Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

Antivaxers

I don't think I am alone in noticing an upsurge in antivax editing issues on Wikipedia, in line with the real-world rise of antivaxers. Well, the WHO has also taken notice. ANTI-VAX MOVEMENT LISTED BY WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AS ONE OF THE TOP 10 HEALTH THREATS FOR 2019, according to newsweek. This is depressing and reinforces the need to keep these articles science-based. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The WHO should not be encouraging eds to edit Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You have GOT to be fucking kidding me. THAT'S your takeaway? --Calton | Talk 13:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as I am under the impression that off wiki canvasing to encourage (what is in effect) advocacy (and a kind of canvasing) is against our polices.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Encouraging new editors to edit (in accord with the WP:PAGs) is great! That's why the "guerilla skeptics" initiative is so admired (despite its unfortunate name). More neutral editing of fringe topics will only help advance The Project. Alexbrn (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that article says absolutely nothing about encouraging eds to edit Wikipedia. It just identifies anti-vaxxers as a top health threat. --tronvillain (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Calton ... and Alex. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

So what has this to do with WP, WP:notaforum? My problem is this sort of thing plays into the hands of those who want to portray Wikipedia as biased, "do not do as a do do as I say" is never a good way to appear fair and balanced, in most peoples eyes. We do ourselves no favours when we treat the other side by a different set of standards as we do ourselves.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that Wikipedia is a source of information for millions of people, and very few of those are going to read WP:MEDICAL. You can talk about "bias" on political articles or whatever all you wish, but if there are editors arriving here to insert information that (for example) "vaccination causes autism" then our response to them should be very very quick, and very final. We cannot have situations where Wikipedia, through bending over backwards to be "fair", ends up with articles that suggests that there is even a 1% chance that anti-vax propaganda has any relation to the real world. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I am talking about using this noticeboard as a general forum about things that have nothing to do with Wikipedia.15:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

From the top:"Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles of improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories." --tronvillain (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I think SS ought to read posts better to check what they do and don't say, before making silly sweeping statements. It makes him look a little foolish. Oh, and sign your posts. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If that is what you think OK, I will bow out now. All I can do now is the very thing I have criticized you lot for doing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

While you are bowing out, could you please stop citing WP:NOTAFORUM when that page clearly says that it applies to articles (article talk pages are also covered by the rule about only discussing improvements to articles) and that is does NOT apply to user talk pages, the reference desks, the help desk, or noticeboards? The top of this page says "Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles of improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It definitely does have something to do with Wikipedia. It gives the reality-based community that hangs out here an obvious watchlist priority. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Where did they do that? Guy (Help!) 16:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And what is eds? Natureium (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson

• Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sharyl Attkisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Longtime board watchers may remember this person who took extreme umbrage to Wikipedia's use of sources that identified her as a vaccine denier. Well, she hasn't let up with the vaccine denial. I note that our articles haven't really caught up to dealing with this new round of nonsense.

jps (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Medicine with a side of mysticism: Top hospitals promote unproven therapies

See Medicine with a side of mysticism: Top hospitals promote unproven therapies. Key quote:

"They’re among the nation’s premier medical centers, at the leading edge of scientific research. Yet hospitals affiliated with Yale, Duke, Johns Hopkins, and other top medical research centers also aggressively promote alternative therapies with little or no scientific backing. They offer 'energy healing' to help treat multiple sclerosis, acupuncture for infertility, and homeopathic bee venom for fibromyalgia. A public forum hosted by the University of Florida’s hospital even promises to explain how herbal therapy can reverse Alzheimer’s. (It can’t.)... Some hospitals have built luxurious, spa-like wellness centers to draw patients for spiritual healing, homeopathy, and more. And they’re promoting such treatments for a wide array of conditions, including depression, heart disease, cancer, and chronic pain. Duke even markets a pediatric program that suggests on its website that alternative medicine, including 'detoxification programs' and 'botanical medicines,' can help children with conditions ranging from autism to asthma to ADHD. 'We’ve become witch doctors,' said Dr. Steven Novella, a professor of neurology at the Yale School of Medicine and a longtime critic of alternative medicine."

As our article on Alternative medicine says, "The scientific consensus is that alternative therapies either do not, or cannot, work. In some cases laws of nature are violated by their basic claims; in others the treatment is so much worse that its use is unethical. Alternative practices, products, and therapies range from only ineffective to having known harmful and toxic effects." --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

And since when is Wikipedia a reliable source? That statement is ridiculously overbroad and shouldn't be in the article. Some alternative medicine fits that description, other things are simply unproven to date and need to be considered in light of best evidence to date, good or bad. Montanabw^(talk) 00:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying my best to think of a "thing" that is "simply" unproven "to date" that falls under the umbrella of "alternative medicine". jps (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Phage therapy, vitamin megadoses, grains of paradise… it's not hard to find treatments where the jury's still out on their efficacy. The corollary of "if alternative medicine is proven to work it's just medicine" is that on rare occasions, the alternative remedies do turn out to work. ‑ Iridescent 21:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Phage therapy is not an alternative medicine. Orthomolecular medicine speaks for itself as basically debunked. I'm not sure what jury has been even called to study (*squints*) digestive effects(?) of grains of paradise. Color me unimpressed with your list. jps (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I fear we're going to see a lot more of this until we see less of this. I recently had an e-mail exchange with the licensing board for acupuncturists in the State of Massachusetts about what standards they had for medical claims (as I was complaining about a practice that was advertising a cure for cancer through acupuncture). The answer they gave was that they had no standards at all. They claimed it was beyond the remit of the licensing board for acupuncturists if an acupuncturist made medical claims that were patently untrue. It was, according to them, up to the State Attorney General to determine when someone was practicing medicine without a license or engaging in false advertising. This is a governing board for the practice! jps (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Licensing boards are bound by statute, jps. They are given a certain level of authority and are just as vulnerable for doing too much or too little. Don't confuse practitioners who volunteer their time for a small stipend or non-specialist licensing board bureaucrats with scientists. If you have a beef, their advice was sound -- take it to their attorney general. Montanabw^(talk) 00:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Licensing boards are allowed (or, in some cases, required) to revoke licenses when fraud is demonstrated. By passing the buck, the board representative is exposing their racket for what it is and, by extension, setting themselves up for legal liability in the inevitable situation that someone who is harmed by these false claims ends up suing. jps (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you want Wikipedia to do about it? TFD (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a good question. The best we can hope to do is to make sure that ALTMED topics stick to peer-reviewed journal articles in high-quality journals. This is has been harder and harder to do as of late. jps (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

WP has already got ARBCOM sanctions in place for ALTMED topics. It's enough. In fact, it's a bit too much, but it certainly doesn't need to be any more draconian. Montanabw^(talk) 00:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome tot he weird and wacky world of quackademic medicine. Still, it could be worse. There could be a corrupt and aggressively incompetent narcissist in the most powerful job in the world... Guy (Help!) 01:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Quit talking about Jimbo that way! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought he meant Putin, but Putin is competent of course. EEng 01:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no real person who fits JzG's description. Even from the wording, you can see it was a hypothetical dystopian scenario. Phew! --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Just to note: Peer review is no longer a good criteria for a RS for health related content. We now have and apply consistently WP:MEDRS Littleolive oil (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
    • LOLWUT?! Just to note that peer review is only described in positive terms in the MEDRS guideline, so it's unclear why you would claim that it is no longer a "good criteria". Of course, it's problematic if you get someone who is a true believer to review a paper written by another true believer, but that's why it's important to use high-quality journals and not to cherrypick sources. I tire of the game-playing by fringe advocates such as yourself jps (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Peer review in high quality journals on its own is not a criteria for inclusion in any article and such peer reviewed studies are a primary source. MEDRS rejects primary sources in most instances and prefers systematic reviews, academic and professional books, and so on which are secondary sources. MEDRS depends on the mainstream positions as established by these reviews/textbooks. Not sure why citing the Wikipedia position on MEDRS is a fringe position.Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you have confused "peer-review" with "primary source". jps (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Peer review studies on their own as in, are not part of say, a systematic review, are primary sources. As studies included in a systematic review they could be considered part of a secondary source. Per Wikipedia: "A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made." Littleolive oil (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's worth emphasizing this or not, but I repeat, primary sources are NOT the same thing as peer review. jps (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

No they're not. Why are you repeating something no one said. Peer review alone is NOT a criteria for a RS per MEDRS. A peer reviewed study can be a primary source but no one said peer review equals primary source. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

MEDRS is just a perversion of NPOV to "mainstream western medicine POV". It would be nice if WP could also report on alternatives neutrally, but MEDRS doesn't allow that. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating contention, but we can leave the arguments over what "neutrality" actually means for another time. We fought some years ago over whether it was appropriate to include nutters beliefs in articles about cosmology, I recall. Thankfully, the radical "NPOV" crowd, of which you were a member if I recall correctly, did not win. It is best that Wikipedia ape the WP:MAINSTREAM for want of any consistent way to explain things "neutrally" that divorces themselves from an academic perspective (mainstream, western, or otherwise). jps (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Just as science is impeded by its closed-minded ban on making stuff up, Wikipedia is impeded by its closed-minded rejection of sources that make stuff up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In my understanding, part of the historical background to what we have now was the Andrew Wakefield affair. That's a circumstance where indulging in WP:GEVAL has serious real-world consequences, given the reach of Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"Mainstream Western medicine" is the term used to describe medicine which is tested and constantly evaluated using the scientific method, by people who sell "medicine" that isn't. It's truly bizarre that people allow superstition to stand alongside science in this way. Where are all the "alternative engineers" building bridges that don't adhere to mainstream Western reductionist science? Guy (Help!) 22:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"Mainstream Western medicine" is also the term used to designate the practice of scientific medicine by those who do it. It's a completely neutral term. It is the mainstream, it is basically derived from Western science, and it is medicine. "Medicine" on the other hand is in practice a very general term for anything that people do that they think might help them. I'll just note that the term "Mainstream Western medicine" would also have been used 2 or 3 centuries ago for the practice of physicians at the time, who also thought that their practice was based upon science. Perhaps we should be rather saying "Current Mainstream Western medicine" DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The idea that the "mainstream western" is different from "mainstream eastern" is absurd. jps (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Texans for vaccine choice 2

