of Jacqueline Jossa. ‑ Iridescent 00:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to read Religious perspectives on Greta Thunberg. Probably won't come before Conspiracy theories about Greta Thunberg, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure these borderline FORUM posts on FTN, not directly related to building an encyclopedia actually help lend credibility to the project. GMG^talk 15:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Been saying that for years.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Wanted to observe that there is no obligation for editors to contribute to this Noticeboard. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't really have anything to do with whether posts like this have anything to do with building an encyclopedia. GMG^talk 15:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Excactly, no one has to post here, so why not keep what you post relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think readers who thinks WP has credibility are much bothered. People will on occasion share a joke on a factoryfloor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I like chips in brown gravy. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Well that's fringe-something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• GreenMeansGo, I actually do think they serve a purpose. They create a degree of good-humoured engagement that centres on the noticeboard and keeps it "sticky". As long as the content is plausibly related to content, e.g. can be read as a "heads up" to some new craziness out there and a prompt to check articles on your watchlist for emergence, I think there's not only no harm but a positive benefit.

  A board that has a relentless grinding focus on in-progress disputes is going to become a bitter and potentially toxic place.

  Just as long as it's not excessive, I really don't see any problem. Guy (help!) 00:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you can't argue with the pictures, mate. They got us bang to rights on this one. Guy (help!) 00:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

From Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard at the top of this page:

"This page is for discussing possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories."

"Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories."

95% of my contributions have an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles. If you want to outlaw the occasional lighthearted post about silly fringe theories, post an RfC and see if the community want to change the rules. Until you get consensus, your complaints are more disruptive than what you are complaining about. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There no RfC needed to make NOTFORUM into a policy; it has been policy for a long time. GMG^talk 17:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What part of

This page is for discussing possible fringe theories. Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here

are you having trouble understanding?

NOTFORUM talks about user talk pages, article talk pages, and articles. It says nothing about noticeboards, which are allowed to set their own rules within reasonable limits. Feel free to report me at WP:ANI if you believe that you can make a case for me violating a policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no desire to report you to ANI. We've worked on and off together over quite a few years. I respect your contributions, I only wish you would keep them on-topic. GMG^talk 01:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I am not willing to stop posting an occasional "Fringe Theory of The Month" bit of fun. Some here have stated that they appreciate a bit of lighthearted humor every once in a while. The last one I posted was in September and the one before that was in May. Responding to your desire to stay on topic, I promise to keep them few and far between. Perhaps you and Slatersteven could just ignore them as long as they only happen occasionally? BTW, here is my all time favorite: [ http://www.bodahub.com/does-finland-exist-conspiracy-theory/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there some reason to think GMG was only talking about FToTM? I would assume they are referring to all posts that don't seem to really relate to concerns over an article or a particular article. I see a post right above about #New flat earth site which seems to be in a very similar vein and I'm fairly sure I've seen quite a few of these posts by someone, I think often you, fairly regularly (see also my comment below). Nil Einne (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Meh... There is always the argument that these posts are intended as a precautionary warning (alerting editors to be on the lookout, in case the theories end up being mentioned in articles) as opposed to a reactionary complaint (alerting editors to the fact that they have already been mentioned). If one takes this attitude, then I would say they are appropriate. If they give us a chuckle in the process, I’m not disturbed. Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Guy Macon and I sometimes fight, but we sometimes get along. In the cases of these occasional posts, I have found that they have occasionally helped me to improve content in articlespace. If that had never happened, I might have sympathy with the off-topic naysayers. But since it has, I think it's WP:HARMLESS to let this continue. Go complain somewhere else. jps (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, I occasionally check out this noticeboard. One of the thing that discourages me from doing so, is that I don't particularly like what I see here. By no means do I suggest me not checking it out is a loss, but I do wonder if others may feel the same and so this sort of stuff is actually harming the noticeboard.