JzG is defending content that I do not believe to be supported by the sources, and attributing my disagreement to lack of knowledge on my part. This debate will go nowhere without more editors weighing in. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm just curious, are you requesting that topic ban now? Guy (Help!) 20:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I am asking for more than the current 2 editors(me and you) to look at this, have a hard time seeing how that justifies a topic ban. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking back at the article history, I see the last substantial reversion by you[1] invokes WP:OR. Yet checking the source, it supports the claim that this group backed Ryan as the text said. This removal seems highly problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I thought that wording was awkward, so I just removed it, this was a mistake and I have decided that I will be more carful not to make such hasty edits in the future. Anyway, the current issue is the content that I tried to remove here[2] as I do not think it is supported by the sources, but JzG wants to keep it. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's pretty much just textbook SYNTH. You don't take a source that doesn't even mention the subject of the article, and use it as if the source itself is drawing a causal link when it isn't. If you want to imply a causal connection between the group's efforts and a rise in exemptions, then you need to find a source that does so. GMG^talk 21:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• We really need more editors here so this doesn't become a personal dispute. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• You asked for more editors, two more editors weighed in. You then asked for more editors. Please tell us exactly how many people have to respond before you stop asking for more. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No one has weighed in about the SYNTH issue on the talk page, I thought seeking outside opinion was the proper way to deal with a dispute that is starting to become personal. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Add me to the list. I agree with all the others who think Tornado chaser is wrong. --mfb (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

There are a multiple edits that I have proposed, If you think some or all of them are wrong, feel free to explain why on the talk page. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

In this edit,[3] TC says "[4] Here I remove claims of fake news promotion that are cited to an op-ed without proper attribution, further, this op ed says the anti-vax movement in Texas is 'a collection of fake news...' and while it says TFVC is part of the antivax movement, it doesn't directly accuse them of using fake news in their advocacy."

The edit he refers to is here:[5]

The source is [6]

The source says

"Through both the movie Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe , and the rallies, marches, and lobbying activities of the political action committee, Texans for Vaccine Choice, a story has been concocted that is extremely compelling. The anti-vaccine lobby has made effective use of Twitter and other social media outlets. Unfortunately, the Texas story, although compelling and convincing to those without a scientific background, also has no basis in reality. Instead it is a collection of fake news, half- truths, and conspiracy theories, which have been cleverly strung together to create a faux narrative."

So, is it true that the above passage doesn't directly accuse TFVC of using fake news in their advocacy? The key is in the word "story". The source says that Texans for Vaccine Choice (along with other antiaxers) concocted a story. It goes on to say that the story is a collection of fake news, half- truths, and conspiracy theories, which have been cleverly strung together to create a faux narrative.

My conclusion is that Tornado chaser is attempting to portray Texans for Vaccine Choice in a far more positive light than the sources do. If someone wants to file an ANI report or arbitration enforcement request calling for a topic ban, I will support it. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Guy macon: This really hinges on what is meant by "the texas story" I thought Hotez was saying that the antivax movement in general uses fake news, but I get your point about the use of the word "story" and you may be right, I think this part can stay, although it may need attribution, and anyway the issue I posted about here is the SYNTH about falling vaccination rates. I ask you to strike you encouragement to report me, I am not trying to make TFVC sound better, just trying to make sure that we adhere to sources properly, it is counterproductive to post encouragements to report other editors in good faith content discussions. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting, but it is not the issue that Tornado Chaser raised here. - Bilby (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Maybe I'm missing it. But I got the impression the issue was the the rate of Texas students opting out of at least one vaccine at least doubling in around five years bit in the lead. Admittedly, it is a bit difficult to tell when opening a thread to a talk page comment, which itself is in a thread that seems to meander among issues. GMG^talk 13:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is the issue that I posted about, I believe attributing this increase in opt out rates to TFVC is not supported by the sources. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, well then yes. You are correct. To be clear, I personally think that not vaccinating your children should be a legally recognized form of neglect, and I say that as a person who has actually taken people's children away for neglect. But that's the real world and this is Wikipedia, and on Wikipedia, if you ain't got sources that say what you wanna say, then you don't get to say it. GMG^talk 17:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC on moving MMR vaccine controversy article

• Talk:MMR vaccine controversy § Time to move

The word "controversy" in the title is problematic for a number of reasons, it seems plausible that a better title could be found. Please weigh in with suggestions. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

TCM on the main page

Saw on today's "Did you know..." "that pharmacologist Li Lianda won a national science award for his research on the traditional Chinese medical concept of blood stasis?"

Uh... WP:MEDRS, please? The Sciencenet.cn is merely reprinting from the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, which exists to promote TCM. Bensky and Gamble's Chinese Herbal Medicine is from Eastland Press, a publisher of works on Osteopathy.

Traditional Chinese Medicine isn't traditional (in its current form), some of its more prominent practices (including acupuncture and Cupping therapy) aren't really Chinese, and it is by and large not really medicine.

This isn't to say that sources in Chinese or by Chinese authors can't be used: but they have to be science-based, not propaganda that romanticizes stop-gap measures implemented by Mao for political purposes. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this. The China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences exists to research TCM using modern scientific methods, and is where Tu Youyou conducted her research on artemisinin which won the Nobel Prize. Tu Youyou, in fact, succeeded Li Lianda as chief scientist of the academy. In any case, the DYK only says Li won a prize for his research, which is completely factual, and does not make any medical claim. -Zanhe (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem: Chinese research on TCM is completely unreliable. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not what that article says at all. What it says is that China, Hong Kong, Japan, Russia and Taiwan produce more positive results (89% to 99%) in acupuncture studies when compared to England (75%), and proposes publication bias as one of the possible explanations. It makes no claim that all TCM research from all these countries are completely unreliable. -Zanhe (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

List of fake planets

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal.

Please comment.

jps (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Note that there is an ongoing an well-trafficked merger discussion about this article at Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal § Merger proposal. I view the simultaneous AfD to be a burdensome waste of time and have requested that it be withdrawn to avoid the appearance of forum shopping. Yes, the article has many issues, and we are already talking about how to resolve them. A merger could result in the total elimination of one article or the other once we carve out all the baloney. This is a more organized and nuanced approach than deletion. Jehochman ^Talk 17:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Cryonics &c.

• Cryonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Neuropreservation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Information-theoretic death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alcor Life Extension Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure this topic (in these articles) is being dealt with fully in accord with WP:FRINGE. I've had a go at cleaning up the first two, but note that "Information-theoretic death" - with its ludicrous definition - seems to be a concept coined by an Alcor board member and restricted to the cyronics bubble (the term has no mention throughout PUBMED-indexed material). The Alcor article itself seems rather credulous and in-universe (its "patients" are "in suspension" ... right).

More eyes could be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I will tend to ITD, tomorrow. Alcor is ............ ∯WBG^converse 18:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup - my concern is that while a sensible scientist[7] will seem to say that it is simply impossible for the frozen corpses that the cryonics "industry" has to be rehumanized, our articles nowhere say this plainly - and in fact give rather the opposite impression, with what looks like a shed-load of WP:OR. Alexbrn (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• The corpsicle shills are still at it? Not surprised, I guess. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Anthony J. Hilder

• Anthony J. Hilder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I hope someone here might want take a shot at rewriting this article about a conspiracy theorist. Here's the lede: --Ronz (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Anthony J. Hilder is an American activist, author, film maker, talk show host, broadcaster and former actor. In the late 1950s to the mid 1960s he was also a record producer, producing music in mainly the surf genre. He is also the step-son of actress Dorothy Granger. In Later years Hilder has been vocal about certain issues relating to the New World Order agenda and the banking establishment. He has produced a number of films relating to the subjects as well as appearing in productions by other film makers relating to similar subject.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_J._Hilder_(2nd_nomination).

I'm not clear why this article was allowed to be remade in the first place. jps (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Not strictly related to Fringe Theories, but the main author of this page seems to have created a lot of questionable content. Unsure where to go with this:

• Category:Animal media
• Category:Cat lover culture
• Category:Cat media
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Catnip Times
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat lover culture
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of cats
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Purrington Post

jps (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Well not here, as these are not fringe theories.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

When you figure out where, let me know. Until then, you'll have to deal with it. jps (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out where next, because "a lot of questionable content" seems an understatement. --Ronz (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

How about how you would deal with any other AFD based upon lack of notability, what do you normally do?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It does not seem like there is a place to discuss situations like these where it looks like there is a concerted effort to abuse Wikipedia that does not rise to the need for administrator intervention. jps (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

See his talk page for further developments. The problems aren't primarily related to FRINGE, and the editor was not notified of this discussion because I meant it only as a request for help with an incredibly poor article. I will notify now as a courtesy. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand the notability of this conspiracy theorist, As far as I can find, he is the same as innumerable other a conspiracy theorists that inhabited this world without having written, said, posted, or produced anything influential or of lasting value. He is not an Alex Jones. Paul H. (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

He may have some notability as a record producer.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Unclear. The only album he produced that we have an article about looks to me to be non-notable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surf's Up! At Banzai Pipeline. jps (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Preferentialism

After removing one unrelated ref as well as a citation to a self-described poetry fanzine claimed in the article to be a "philosophy journal", I redirected preferentialism to preference utilitarianism yesterday. My edits were reverted by 47.201.182.47 (talk) today. The article's topic is in no way notable. Dean Mamas is a cosmology crank who has been promoting a tired light cosmology for at least a decade now.

The edits of the IP and the two IPs from the same 47.201.x.x range directly preceding mine show a clear fringe agenda, so I'm not going to engage any further before having had uninvolved participation.

Editors wishing to judge Mamas's crank factor for themselves are invited to email me a request for a copy of his Physics Essays "paper" claiming that quasars and GRBs are caused by matter-antimatter annihilation. Paradoctor (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The Rønnow-Rasmussen references appear to be referring to preference utilitarianism anyway, not whatever Mamas is rambling about. Ah, I see that was the unrelated ref you mentioned - it might be worth merging those refs into preference utilitarianism and adding (also known as preferentialism) to the lede. --tronvillain (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding a dab hatnote was my first edit, it was trashed in the revert. But my main point is that the topic is resoundingly non-notable. If not for the redirect, I would have simply put it up at AfD. Paradoctor (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

AfD, then redirect perhaps? --tronvillain (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy per WP:DENY. jps (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If the speedy doesn't go through, I'll do that. Thanks.

Licorne, eh? There's a blast from the past. :D Paradoctor (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Mamas has a PhD in Physics, is a Phi Beta Kappa, and has a long publication record. Do Not Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.182.47 (talk) 2019-01-25T02:54:23 (UTC)

My first paper on arXiv dates from 2004, which is arguably more selective than Physics Essays. So what? My publications are not reliable sources for anything. Paradoctor (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Editor adding unsourced to Kemetism

Heru-Maaket Neb-ShakaRa (talk · contribs) is adding unsourced material to Kemetism and to Ausar Auset Society. I gave him/her a welcome message explaining that they'd been reverted for adding unsourced but they've continued. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

Talk:G. Edward Griffin - it seems that "someone besides me" needs to tell the IP what's what. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The answer to all your Electronic harassment needs!

• Scalar Field interferes with attack signals!
• Solfeggio Waves Soothe & Heal harmed cells!
• Nullifies Psychic Attacks an Dream Intrusion!
• Fights Negative Influences and Mindstalking!
• Confuses signals used in Mind Control & V2K!
• Can block Remote Viewing and Manipulation!

[ https://quwave.com/defender.html ]

I, of course, prefer the product described at [ http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ ] and believe the the TRUTH found at [ http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ]...   :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• DYK: Solfeggio comes from the musical pedagogy of Guido d'Arezzo, who came up with a mechanism for teaching music based on initially hand positions, with the name of each note in the scale based on the first syllable of the stanzas of a hymnus in Ioannem (hymn to St. John) known as ut queant laxis (which all experienced choristers knew by heart, as part of the Gregorian chant):

Ut queant laxis
resonare fibris
Mira gestorum
famuli tuorum,
Solve polluti
labii reatum,
Sancte Iohannes.

The first syllable morphed to "so" rather than "ut", hence solfeggio. Guido was able to demonstrate a choir singing a piece of music they had never seen before, at the Vatican. This was, to put it mildly, a revolution in music. When combined with neumes you had starting note and trajectory, and this became the genesis of Western musical notation. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

JzG, I did not know that, and did not expect to learn about it on a fringe theory noticeboard in a thread about electronic harassment tinfoil hats. Fascinating! Bradv🍁 18:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I learned it from a very interesting programme by Howard Goodall. Given my interest in early music, it stuck with me :-) Guy (Help!) 18:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

We even have an article on it: Solfège. Seems to be the origin of the "do re mi" scale that vocalists use. But I'd like to know what "Solfeggio Waves" and "Solfeggio Energy" are, in that advertisement above. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I knew Julie Andrews was a fringe topic! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Watch this video [8] and WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Arezzo was a hotbed of UFO activity (Aliens Reside Zzo = the sound of a raygun) and Guido composed a chant that could be muttered continuously to jam the mind control frequencies. His musical notation was originally used as a way to share the technique with others without raising suspicion. –dlthewave ☎ 20:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

From the archives: Solfeggio_frequencies. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. It has been nearly six years. Do we now have enough sources to create Solfeggio frequencies (pseudoscience)? The fact that it is utter bollocks shouldn't be an obstacle; we have articles on Torsion fields and Electrogravitics. Or maybe a section in the Solfège article with a redirect? See [9], [10], [11], and [12]. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

When one eliminates the skeptics sites (which really don't cut it as authorities on their own) I see pretty much the same situation as before: the usual "collect ALL the fringes" references all mention this, and nobody else cares. Let it stay deleted. Mangoe (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

From Shroud of Turin to Intelligent Design

Pernimius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), having been topic banned from the Shroud of Turin (and posting lies about what a topic ban includes on his talk page[13][14][15]) has decided to "fix" our "biased" coverage of intelligent design.[16][17] The topic has changed, but the behavior has not. Do we need to go back and ask that the topic ban be extended to all of pseudoscience? More eyes are needed on this situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Take it to ANI.>Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I am wondering if there is enough recent disruptive activity for an ANI case. I am inclined to wait a week or two to see if he keeps it up. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably. Textbook case of the same old "arguments" from people who have no interest in reality but fight constantly to push their view. --mfb (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI is fine, but WP:AE is likely more efficient. jps (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

He claims he's retired, "especially because of harassment and misrepresentation by Guy Macon". Doug Weller talk 17:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If he stays retired, this would be a Good Thing. We really don't need creationist editors who insist that https://evolutionnews.org/ is a reliable source.[18] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Shreds the Truth --evolutionnews.org

Happy Darwin Day! Our 2018 Censor of the Year Is Wikipedia --evolutionnews.org

The Intelligent Design Underground --evolutionnews.org

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Springer publishing fringe nonsense

See [19] - a book on the geology of the Atlantic that starts with exploration by the Celts, Chinese, you name it. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Was someone trying to cite it... or did you simply want us to enjoy a good chuckle? Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Just the chuckle or perhaps a whimper of despair. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, if I recall correctly, the fringe theories that the book posits were actually taken somewhat more seriously in the early 80's, when this book was being written. I recall being fascinated by one of my elementary school history textbooks that said that it was a possibility that North Africans had visited the Americas prior to Columbus, but being unable to find any pop-history works addressing the subject. I think the book is entertaining "fringe theories" in the sense of "theories supported by a minority of qualified experts" rather than the usual "batshit insane bullshit", once you take the publication date into account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding for clarity: If that book had been published after the mid 1990's or so, I would likely assign it to the "batshit insane bullshit" category. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(+1) to above. ∯WBG^converse 17:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

BS Ayurvedic drug

Comments/criticism about the quality of the article BGR-34 are welcome over the article-talk-page as are bold improvements:-) Also, do you see any conflict with MEDRS? ∯WBG^converse 17:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Disappearance of Frederick Valentich

Disappearance of Frederick Valentich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the spirit of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, I don't think long transcripts belong in the article. Several versions exist on the web, obviously edited to heighten the mystery, and the version being used is a possible WP:COPYVIO. Also this seems to contradict a cited source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

is it an edited transcript?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

A previous version pasted in was. The current version pasted in are from images of Australian DOT (?) documents hosted on hecklerspray.com. WP copyright policy exempts material originated by the US government, but that exemption does not extend to those produced by other governments, especially those covered under Crown Copyright such as in this case, Australia - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright aside then this is OR. Removing a full version and replacing with an edited version to give a specific impression (and NPOV).Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention the edit warring IP is at 3RR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRODIGY

Wikipedia:Prodigy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've moved this proposal from a userspace of a retired user to WP-space as I think it is worth having discussed in more detail. jps (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Head transplants

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

A couple of issues here. First, the article has been recently edited by an account names "Sergiocanavero" (as reported at WP:COIN#Sergio Canavero); secondly that we seem to lack neutral good sources for reporting on his "work", which is currently sourced to some dodgy journals. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, the journal is borderline-dodgy coming from a quasi-famed publisher who was once in Beall's list. There is a plethora of negative reception, across RSes, by the way:-) ∯WBG^converse 17:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There's that journal yes. Also Medical Hypotheses ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Viktoras Kulvinskas

New Age raw food crank who believes cancer can be cured by eating a raw food diet. Virtually no reliable stuff out there on this guy. Article was using fraudulent references (that do not mention Kulvinskas) that I removed. Can someone submit for deletion? What a terrible article. 2605:3E80:700:10:0:0:0:BE7 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the dearth of citations I have boldly redirected to Hippocrates Health Institute, of which Kulvinskas was a founder. Any material on him would be better dealt with there per WP:NOPAGE - I can't see a case for a standalone article on this person. Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about AAH paper

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

We're having a somewhat productive working session about adding some content on work done on the vernix caseosa into this article. However, on the discussion page I came across a peculiar issue where a paper in Scientific Reports written by AAH proponents seems to have a statement that fails verification! But we're not necessarily supposed to fact check papers like this, so it up against WP:V in a sense. In any case, I started a discussion about this issue here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Errors/mistakes_in_reliable_sources and thought I would cross-post here since it potentially involves fringe theories.

jps (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Scientific Reports is fast getting a reputation as the go-to journal for publishing bollocks (often this goes hand-in-hand with a claim that it is in Nature). WP:REDFLAG. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Unfortunately, it is also the largest journal running now and often authors are directed to it when their submission to Nature is denied (thus giving the publishing group more $$$). Beall warned us about this, but no one listened. I don't know how to handle Scientific Reports. It's clearly better than some other open-access journals, but it seems to often disappoint me when it comes to editorial control. Of course, Nature itself disappoints me on occasion. jps (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course, Nature itself disappoints me on occasion. Heresy! I'll see to it that your shilling payments from big pharma, NASA and the GMO lobby are cancelled for this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Nature is really, really not without its flaws. jps (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That's the last straw! Now I'm reporting you to Them. The all-seeing eye is upon you, traitor! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Big discussion about whether sources say that lack of evidence is one of the defining qualities of conspiracy theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Conspiracy theory#"Without credible evidence" --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No the discussion is why the page does not actually say anything about this beyond half a line in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Gua sha

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

Another TCM horror. Recent IP activity, so could use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk)

• This is still in need of watching; temporary page protection has not deterred the Gua Sha enthusiast(s). Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Some very colourful edit summaries, you tyrannical tyrant in tyranny Alexbrn! I've blocked 183.90.36.6 for 60 hours. There are some constructive edits by IPs, e.g. the addition of a relevant film, so I hesitate a little to semi. But it may be necessary. What's TCM? Bishonen | talk 10:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC).