  Of all the noticeboards I sometimes check out, this seems to be the only one that welcomes so many IMO offtopic posts. I personally consider any post which doesn't directly relate to suggestions of improving (including protecting) an article to be off-topic. By which I mean, if you open a discussion, because you genuinely feel there is some risk that nonsense has been, or will be added to an article, then fine. Likewise if you feel that we need to add something to some article. If you just found something which you feel is funny and want to share it then yes it is offtopic in my opinion. I find it particularly funny since the RD, not a noticeboard, also gets a lot of criticism for this sort of thing but it seems to be well tolerated here.

  I'm all for criticising and mocking pseudoscience and other such nonsense in the appropriate place. But wikipedia is almost never the place for personal mocking, and criticism should mostly only arise when it directly related to an article. I'm not suggesting people never be allowed to do so, IMO it's fine when it arises organically in a discussion one something on-topic. Likewise I'm all for allowing people reasonable leeway in personal discussions i.e. on their own talk pages. And I don't know what sort of stuff goes on in Wikiprojects, maybe it's quite common there. Since such projects have far more of a community building aspect than noticeboards do, IMO it's far more tolerable there again within limits. (If what I've seen in the article rescue squad is any indication, maybe they go way overboard in ignoring wikipedia norms.) But this isn't supposed to be a wikiproject, in fact people from here have just pointed out, correctly, in WPP that it isn't. So none of these leeway considerations arise.

  I'm particularly concerned with the way many of these discussions are troubling from a WP:BLP standpoint. While they don't generally mention the person involved, often they do seem to focus on the rambling "theories" of one person. Again there are plenty of places where mocking such people is fine, just that wikipedia isn't generally one of them. Rationalwiki is one place where it is welcome, which I sometimes (admittedly not much recently) check out precisely for that reason.

  Besides that, and one of the other key reasons for my earlier point about not checking this board. While this is not so much of a problem now, one time when I visited it looked like maybe 1/5 of the posts here were this sort of offtopic stuff with some discussion. I don't know the frequency of such posts, I can't imagine it's really that high so to some extent it was also likely a bad time for the board. Anyway there were a bunch of ontopic posts most of which seem to have been ignored. Again not really much of a problem at the moment.

  And "seem" because the lack of replies doesn't mean that nothing happened. It's easily possible that editors here edited the article or left comments on the talk page or whatever without mentioning it here which is mostly a good thing. (I did check out 2 or 3 and I think maybe 1 had something happened, but wasn't intending to analyse.) I check out WP:BLP/N a lot recently after a long time where my involvement mostly ceased and one of the changes from when I was last active which I'm now also very guilty of is there's way too much discussion on the noticeboard meaning split and confusing discussions. In other words, I recognise and agree that the primary purpose of the noticeboard should be to alert editors to something and there is often no need for much discussion in the board itself unless it affects multiple articles and it's felt it's a decent place to centralise it. If this noticeboard is still mostly doing that, it's a good thing.

  So to some extent, this is separate from the off-topic concerns, in fact I recall some somewhat recent discussion where this arose i.e. the lack of any follow up on the board (don't recall which board) left an editor thinking it was useless. One thing separate from the offtopic concerns, which would help would be a brief comment here, either when the issue seems to be resolved or if you're working on it. Doesn't have to be everyone, but if at least one editor comments then you don't get the impression that posting here is probably useless.

  But IMO the offtopic posts do come into play. I'm not suggesting that these offtopic posts are distracting editors here from actually working on the issues. But when you visit a board and a resonable percentage of it seems to me just people making fun about some pseudoscience, i.e. something that has nothing really to do with improving wikipedia and many of the posts which do have to do with improving wikipedia seem to have been ignored, it's easy to come to the conclusion that the board has completely lost sight of it's purpose and it's not something you want to use or check out.

  IMO this also feeds into the perception that this board, it's participants, and the topic area gets special treatment since as I said, this doesn't really arise in any other noticeboard that I've noticed. I'm not so much concerned about those who are extremely into pseudoscience since they're a lost cause but those who are more neutral or even somewhat opposed to pseudoscience who see this board and go WTF?