Traditional Chinese Medicine --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bishonen: see what Wikipedia's done to me. When I arrived here I was as innocent as a spring lamb. Now I am tyrannically repressing a whole culture's secret knowledge of how bruising people can cure myriad illnesses! Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

United States support for ISIS?

There seems to be a valid (fringe) article topic here... but it needs to be reviewed. As a first step, I would suggest a change of title to: “Accusations of US support for ISIS” (or similar)... just so it is not in WPs voice. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States support for ISIS - TNT + POVFORK of other articles regarding US/ISIS. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Both the article and the AFD could benefit from more eyes. Beyond the fringe question, there are RS issues, Synth (NOR) issues, POV issues (in short, things are a mess). As I said before, some of this stuff might be valid for inclusion... the question is what should be included, and where? Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Only to those who never step outside the bubble of the US establishment narrative.110.74.199.28 (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This explains EVERYTHING

This pretty much explains everything we see on Wikipedia: [20] I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not something new, is it? I mean, it's been known for a long time that people struggle with that notion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I made a mistake on Wikipedia a few weeks ago. I didn't admit to it, but to my credit, I didn't revert the other editor's revert. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ahem. That happened to me once. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• I thought I was wrong, once. I was mistaken. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Cathleen Ann O'Brien

This page has been moved from Cathleen Ann O'Brien (conspiracy theorist) I think, but I can't tell as there is no history. The page has been moved, but as I am incompetent I cannot recover things. Could somebody competent take a look? Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

As long as there aren't other Cathleen Ann O'Briens (or O'Brians) out there, this move is okay. The parentheticals we use are almost always to differentiate a subject with a common name from other articles. When we do insist upon labeling something (or someone, muah hah hah) a CT in the title and there's no ambiguity to the name, we usually omit any parentheses, e.g. Pizzagate conspiracy theory and Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by an idiot named thunder britches (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The diff history may be unclear, but this is what was removed during the article move, and this was the mover's rationale. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Be that as it may, that doesn't make the move itself wrong, just the motivations for doing so. And the edit that Doug reverted was wrong, also. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Refocused discussion to article's Talk page where it belongs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Louie; The text you claimed was removed during the move was not actually removed. See [21], where the text is clearly visible at the end of the lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

True, I must have got Doug Weller's January revert mixed up with his February revert. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I've just spent five minutes trying to figure out what the dickhead upthread was on about and just getting more and more confused until I had an oh bollocks moment. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Since Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist) still exists but not the Talk page, it looks like the Talk page was moved and the article text copied and pasted into the new name. --Calton | Talk 05:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm still confused, but things have now resolved. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Flowers

This whole bio could use some work. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nebraska Rainwater Basins - duplicate article to promote fringe theories

A new article, Nebraska Rainwater Basins, which is a duplicate of Rainwater Basin has been created with emphasis on fringe theory by Davias and others of them being created by an imaginary Saginaw Bay impact. I thought of proposing a speedy delete review for it because of the duplication, but am unfamiliar with how to do it. Fortunately, there is a formal paper in progress about the so-called impact crater. Paul H. (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted. At least some of it was copyvio also. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Medical uses of silver and Efficacy

• Medical uses of silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP wants to change the lay summary:

Alternative medicine products such as colloidal silver are not safe or effective.

To:

There is a lack of adequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of colloidal silver ingredients.

There is clear consensus that the definition of alternative medicine is a lack of credible evidence (aka Minchin's Law) and the technical defintiin borders on WP:WEASEL in the context of the lede in this article. This is in the context of years of low-level POV-pushing by believers in colloidal silver as the Miracle Drug "They" Don't Want You To Know About. Silver Medical Use Recognition Fanatics, if you like. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Hester Dowden

Just stumbled over this article about a medium. Apparently she "found out" a lot of unexpected things when talking with dead people, and most of them were in Wikipedia's voice. I NPOVed a few, but probably all that fiction should not be in the article. More eyes would probably not hurt. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Pennick

What's the criteria for adding someone's published works to their bio? Because someone's added a lot. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I will try to trim (and develop it) tomorrow. Pinging DGG; as to whether we have any exact parameter to pinpoint the published works, that shall be mentioned. ∯WBG^converse 12:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The normal way for material like this: there is a better way to handle the scientific articles -- I'll deal with them. (Some of them describe new species, and that information has to be added to the article) We should remove the other article; I did that. For the books, ifthere are any not self-published we should keep them; if there are any self published, only selectively, mentioning they are self published. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl Atkisson

Attempts to add a YouTube upload of a Sharyl Atkisson segment pushing a debunked antivax claim here: Talk:Vaccines and autism § Attkisson. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Siddha medicine and Unani medicine

Requesting for a list of high-quality sources about both the articles. Both seem to be written from a TRUEBELIEVER perspective and there's not an iota of any criticism or the declaration that it's a pseudoscience (barring the generic infobox, which plays the spoilsport).

Also see Tattva (Siddha medicine) (CFork-??)

Adding Dhivehi beys :-)

Also, Pulse diagnosis and Incompatible foods in Ayurveda ∯WBG^converse 12:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved this Lancet piece but is quite quite old. ∯WBG^converse 18:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Robert Temple and the Sirius Mystery

Sorry about this, but eyes needed at Robert K. G. Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), The Sirius Mystery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Nommo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A new editor has been making major changes, deleting sourced text and adding a lot of details unsourced text. These have all been clearly aimed at a fringe pov. I've reverted all but these. Could someone else please have a look? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Beaziepops is again making edits that state disputed views as fact, add unsourced material, etc. I've given them a stage 1 NPOV warning but if someone else could explain things to this new editor it would be great. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Article is full of selfpub hyperbole because there aren't enough independent sources to justify or create an objective bio. Strongly suggest enough editors comment if they agree, and a subsequent redirect to The Sirius Mystery. See Talk:Robert_K._G._Temple#Merger_proposal. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

And now User:Beaziepops has posted a long screed to User talk:Doug Weller#Robert Temple/The Sirius Mystery/Nommo (3 entries) saying " I call for Doug Weller to recuse himself from having anything to do with Beaziepops's attempts at correcting faulty Wikipedia entries and hand over to some less biased and less offensive editor. Failure to do so would leave Wikipedia open to accusations of dishonesty." And asking for an apology. I wonder if he thinks the reverts by User:FreeKnowledgeCreator were by me. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Our Lady of America

I think this can be considered fringe - needs a serous rewrite to meet NPOV. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Seriously? And it's been around since 2008. I've redirected to Mary, mother of Jesus. Not that I expect it to stick. Bishonen | talk 11:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC).

I don't think a redirect is the right answer. If it's not a notable apparition claim, it should just be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

What makes this any fringier than any other apparition? - Nunh-huh 14:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Conservatism

A reference to the book Predisposed: Liberals,Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences by John Hibbing, Kevin Smith, and John Alford was deleted from the article conservatism on the unsupported assertion that it was "self-promotion". I restored it and, as I learned more about the book, added references to it to several articles to which is is relevant. My references to the book were deleted by User:Beyond My Ken, with the claim that the subject matter of the book is fringe. I would like to contest that deletion.

All three authors of the book are university professors. John Hibbing has written five scholarly books, is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship; Kevin Smith has written more than ten books and authored more than fifty articles published in refereed journals; John Alford has published more than forty articles in refereed journals, and is a winner of the CQ Press Award honoring the outstanding paper in legislative politics, presented at the 1987 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.

The book was widely and favorably reviewed, for example, "The reviews are clearly presented, making the nature of studies and results accessible to nonexperts. The book includes the "Left/Right 20 Questions Game" for readers to test their own predispositions." Summing Up: Recommended. Undergraduate collections. - J. M Stonecash, emeritus, Syracuse University, in CHOICE"; "Destined to cause a stir, this book is by far the best source for what has emerged as an important new wave in the study of mass politics. In exploring how differences in people's biology, physiology, and cognitive makeup map onto politics, it provides a bracing sense of just how deeply our political differences run. Accessibly written and rigorously argued, it will provide a fascinating read for anyone interested in politics. ―Marc J. Hetherington, Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt University"; and "A wonderful example of theoretically informed experiments demonstrating the genetic, physiologic, and cognitive underpinnings of political predispositions. Biopolitics has come of age. ―Milton Lodge, Distinguished University Professor of Political Science, SUNY at Stony Brook"

It is hard to understand how anyone could consider this "fringe". I request that the citations be restored. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Given how this shows up in a recent article in The Atlantic, I would suppose that it's not fringe yet. Personally I think it isn't going to pan out over the long haul, but I say this as an amateur having watched publication of similar findings over the years. At any rate this is pretty preliminary stuff, and there is a lot of framing about it. Given how I think about encyclopedias I would be chary of including it, but I'm not going to be the one arguing this nmuch further. Also, the tone of the included material is simply not going to fly. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The book was published more than five years ago (and is still being discussed -- I did not know about the recent article in The Atlantic). And it was well-reviewed at the time. And I am not aware of any major disagreement with its conclusions in those five years. This makes it hard to understand your comment that "it's not fringe yet." You may think something will be dismissed at a later date, but that is no reason to dismiss it now. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this[22] the content dispute in question? Then yes, the text sourced to the book should be removed, because the text just provides a mundane synopsis of the book. The book should simply be listed in "Further reading" if that's the extent of text sourced to it. If there are any inclusion-worthy findings in the book or overviews of research findings, then those can be added to the body. The book is a RS, and the authors of it are obviously recognized experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently you agree that the book is not "fringe". You write "The book is a RS, and the authors of it are obviously recognized experts." Therefore the paragraph should not have been dismissed for the reason given. It also should not have been dismissed for the original reason it was deleted, "self-promotion". Now, a third reason is being offered for removing the section: "the text just provides a mundane synopsis of the book." I find this reason hard to understand. If you agree the book is a RS, and agree that it is valuable enough to be included in "Further reading", why is the information it contains not important enough to include? All the information in Wikipedia is taken (in a mundane and synoptic way) from reliable sources. Why should this information in particular be excluded? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The text is not about the subject matter (Conservatism), it's about the book. It's like me adding a study to the Conservatism article, which just says "A 2015 study in journal X was about conservatism"... so what? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If the content does not add anything novel to the subject of the article, it does not belong. Simply saying that the book explains why people do things is not enough; if you want to add content from that source, you should write up text that summarizes what their findings are, not something that reads like the description from the book's Amazon page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would like to bring up some other aspects of this. The OP did not add paragraphs about the book to a single article, they added similar paragraphs to seven articles (see [23]), which is a fairly spammy action. And, incidentally, I never used the phrase "self-promotion" in deleting these edits -- I have no idea if the OP is connected to the book in any way, but, most certainly, their defense of the book above looks very much like what a publisher's PR person might write. Combine this with the fact that the information added was simply a general description of the book, and not content specific to those 7 articles. In looking at their contributions, I doubt that the OP is pushing the book out of anything more than enthusiasm for it.
  In addition, while I did refer to the theory as "fringe" (which I still believe it is, as it's been more than five years since the book was published, and there is no sign that the hypothesis has "caught on" in the relevant scientific communities), I suggested two places where the OP could approach the community to contest that, WP:RSN and here. It's interesting to me that they chose to bring it here, instead of the more general noticeboard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The recent article in The Atlantic suggests that the information in the book has "caught on". The (brief) material I posted was not a "general description of the book", nor was it a "mundane synopsis" of the book. It was a statement of the main results of the research reported in the book. I chose to bring the discussion here because you, Beyond My Ken, advised me to bring it here. You offered me two options, this one seemed most appropriate since you said the subject was "fringe". You find it "interesting" that "they" (me) chose to take your advice.  ??? Rick Norwood (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• The Anatomy of Tea Partiers, or Red-Blue Déjà vu by John R. Hibbing.
• Politics and Eating Worms by John R. Hibbing
• Politics Makes Me Sweat by Kevin B. Smith
• Politics Has an Odor by John R. Alford
• Is Conservative the New Gay? Politics and Thanksgiving by John R. Alford

-- So, for anyone who reads the above, Fringe? Or Not Fringe? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I have no connection with the book. Beyond My Ken did not delete my posts giving the reason "self-promotion" but the person who deleted a previous post about the content of the book (the post that attracted my attention in the first place) gave "self-promotion" as their reason. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Here are some sources to look at:[24][25][26] This is so far out of my area of expertise that I don't quite know what to make of these sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy Macon, for the links to scholarly articles on the subject of genetics, brain structure, and political affiliation. They show that the subjects under discussion are certainly not considered fringe by experts in the field. Beyond My Ken, can we agree this is not a "fringe" interest and if so, where should we move the discussion, if you think more discussion is still necessary?

Some of this may be covered already in the Conservatism#Psychology section of the article. Re the OP's source: don't know how it's thought of within the spectrum of mainstream psychological research. One would think this type of thing would be published in a journal rather than a book, but Routledge is a pretty respected publisher. Re the OP's blurbs for the book inserted in various articles: they definitely read as promotional/sensational. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Since political views, and especially political views divided into the two dominant American parties and then somewhat misleading called 'liberalism' and 'conservatism', aren't fundamental personality traits, it should not be surprising that there are correlations with other traits, including some (e.g., disgust) that are biologically influenced. Guy, I wouldn't want to pass final judgment on any of those sources, but I didn't see anything that I'd obviously want to cite myself for any broad statements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason the information in the book is important in all discussions of the liberal/conservative or left/right divide is that it offers evidence that the divide is not based on reason, but on genetics. So far, I count five different reasons, from five different people, why the information in the book should not be in Wikipedia. 1) it is self-promotion 2) it is fringe 3) I added the information to too many articles 4) the idea that political affiliation is genetic adds nothing to the articles on political affiliation 5) the authors also write for a popular magazine, Psychology Today. On the other hand, 1) there is no evidence of self-promotion 2) most people posting above agree it is not fringe, as do most of the mainstream reviewers, and no evidence that it is fringe has been put forward 3) if there is a new discovery in mathematics (my area) then I will post it to all relevant articles, not just one article. If, as most reviewers agree, the information in the book is both important and correct, it should be added to all relevant articles 4) a genetic basis for political affiliation is certainly relevant to the articles on political affiliation 5) writing for a popular magazine does not disqualify a researcher. I am really trying to figure out where all of these reasons are coming from, but they seem to me to be all over the place. My only interest is to add to Wikipedia what most reviewers of the book agree is important information, for the same reason that if someone proved the twin primes conjecture, I would want to add that to all of the relevant Wikipedia articles. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, the claim "most people posting above agree it is not fringe" is not accurate. So far I see a bunch of people discussing that question, which is not that same thing as agreeing with your position on the question. I for one am still listening to the arguments on both sides. We haven't even been discussing this for a full day, so your claim that we have arrived at a consensus is premature. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

To show that this is not a fringe theory, and is accepted by the consensus of relevant scientists and scholars, we're going to have to see numerous examples of articles, papers and excerpts from books which specifically discuss and agree with the theory. Articles by the authors of the book are not sufficient, nor are articles by non-specialists in general interest magazines, except to the extent that they detail who accepts the theory. The mere existence of the book, and the "good reviews" it received are irrelevant, in scientific matters we report what the consensus of the experts believe, not what book reviewers think.

There is also the question of whether the data offered by the authors of the book is showing correlation or causation. Just to pull stuff out of my hat, it could well be that, for instance, the data shows conservatives live longer than liberals (I'm making this up), but that doesn't necessarily mean there is a cause and effect relationship between lifespan and political ideology. It could be that conservatives are richer than liberals, and have more access to better health care. If the book is showing mere correlations, then it's not showing anything of real interest to us -- it's mere happenstance.

So, Rick Norwood, if you want to see the ideas in this book included in various articles, you are going to have to provide some hard evidence that the thesis of the book is generally accepted. I don't believe you're going to be able to do that because, frankly, I and others would have read about it before now. As it stands, this is simply a single book touting a hypothesis, which means it's still a fringe theory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Most people above agree it is not fringe. Here is what the five people who posted above (not counting myself) say. "Given how this shows up in a recent article in The Atlantic, I would suppose that it's not fringe yet." Mango. A reluctant agreement, but nevertheless an agreement that it is not fringe. "The book is a RS, and the authors of it are obviously recognized experts." Snooganssnoogans. A clear agreement that it is not fringe, though he still wants the posts deleted for entirely different reasons. "Here are some sources to look at:[27][28][29] This is so far out of my area of expertise that I don't quite know what to make of these sources." Guy Macon (He does not explicitly say it is not fringe, but provides three reliable sources for similar research. He says, in effect, that the jury is still out.) MPants does not comment on the question of whether it is fringe or not. Therefore, the only person above who maintains the topic is "fringe" is Beyond My Ken, and his reasoning is that if it were not fringe, "he and others would have read about it before now". The more I learn, the more I discover that I do not know. To claim to know about everything that is not "fringe", or for a small group of people to know about everything that is not fringe, is not a good reason to label something fringe.

It seems to me that to understand party politics, and the inability of rational people to agree on even the most basic facts, you need to understand why people hold the political beliefs that they do. The more I read on the subject, the more evidence I find that it has to do with the structure of people's brains, which in turn is governed by genetics. These studies are certainly important. I will do further research, and see what I find. As to the proper source for science, here are the Wikipedia guidelines: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper." In other words, a book from a major publisher, written by respected scientists, is a more appropriate source than papers from the fifteen pages of citations at the end of the book. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Please stop claiming that the consensus agrees with you. You have demonstrated that you can not or will not properly evaluate consensus in a case where you have strong opinions. Case in point: you claim that the statement "The book is a RS, and the authors of it are obviously recognized experts" equals "A clear agreement that it is not fringe", but WP:RS and WP:FRINGE are different policies with different criteria. WP:FRINGE makes this clear: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." and Fringe science says "Relatively recent fringe sciences include: [...] A nuclear fusion reaction called cold fusion which occurs near room temperature and pressure was reported by chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons". Are Fleischmann and Pons recognized experts? Yes. Are their publications reliable sources concerning their theories? Yes. Are their theories fringe? Yes. Scientific experts can hold fringe views and they can publish them in reliable sources. The key is whether other scientists support them. Please leave the evaluating and reporting of consensus on this to other editors. You really suck at this.

I find your statement "Guy Macon ...does not explicitly say it is not fringe, but provides three reliable sources for similar research" to be especially annoying and inappropriate. I made it crystal clear that I don't know enough to evaluate those sources, that I have no idea whether they are about the same subject, and that I am looking forward to comments about those sources from other editors. Nowhere did I claim that the sources were about similar research. They kind of look like they might be to me, but I am an expert in electronics engineering and embedded systems programming, not psychology.

BTW, I am still undecided, but if I had to make a decision right now I would find Beyond My Ken's "To show that this is not a fringe theory, and is accepted by the consensus of relevant scientists and scholars, we're going to have to see numerous examples of articles, papers and excerpts from books which specifically discuss and agree with the theory" argument far stronger than your "Most people above agree it is not fringe" argument. That being said, we are still discussing this. Who knows? You might come up with a compelling counterargument to Beyond My Ken's argument if you can find time in your busy schedule of repeatedly claiming that the consensus has already been arrived at in your favor. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I, for one, am not convinced that this is not fringe, per BMK and Guy Macon's comments. The problem as I see it is not the central thesis (that genetic difference partially, or at least correlate to explain political views), which I see as fairly uncontroversial, given the depth of research into the heritability of psychological trends and their association with political beliefs. But the fact is that I have absolutely no idea what this book says about the issue because the content added thus far is nothing more than a blurb for the book, and I don't own a copy of this book.

Guy, I am looking at the sources you provided now and I will comment on them shortly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

My reading of this is that it falls under the heading of "ideas which are being investigated": labelling them fringe is premature but as far as they are mentioned, the preliminary nature of the investigation needs to be made clear. @Rick Norwood:, I think you need to back off on your tone quite a ways; the level of certainty in your version overstated at best. Mangoe (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that seems an accurate enough take. There seems to be general agreement among researchers that there is an ultimately genetic component to some trends in political ideologies, but exactly how that functions, how strong the link is, what role environmental factors play on the expression of those genetic factors, how much of the tendencies is genetic vs. environmental, etc, etc is all yet to be determined.