  Note that I'm opposed to banning posts like these since that will do more harm than good. Both because bans create a lot of confusion in enforcement and also because I'm not so much concerned if this was really only happening once in a blue moon. I am only suggesting that editors consider whether they should change how they operate. And I accept that some editors have directly improved articles as a result of these off-topic posts. IMO, if editors really want to continue this stuff at the current frequency, it would be better if this happens somewhere other than this notice board, perhaps some wikiproject. In case it's not clear, I've had these feeling for a few months now, I've never bothered to mention them since I doubted there would actually be any useful result but since the issue came up I guess I might as well.

  Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Nil.

At best posts like these are just imagining potential bad wikipedia edits, which I don't think is very productive considering the myriad possibilities for poor edits. At worst, they're mocking people for sport, which is not what this noticeboard is supposed to be for. ApLundell (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I also find this quite disturbing as it looks like internal socialization and happy talk by an in-group united against an out-group. Just replace pseudoscience with Hindu religion or philosophy or social science or economics or communism or any other subject with lots of weird and strange beliefs. Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

please take a look at the edit summaries. It's a new editor and I've reverted twice and am off to bed soon. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

ALthough he's now been reverted by 3 editors, it now reads:

" Steven Fischer has written that "the current opinion is that these earliest Balkan symbols appear to comprise a decorative or emblematic inventory with no immediate relation to articulate speech." That is, they are neither logographs (whole-word signs depicting one object to be spoken aloud) nor phonographs (signs holding a purely phonetic or sound value)."^[1]

However, that the opinion is by no means shared by the scientific community as a whole. A much more thorough study of the tablets by Marco Merlini, Director of the Institute of Archaeomythology (Sebastopol, USA) and General Director of the Prehistory Knowledge Project (Roma, Italy) has stated that the tablets are clear evidence of written language in hieroglyphic script form not dissimilar from the later Egyptian script dating back to 3400-3200 BC. ^[2]. This would, in fact, make the tablets the earliest evidence of written language in the world predating the Sumerian cuneiform script, considered the earliest form of writing."

I still believe that this view is that of such a small minority as to fail WP:UNDUE. As written it clearly fails NPOV even without that. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried the old trick of swapping the two views around (editing the article so it says: Merlini says X, but Fischer says Y)... this often is a good test to see if someone is pushing a fringe view beyond what is DUE. Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

More eyes welcomed on recent edits to Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, per Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence is classified as a fringe theory. Is your desire to get it classified as a fringe theory? If so I recommend starting a section on the talk page for it about that. If there is a more appropriate course of action, please let me know where I can read about it! Micah Zoltu (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

What it advocates literally is, by any reasonable definition. It makes speculative medical claims that established scientists and doctors consider dubious, these claims are put forward by a founder without expertise in the area, it publishes a pseudojournal ... I think you really, really need to read up on WP:FRINGE and the burden of proof, and the arbitration case about pseudoscience - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• After some research, I learned that not all pages that are fringe are tagged as fringe, and the process for classifying something as fringe is (more or less) just an editor asserting it as fringe. Originally, I thought articles had to be explicitly included in a "list" of fringe sources to be classified as fringe. In this case, I agree with the assertion that it qualifies as fringe, and it looks like you have since added it to the list and marked the talk page, which is very helpful for new users like myself! Micah Zoltu (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It's either delusion or fraud, but certainly fringe. Guy (help!) 01:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Pro-paramilitary advocacy I think could well fall under WP:FRINGE, especially when the groups are considered to be terrorist organisations... but there is a degree of controversy as some people view these groups as freedom fighters and not terrorists. Thus this deletion discussion might be of interest to people here: wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Queerly_Bohemian/Userboxes/FreedomFighters.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Should legendary miracles be described as facts in that article? My deletion was reverted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we have a decent way of handling this issue in lives of the saints articles. A lot of them suffer from this "plain account" issue. Wording like "...during her life, Saint Jane Doe received the stigmata, levitated in divine ecstasy, and exorcised several demons from cursed children. After her death, five dozen miraculous cures were reported to have happened through her intercession..." abounds, and many editors see this is neutral although I think it's not. We don't need to hit readers over the head with attribution, "claim" language, and skeptical rejoinders, but neither should we be breathlessly and uncritically reproducing hagiographical material in Wikipedia's voice. jps (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that one of the editors of that page has been here recently on another topic.[80] I am a bit swamped at the moment but I encourage someone to take a look at all of that user's contributions. Edits like this[81] are especially concerning. Do we need an ANI case here? Like I said, I don't have the time at the moment. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I hear the pitter-patter of webbed feet. See Talk:Siddha medicine. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating, India has a dedicated ministry of quackery (excluding the yoga part). --mfb (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yoga can be quackery too! jps (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• BEMER therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Previously discussed at this noticeboard: [82]