@Guy Macon: The links you provided all generally address the same issue. None of them make any definitive statements, and indeed, one cannot even use them as a whole to draw any definitive conclusions. Without reading the work the OP wishes to use, I cannot say exactly what the relationship between the links you provided and that source is, though I suspect it's just more of the same. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am responsible for having called the theory "fringe" in the first place, and if I had it to do over again, I'd use a different description; I would say that Mangoe is correct in labeling it as "under investigation". However, the larger point to be made is still completely valid: this is not a theory which is widely accepted, and there is no consensus among the community of relevant scientists that it is valid. That means there is a WP:DUE issue, and we should not be widely circulating the theory in multiple articles as if it was proven or widely accepted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice given above, and will investigate further to see to what extent a genetic component in left/right orientation is generally accepted. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

An RfC has been started at Talk:Conspiracy theory over the opening paragraph. The proposer, whose past history includes advocacy of 9/11 conspiracies, wishes to remove the long-standing consensus wording to the effect that conspiracy theories are definitionally false. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Flying monkey alert

According to Buzzfeed [30], YouTube are demonetising all anti-vaccine channels and videos, and introducing an information panel. Anti-MMR videos already get a panel with a link to the Wikipedia article, so it's likely we'll see the same for, e.g., HPV vaccine. The Buzzfeed article specifically references our article on vaccine hesitancy (formerly vaccine controversies, but moved recently, see above) and our reflection of the WHO's identification of vaccine hesitancy as a top ten global health threat. This is likely to trigger a furious backlash, obviously. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Props to YouTube. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine

Allopathic medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) really needs some attention. In particular, take a look at User talk:Hob Gadling#Your recent reversion of sourced changes at Allopathic medicine and tell me whether I am seeing WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, or whether something else is going on that I am missing. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Music therapy

What the heck is this? ∯WBG^converse 12:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Was discussed here.[31] Seems to have grown a lot since then. And we have all the ancillary articles. We don't have the resources to manage the fringe! Alexbrn (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I will try to take a hack.... ∯WBG^converse 13:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 116#Music therapy, it seems to be a regular problem. Many thanks for looking into it, —PaleoNeonate – 08:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Vaccine controversies

Vaccine controversies was recently moved to Vaccine hesitancy, while I think vaccine hesitancy is a good article to have, I don't think it replaces an article about controversies related to vaccines, and the current vaccine hesitancy article contains some material that I think would be better suited to "vaccine controversies", I have created Draft:Vaccine controversies, based on an old revision of vaccine controversies that I made some changes to. I hope to eventually expand the hesitancy article and create the controversies article so we have 2 distinct articles, any assistance or advice is welcome. Tornado chaser (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should "advertise" this at WikiProject Medicine as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I have been concerned that renaming the controversies article to ‘hesitancy’, while technically a better choice of name, is going to cause lay people to visit other websites which promote vaccine pseudoscience causing real world harm. I say this because curious concerned lay people are going to search for ‘vaccine controversy’ and virtually none will use keywords such as ‘vaccine hesitancy’. WP:COMMONNAME might apply here. For this reason alone, I think we should indeed have an article called vaccine controversy, which can then wiki link in the LEAD to vaccine hesitancy article. Thoughts welcome.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried searching for vaccine controversy and seeing what happens? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have now. It shows up on google.co.uk as the twelfth result. Not sure what result number the previous vaccine controversy article showed up as when ‘vaccine controversy’ was searched for. Vaccine hesitancy does not show up high either (16th result) when ‘vaccine hesitancy’ is searched for, but it is a newish article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It should be about the same. In general, the Google algorithms rank a Wikipedia page titled vaccine controversy same as a Wikipedia redirect from vaccine controversy to vaccine hesitancy when someone searches for vaccine controversy. And of course anyone who does a Wikipedia search for either term ends up on the same page. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There has been a long-standing problem with this article - it's mostly about vaccine hesitancy (the term used by the WHO and the dominant term in the literature these days), but every now and then someone comes along and tries ot insert content about some vaccine incident (e.g. contamination in developing countries due to lack of refrigeration). This causes confusion. The theme of the article is, and always has been, vaccine denialism / hesitancy / conspiracy bullshit. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. My point was that perhaps there is wisdom to have both articles in existence just so long as they follow a mainstream viewpoint per WEIGHT and all that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand, but that is difficult to do. I am trying to sort out the somewhat disjointed structure of vaccination articles, which have a lot of duplication, redundancy, redundancy and duplication. When many of these articles started there was at least some scientific debate, but it was settled at least five years ago and we can now move on to reflect that. More recent research has shown the true extent to which the purported controversies were manufactured by people with a pre-existing anti-vaccination ideology, who have been exploited and joined by some truly unscrupulous individuals seeking fame and fortune. Wider media sources have become wiser, so whereas ten years ago a "vaccines cause autism" article might have been found almost anywhere, nowadays it's mainly the Sharyl Attkissons who fall for it, and the mainstream media is generally pretty good. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, I can see more clearly why having a vaccine controversies article is problematic.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I know you prefer to be deferential to the anti-vaccinationists' preferred terminology. That is a gross failure of WP:NPOV. Note that Peter Hotez traced the "controversy" in the literature, it originates entirely with the fraudulent 1998 Wakefield paper. It is a manufactroversy, not a controversy. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What about the political and other controversies related to the smallpox vaccine? and the section on war? and the legal and ethical issues related to vaccine policy? these things started well before 1998. I do support a vaccine hesitancy article, but there are/have been controversies that are kind of out of place in the vaccine hesitancy article. Also, almost every time you disagree with me you make some sort of accusation about my motives or competence, please stop. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

We have vaccination policy for that. If discussion of mandatory vaccination gets overblown there we could mandatory vaccination, but the two are hard to separate and per-country or per-region articles may work better to manage that article's ever expanding size. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel like vaccine policy is getting a bit long, maybe Vaccine policy by country could be split off to deal with the lists? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd support that idea, of separating it by country. ; I'd also support separating it by disease. There will still, of course, need to be a general article. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I really don't think we should be calling an articles "Vaccine controversies", as it's sloppy and gives the impression that there is "controversy" wrt the science (there isn't), or that "controversy" means "bad things" (it doesn't). There is disagreement about vaccine policy and ethics, sure, but let's not smudge the topic in such as way as to feed the antivax narrative. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The thing I don't like is that there are legitimate controversies involving vaccines that are missed due to the bullshit about idiots who don't believe in science being over-covered by Wikipedia. For example, this story seems to be unmentioned in our article. jps (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That is one of the few incidents that doesn't fit the current structure of vaccine hesitancy / vaccine adverse event and related articles. Maybe it belongs in an article on vaccine policy in Pakistan. Or polio eradication program. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Essiac

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

A herbal tea and famous fake cancer cure - there's a new editor at work who has a different take. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

David Strickel

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

Bio of a non notable prosperity religion guru. Was rejected at AfC but WP:SPA published it anyway. I’d send it to speedy deletion if I knew what criteria code applied. -LuckyLouie (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated for CSD under A7: Unremarkable person. If that doesn't go through, we can go to an AfD, where I have few doubts it will get deleted. To my eyes, there's no question: it definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Has been deleted.  Done --mfb (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines

See Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines § Requested move 19 February 2019.

The proposal is to move the article back to "thiomersal controversy", in line with the anti-vaccination narrative. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That is not a neutral description of the move request. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Given that the original move was done WP:BOLDly without discussion, it would have been entirely proper to simply revert it without discussion.

If the original move was contested, that's the move that requires consensus. ApLundell (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

ApLundell is correct, I chose not to move it because I thought JzG might revert me, and the discussion could just as well be first before any more moving. However, this does mean that a "no consensus" close on this must result in the article being reverted back to "thiomersal controversy". Tornado chaser (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It was discussed alongside other moves at Talk:MMR vaccine and autism, where the moves had broad support. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You moved it and a few editors indicated support for your move, but there was no real consensus. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Several people familiar with the subject expressed strong support. And of course it should be remembered that some editors have a long history of sympathy to anti-vaccine tropes. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You have a long history of making false accusations of support for antivaxers, which can be shown with diffs if needed. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

For values of false that are actually true. This entire area would be better off without your input. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits I (or anyone else) make should be assessed on their merits, not on who made the edits, encouraging editors to do otherwise is WP:DE. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Kenny Biddle article

Hello, I published an article about ex-ghost hunter and now scientific skeptic Kenny Biddle about a year ago and it was deleted for lack of notability. It has been a year since then, and Biddle was covered in a NYT article about a sting operation done where a "psychic medium" was caught doing hot reading. What brings me here is that in the debate (see here) about resurrecting the Biddle article (see here), an editor has dismissed the NYT article this NYT article as fringe. When I pointed out that it is the exact opposite of fringe, he said: "Anti-FRINGE is an interesting twist on FRINGE. It still needs FRINGE type care." So, can someone here explain what "FRINGE type care" means and why it would apply to the NYT article or Biddle at all? Feel free to chime in on the debate page as well. RobP (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

To the extent that the article you propose deals with fringe theories, it certainly helps to consider the WP:FRINGE guideline. Arguing over the minutiae of this is probably not worth your time. The New York Times profile certainly mentions Biddle, but the bigger question is does it mention Biddle prominently for us use it as a key source of notability for a WP:BLP? To the extent that Biddle is famous for various ghost hunting activities, we have to keep in mind some of the commentary in WP:FRINGEBLP. I can see an argument that the New York Times article may be running close to WP:SENSATION, but I am not convinced. I think the article is a pretty solid source, but it may not necessarily be enough to establish the notability of Biddle. By all means use it in other articles (for example, our article on hot reading). I hope this helps! jps (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