Some recent activity here could use more eyes. (Add: digging around, it seems that BEMER Group distributes these products through a MLM scheme but, as so often, its hard to find sources confirming the MLM status. Anybody know more?) Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BEMER therapy. jps (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey, folks, recently over at cryptozoology a user has been promoting a rather nuclear notion of cryptozoology as some kind of literary genre by cobbling together various sources that mention cryptozoology, but nowhere explicitly even discuss cryptozoologists in fiction. Here's the edit they're edit-warring to estate: [83].

While we could use a "cryptozoology in fiction" section about how cryptozoologists are portrayed in, say, novels with a source that explicitly discusses this topic, the user appears to be attempting to hijack the article to represent her or his own theories by way of classic WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. None of the sources the user has provided seem to discuss cryptozoology in fiction at all, Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 6#Cryptids_in_fiction as I discuss extensively here. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought I remembered there having been an RfC or something about stand-alone articles for cryptids, but maybe I imagined it. Editors familiar with WP:NFRINGE may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambo (carcass). – Levivich 03:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:Vaccine hesitancy#Title there is a discussion about the title of the article, and on questions of neutrality, that fringe-savvy editors may be interested in. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Existence of the conspiracy theory that Melania Trump has left or been disposed of and replaced with a double clearly not a "blatant hoax" as it is well reported in reliable sources. For example: South China Morning Post, "‘Fake Melania’ conspiracy theory about body double is ‘deranged’, says Donald Trump"; Esquire, "The 'Fake Melania' Conspiracy Theory is Back"; several others were in the draft. Reality of theory itself is irrelevant to whether theory exists.

@RHaworth and Govvy: Hyperbolick (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• More sources: Evening Standard, "Has Melania Trump been replaced by a robot? Internet awash with wild rumours FLOTUS has 'body double'"; CNN, "White House: Melania body double a non-story"; Fox News, "Does Melania Trump have a body double?". Hyperbolick (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hyperbolick: I hardly consider this news worthy let alone wikipedia worthy, there is a lot of tabloid garbage out there, maybe you should work on something more constructive to the wikipedia project? Govvy (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hardly newsworthy? Go tell all those news outlets they were mistaken in reporting then, have them retract their reports. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The OP considers the Mirror a reliable source. This is concerning. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The CNN says a non-story in its title, that must tell you something straight off, most sources you have used are tabloid! And I consider The Mirror a rather unreliable source. Govvy (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

No I do not. Removed. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The draft is clearly not a hoax. Whether it's notable or not is another issue, but that's what MFD is for, not CSD. Guettarda (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

For the benefit of non-admins, the opening line of the deleted draft:

Melania Trump replacement theory is a conspiracy theory that First Lady of the United States Melania Trump was replaced by a body double, and that the "real" Melania is either dead or gone from public life.

It doesn't purport to be something it's not. Guettarda (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• I saw "possibilities: clone, robot, reptilian" and decided it was patent nonsense. But I have restored it. Govvy, please allow it to be reviewed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay... I really thought it was a silly article which feeds in to false news reporting and this culture of untruths, I just don't think this type of stuff should be on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Can’t control whether the media reports as newsworthy what others call nonsense. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

yeah. Sadly, this may be slightly noteworthy as a conspiracy theory. Not sure I'd put the draft live right now, but it's obviously working from a reality-based viewpoint - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard, Looking at it, I would say it is not notable bollocks. Guy (help!) 00:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

So not notable it's been covered by CNN, Esquire, SCMP, Fox, The Guardian. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty borderline I think, but there's nothing wrong with doing a draft at this stage. Worst case, it'll be worth a rescue to RationalWiki ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• The purpose of Wikipedia is not to record every occurrence in human history. A lot of nonsense is covered by the media, because their purpose is to draw attention for advertisers. That doesn't make everything they publish notable (or even interesting, IMO). Tom Reedy (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears that the World Health Organization has been hijacked by Quacks, but our article appears to be silent on the matter. See:

• Why Chinese medicine is heading for clinics around the world: For the first time, the World Health Organization will recognize traditional medicine in its influential global medical compendium.
• World Health Organization Endorses Quackery
• The World Health Organization: Integrating quackery into the ICD-11

I am good at editing engineering articles, but I really suck at editing anything having to do with health or medicine. Who here is willing to step up to the plate and add an appropriate section to the WHO page (not to be confused with The Who page...) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it is probably best to add this to the "controversies" section. jps (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. At a glance, there appear to be many sources to work from. Hopefully there's more than just opinion pieces though. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

A good bet for sourcing per WP:RSP is this from Science-Based Medicine. Still putting this up against the WHO needs to be done with care. It's true the WHO is sometimes a bit odd (IIRC homosexuality was an classified by the WHO as an illness until 1999). However, we need to be sensitive to WP:RGW and to some extent if the WHO says something, Wikipedia needs to just suck it up and reflect it. Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

[84]

User:Slatersteven, please let me be as I clean up our UFO articles. KThanxbye.

jps (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not a reason, we have a third party independent source reporting this, seems to me it passes. Maybe before "cleaning up" this article you should have asked does it need itSlatersteven (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, you should be making your case at the article talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Stay out of my way, Slatersteven. You're not welcome. jps (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• STOP - Comment on problematic articles and problematic edits... but NOT on your fellow editors. DON’T make it personal. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It is personal when dealing with incompetence. WP:CIR. jps (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I objected to one of your edits that seemed to be sourced to a newspaper, not to the rest that removed dubious sources. You made no effort to explain why this source was not an RS or to make any other justification.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NFRINGE. Note that there is an entire discussion of WP:SENSATIONal sourcing such as to "News of the Weird" reporting in local newspapers. You've been around here long enough to know that news reports are not what makes for good sources for WP:FRINGE content. jps (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Then you should have made a case, as I asked. COI is not a policy wp:civility is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you implying that editors have to obey policies but not behavioral guidelines? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I said what I meant, and this is not the correct place for such a discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• 90.185.50.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pseudoscience discretionary sanction alert: [85]

Question: does anyone think that there is enough disruption to justify a topic ban? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2019‎ (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Given they have not made any edits since the 5th it maybe no one think its an issue anymore.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd think it did, but then it's an IP, they'll hop to another. Warn and block for disruption, I'd think - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Ed and Lorraine Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ongoing "corrections" made to the article...in the form of some rather fringy narratives involving spirits and demons, stated in WPs voice [86]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

More or less resolved. New student editor advised on Talk page. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ravensclaw1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed a well-sourced statement", it spreads myths about the risks of vaccines and contributes to vaccine hesitancy, which has been identified by the World Health Organization as one of the top ten global health threats of 2019, with parents delaying or declining some or all vaccinations. " replacing it with " educates the public about the potential risks of vaccines." Doug Weller talk 18:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Informed Consent Action Network and Pseudoscience are now on my watchlist. I am waiting to see what Ravensclaw1 does now that they has received a DS alert. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Finnish Air Force sighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Check out this article. I tried to clean it up, but it is not clear to me that the sourcing is there to justify its existence.

jps (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources #1 and #2 seem to be Finnish news media. The rest are a UFO proponent website, book, and video(s). Unless somebody is able to add more coverage by RS, a redirect to List of reported UFO sightings would be appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Stub article that begins: Randall Carlson is an Architect, his academic background is in geology and astronomy. Carlson founded Sacred Geometry International, an organization from which he participates in cutting edge research into Earth’s cyclical history. Carlson's theories have not been peer-reviewed or published in any scientific journals, and are generally dismissed by researchers.

The article should probably just be deleted, but I thought editors here might know where to find sources that might demonstrate notability. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That was a generous thought, but I just tagged as WP:A7. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)