After looking at the draft article, I'm pretty convinced. This guy is at least as notable as the many psychics we have articles for here on the wiki...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Conceivably. But then, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's possible the psychics should have their biographies removed. jps (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure whether here or WP:RSN is the best place for this. Can I ask people to take a look at Resignation_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI#Controversies_over_the_Act_of_Resignation? It seems conspiracy theory tinged to me alleging, among other things, that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation may have been because he was subjected to intimidation, harassment or even death threats(!) The three "sources" used to support the section are

• a wordpress blog

• an opinion piece on someone's personal website

• a link to a wordpress blog managed by a bishop, though I don't see the exact blog on there. However, other blogs on there have shouty all-caps titles like:

"WHEN THE DEMOCRATS NOMINATED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN 2008 I CALLED HIM IN A POST ON ABYSSUM THAT YEAR “THE PIED PIPER OF CHICAGO”"

"THE United States HAS BEEN IN A STATE OF CIVIL WAR SINCE THE ELECTION OF Donald Trump TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE United States. SO FAR THE LEFT HAS NOT RESORTED TO VIOLENCE TO HAVE ITS WAY, BUT IF TRUMP IS ABLE TO REPLACE JUSTICE GINSBURG WITH A CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE BE PREPARED FOR VIOLENCE. THE RUSH TO LEGALIZE INFANTICIDE NOW"

"NATACHA JAITT, ACCUSER OF Gustavo Vera WHO IS A CLOSE FRIEND OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL, FOUND DEAD IN ARGENTINA Whistleblower Found Dead: Accused Gustavo Vera, Close Friend of Pope Francis, of Human Trafficking"

Which really doesn't inspire confidence in its reliability.

I removed the section and pointed the ip who is adding the material to WP:BRD and WP:SPS, but they just respond with accusations of vandalism and personal attacks, restoring the material. Valenciano (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for a week for disruption even after being given an explanation by you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to solve the issue, as the questionable material is still in the article and the ip has evaded their block to launch another personal attack. Valenciano (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nazi gun control argument

Reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize the so-called Nazi gun control argument - which holds that gun regulations in the Third Reich helped to facilitate the rise of the Nazis and the Holocaust - as a "false" "debunked" fringe theory.

References

If reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize something as a "false" "debunked" fringe theory, are we allowed to state that in Wiki voice? An editor, VwM.Mwv, on the Nazi gun control argument article claims that this is not neutral, in part because "There's no such thing as a "fact-checker"".[32] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• this is false, BS, debunked and illogical. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes we are.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I am usually one of the first to call a fringe theory what it is, but I honestly have reservations about this one. The whole argument hangs on a couple of things. First, did the Nazis disarm Jews? Yes. See Disarmament of the German Jews. Would things have turned out differently if the Jews were better armed? Almost certainly not, but I am reluctant to call something that is based upon "X would have been different if Y had been different" as fringe. Fringe does not equal "speculation that is probably wrong". We do know that some Jews fought. The best-known example of this would be the Bielski partisans, but as far as I can tell the Bielski partisans had few problems getting guns, using the tried and true method of gathering the guns and ammunition from dead soldiers. Would more Jews have fought if they hadn't been disarmed? Probably not (but speculation is generally not fringe). Our section on The Holocaust#Jewish resistance says "there was practically no resistance" and our article on Jewish resistance in German-occupied Europe says "few Jews were able to effectively resist the Final Solution militarily". It's not as if the railroad terminals had big signs saying "line up here for the death camps" and the death camps had big signs that said "the showers are actually gas chambers". The Nazis made a reasonable effort to keep what they were doing secret from the Jews.

I am also concerned with the fact that most of the discussion on this has been from pro-gun and anti-gun activists. What do the historians say"? Well, we have one source that says "the historians have paid scant attention to the history of firearms regulation in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich". That doesn't sound like it fits very well with our "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" definition.

I say that we present the conclusions of the historians who have commented on this in their own voices, but without calling the idea fringe. Probably wrong, yes. Fringe, no. I just don't see it as meeting our criteria. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

so how many historians of the Holocaust (or even Nazi Germany) support this view?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

we could also ask: So how many historians of the Holocaust (or even Nazi Germany) oppose this view? We end up with the same answer either way we pose the question... “very few”. The problem isn’t that the idea is dismissed, the problem is that the idea hasn’t even been explored. Historians simply have not discussed it. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Like cryptozooology or ghosts, serious scholars have rejected it by not giving it the time of day. Thus this is as much a fringe theory as any other fringy claim that reputable scholarship has been dismissive of with an airy wave of its hand. But a few have j=rejected it, how many have accepted it?Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of assuming that "saying nothing at all" is equal to "dismissive of with an airy wave of its hand".

I am even less of a fan of saying "the raving lunatic pro-gun nuts say that X is true while the historians say nothing, therefore X being true is fringe. On the other hand, the raving lunatic anti-gun nuts say that X is false while the historians say nothing, therefore X being false is mainstream". Are we going to follow our own "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" (WP:FRINGE) standard or are we just going to make shit up? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. I know it's repugnant to agree with a POV-pushing editor, as is the case here. But I think we should just place prominent subjective criticisms in the lead instead. Describe the theory, describe how it's been used, and then describe all the people who think it's full of shit.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

How about we just go in, delete everything that isn't an academic source on the grounds they don't know their asses from a hole in the ground and then assess if there's enough left of this... topic to make a stub? Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait...what? We are supposed to not use sources that don't know their asses from a hole in the ground? Oh, man. I have been doing it the other way round for years... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Soft Disagree-I think we should at least keep the news-based sources. They are arguably as useful in this as the scholarly ones. Especially those with wide readership like the Village Voice and the LA Times...But I would definitely Hard Agree that the way these sources are used is problematic. The article reeks of WP:CHERRY.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I'm at the point of thinking that the use of news articles in Wikipedia at all, anywhere, is a severe detriment to the stated goals of the project. Simonm223 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I used to agree with you, but then I found articles like Waldorf education and Anthroposophy, where the scholarly sources are heavily bogged down by POV-pushing overly-erudite in-universe nutjobs who believe in magic and want everyone else to believe in it too. And these people have PhDs and MAs from universities that adore this type of over-intellectualism, and publish their own little pro-magical-thinking journals and pro-magical-thinking books, which have a readership in people who believe in gnomes and spirits as well. It is only news sources that call the bullshit out for what it is in places like this. There is, unfortunately, no one-size-fits-all solution. :( --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"X would have been different if Y had been different" That is typically the realm of counterfactual history.: "a form of historiography that attempts to answer "what if" questions known as counterfactuals. Black and MacRaild provide this definition: "It is, at the very root, the idea of conjecturing on what did not happen, or what might have happened, in order to understand what did happen." The method seeks to explore history and historical incidents by means of extrapolating a timeline in which certain key historical events did not happen or had an outcome which was different from that which did in fact occur. It has produced a literary genre which is variously called alternative history, speculative history, or hypothetical history. ... One goal is to estimate the relative importance of a specific event, incident or person." Dimadick (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

On another side note, there is a legitimate argument that can be made here: While Jews possessing more guns wouldn't have stopped the Holocaust, it can be argued that it's better to go down fighting rather than helplessly led to the slaughter like sheep. Case-in-point: the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Jews used smuggled guns into the Ghetto to fight against the Nazis. According to our article, 13,000 Jews died in the uprising. But they killed 10 Nazis. But I haven't seen anyone advance this argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I see this line trotted out by American communists sometimes, "if there's gun control how can we have the revolution?" To which I'd ask why any rebel group - be that the very real Jewish resistance to fascism or the fantasy resistance to capitalism that commie twitterati like to imagine - would want to use legal firearms? Simonm223 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

In Greece, the far-left terrorist organizations, such as Revolutionary Organization 17 November (1975-2002) and Revolutionary Struggle (2003-), mostly smuggle in weapons and explosives from other countries. Less oftenly, they simply steal weapons from the Hellenic Army. The following 2002 article lists major thefts/raids in Army facilities between 1977 and 2000. Last year, we had a minor scandal because they somehow managed to steal weapons from a department of the Hellenic Police. Not that they are that well-trained in using the weapons. On December 17, 2018, explosion at the headquarters of Skai TV damaged the building, but failed to kill the TV station's personnel, which were the main targets.Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Right?!? Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"legitimize outright murder on a large scale – without any legal proceedings whatsoever"

On a side note, isn't "legitimize outright murder on a large scale – without any legal proceedings whatsoever" wrong?[33] The Nazi's passed a law retroactively legalizing the murders. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

OK lets see how fringe this is.

Sources again the proposition (historians)

"Ben Carson Is Wrong on Guns and the Holocaust" [[34]]

Highgate Vampire

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

The vampire-hunting bishop named in the article now adding unsourced argumentation against detractors and rivals to the text. I’ve reverted once, but this situation may eventually need administrative remedies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yonaguni Monument

I've just removed a couple of photos added today and replied to the editor on the talk page where he challenges an academic source because he thinks the investigation was poor. Eyes and maybe another reply would be useful. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Judeopolonia

Additional eyes on Judeopolonia please. An editor believes it is correct to describe this as "an idea positing future Jewish domination" rather than "an antisemitic conspiracy theory positing future Jewish domination of Poland" (cited to a couple of academic books and from a quick search it seems there is little trouble finding more). I'll also note they added unsourced (+ a 1941 CIA report, Czerniakow diary (died 1942), and Ringelblum (died 1944)) to Ewa Kurek (a BLP born in 1951) - diff - who is known for rather fringey views regarding Jews, ghettos, and fun.[35][36][37][38] Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Good find. This is the sort of crap that attracts nazis. I'm inclined to suggest AfD as the whole thing seems to be a non-notable fringe political position. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

But also how could there be a CIA report on anything from 1941. Wasn't the CIA founded in 1947? Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point, had not picked up on that. I assume they mean the OSS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Likely, but if a source is referring to the CIA explicitly reporting things in 1941 then I'd say that alone is reason to treat the source as a fringe one. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say unreliable for any statement of fact, fringe aside.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point on the CIA - it [39] was in the CIA archive - but it is a US intel report from 1941 (so - unlikely to contain anything on Kurek who was born in 1951). As for Judeopolonia - I think it is a notable canard - google-book the thing and you get quite a bit. Joanna Michlic - googlebook (available in preview) describes it at quite some length. Sadly - some of these canards are notable - but we need to describe them as they are (e.g. this one appears to be the Polish equivalent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion). We have entries on other notable hate concepts - e.g. Nigger. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I hear you. When it comes to discussing hate literature we always have to walk a fine line between denying bigots a platform and being a comprehensive encyclopedia. TBH this particular piece of antisemitic conspiracizing is new to me. Poland isn't within my usual remit. However I do think we need to be clear and unambiguous that it's a conspiracy theory at the very least. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Same here, never heard of this (though of course the idea is an old an well know one) particular EXAMPLE OF THE Jewish DOMINATION CANARD.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Just nominated for deletion. See here.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Coloniality of gender

I have just removed a tremendous amount of synthesis and unrelated material from the article Coloniality of gender: (Original version:[40]) It seems to me that the article still has fundamental problems worth bringing up here: although the body is mainly general information about the pre- and post-colonial status of women in various countries, the lead asserts that

The idea of gender itself was believed to be introduced by Western colonizers as a way to distinct two dualistic social categories which are men and women.The colonizers had introduced the idea of gender itself into Indigenous groups as this was originally a colonial concept which was made to organize production, territory and behavior. The desire for the colonizer to put forth the idea of gender onto an Indigenous group was to have control over their labor, authority, influence their subjectivity and ideas of sexuality.

I think it's pretty fringe to say that the idea of gender is an invention of colonialists and unknown to (all?) indigenous groups. Should the article be renamed to something like "Women and colonialism", and the gender-theory material discarded? Cheers, gnu57 18:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• It still looks like an awful lot like an undergraduate-essay-shaped-peg trying to fit into a Wikipedia-article-shaped-hole. GMG^talk 19:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Conflict Theorist Sociology grad swoops in The statement presented is a misinterpretation of what most scholars say about colonization and gender - that indigenous communities often had their own systems of gender that didn't match those of colonizers, and that colonizers brought a homogenization of gender that often introduced new problems into the societies of colonized people. Examples include colonial actions in North America and India, sometimes Thailand is referenced in literature to a lesser extent IIRC. But it's rather infantilizing to suggest indigenous people had no concept of gender. Rather they had their own concept of gender that didn't necessarily match the strict binary of European colonists. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory lead RfC

Editor input is requested at Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you. Leviv ich 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

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

I only glanced at it after removing a recent major expansion of the lede, but it appears there are basic BLP and FRINGE violations. My impression, especially of the Selected Books section, is much of it places popular responses (out of their FRINGE context) over science. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, this one is an oldie but goldie. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

So old in fact, that this, if memory serves, Deepak and NLP were what converted me from a SPA to a cynic. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Roxy, I think this may have been where we met: Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Sense_of_being_stared_at. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It's remarkable how far you can get down the article without finding out that "morphic resonance" is pseudoscience and has pretty much no supporters other than Sheldrake and woo-mongers. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, we have to be neutral. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

We do indeed. Even when it hurts New Agers in the feels. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, there's now a NPOVN discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake, where scientism is the concern of some editors. --Ronz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei

Did you know "the Inquisition had science on its side" and "Galileo was a bad scientist"? Somebody puts lots of text on the Talk page in order to turn the article inside out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, the common wisdom is that he faked his famous physics experiments (i.e. never performed them in real life). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, he certainly did not fake his telescope observations. But anyway.... the main argument on the talkpage seems to be that because the Inquisition homed in on a few points (tides, the sizes of stars) about which Galileo wasn't correct, it is somehow irresponsible to call Galileo the harbinger of a Scientific Revolution based on empirical fact. What this fails to take account of are the points that Galileo actually got right. Another weird hang-up is a proposal that he should have, for some reason, preferred the Tychonic system (which basically puts Venus and Mercury in orbit around the Sun and everything else in orbit around the Earth). I don't understand why anyone would bring that up as a reason to re-evaluate Galileo. Why should Galileo prefer it? Why should any one? Galileo liked Copernicus's model because it could explain the phases of Venus and Ptolemy's system could not, even if the ephemeris is less accurate. Tycho's system also gives you the phases of Venus, but it provided a more inaccurate ephemeris than Copernicus. The only reason you would want to force a Tychonic system is if you wanted to keep the Earth stationary, and Galileo did not think this was a good justification. And he was right. jps (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Researchers of the assassination of John F. Kennedy

Should Category:Researchers of the assassination of John F. Kennedy contain conspiracy theorists? Barr McClellan is just one example.

I think it shouldn't, it should only contain serious scholars, but maybe there are other users here who have more experience with that subject... --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I see the problem: when Roger Stone and Jesse Ventura are categorized as researchers, it diminishes the classic interpretation of the term as a scholarly, objective, and systematic pursuit. Unfortunately, the term has been co-opted widely in media. It has come to mean anyone looking over records or talking to people and then having an opinion, e.g. Researchers questioning the mainstream media account of 9/11. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about theosophy?

Subtle body has just had some major changes sourced to Blavatsky. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Some say Madame Blavatsky was a conscious fraud. Some say she was an enlightened being.PiCo (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Extra eyes please on Universal Medicine

I received a courtesy notification from an editor that they are planning a major copy editing of the article and advised them to tread carefully if they plan to make substantive changes.[41] I am noting that there has been some editing going on there recently. We may want to keep an eye on this given the history of PROFRINGE editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific metrology

Terrible article, mainly just puts forward a bunch of fringe ideas using primary sources. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

...By someone who doesn't undersand the difference between metrology and measurement. Please AfD it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The article does seem to be about metrology? —DIYeditor (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Not really. Yes, it claims to be about metrology, but most of it is about various measurements as opposed to being about the science of measurement. It's the difference between a fisherman and an ichthyologist. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The topic is an historical curiosity in much the same way that Newton's interest in biblical numerology (an article in serious need of attention) or alchemy is.[42] See for example The World's Baseline? Competing Metrologies and the Great Pyramid of Giza, 1859-1884 for a recent analysis. I'm certainly not suggesting that this article, as it stands now, covers the topic well... but the subject is notable in relation to the development of science during the early modern period.[43] --mikeu ^talk 16:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Types of scientific fallacy

Category:Types of scientific fallacy somehow feels wrong. It contains Category:Cognitive biases‎ Category:Scientific misconduct, Category:Pathological science and Category:Pseudoscience. Also a few articles like Just-so story and Hume's four Idols. There were more articles and categories in it, but I removed those that were already in subcategories.

So, the category contains things that are science gone wrong. But almost none of them are fallacies per se. I do not know what to do with it. The category is from 2007, but it seems to stick out like a sore thumb. Is there a better name for it, or could its contents be moved somewhere else that fits better? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Notable fringe/outdated theory vs. non-notable

Greetings,

I have a question about how much coverage a fringe theory in a generally not very well discussed topic area merits on Wikipedia.

The source in question is this one and the article I am wondering about is Coropuna. The theory discussed in the source envisages that during the last ice age glaciers in the tropics reached the ocean; there is no support for this in all other sources I've consulted on glaciations (for the Pleistocene glaciations) which all have the glaciers end far from the sea. However, the source has a few cites to itself, not that few by the standard of the topic.

I am wondering if this should be documented in the article as a notable fringe view or not documented at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If there are no citations whatsoever to this particular idea from the paper, it probably runs afoul of WP:UNDUE to mention it at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say that notability means, RS have noticed it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Not quite. See WP:Notability vs. prominence. It's tiresome jargon, to be sure. jps (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Is also an essay, not policy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That's totally beside the point. The essay is describing how jargon is used in Wikipedia WP:PAGs. jps (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree on whether or not this describes how the community describes the jargon, this is a side track we do not need to get into. Do you agree that notability means that third party independent RS have noticed it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not. And you would understand that (and perhaps even WHY) had you bothered to read past the boilerplates on the essay I linked. jps (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard that idea as notable. I only read the english summary but I wouldn't describe it as fringe, per se. It looks more like a suggestion that was ignored by the field. It also doesn't appear to be a relevant detail to include in that section of the article. The ice cap description and history seems fairly comprehensive. I would be more concerned that a novice would have some difficulty due to the level of detail included. I would suggest that the threat to the local water supply is a more important topic to expand. I enjoyed reading that section, fascinating. --mikeu ^talk 20:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Roxy's Ruler

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxy's Ruler. Describes an astronomical distance measurement that implicates a non-standard cosmology. --mikeu ^talk 22:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic article. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Yonaguni Monument#RfC on a statement that a distance between points A and B is N km

Note that the context is scattered among other threads. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Moberly–Jourdain incident

Moberly–Jourdain incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about a book called The Adventure published in 1911 by two women who claimed to have traveled back in time and seen the ghosts of Marie Antoinette and others. Under the header of Some explanations, our article presents "what is now called a time slip" on par with natural explanations. I believe the distinction between fringe claims (time travel, ghosts, etc) and mainstream understandings (natural explanations) should not be vague, ambiguous, or completely absent. Sadly, my efforts to correct this and add non-fringe clarifications have been rejected [44]. Also why is this identified as an "Incident"? Shouldn't our article title be The Adventure, since the book is what WP:RS identify as notable? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

See talk page of article. Having researched and written much of the debunking section [45] myself including discovering the Montesquiou explanation, I think the section is balanced. The only fringe explanation is that of Moberly and Jourdain's book, as clearly stated. All the others are rationalist explanations. This article has long been a battleground between fringe cranks (who know that they are right) and anti-fringe cranks (who know that they are right). A plague on both their houses. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC).

It sounds like you've been struggling to keep the article "balanced" between time travel/ghosts and no time travel/ghosts so both concepts appear roughly equally credible and the article doesn't make any radical conclusions 'for or against' reality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem is that most of the claims (either paranormal or not) appear to all be a bit fringy (or at the very least widely assumptive, not being based on any thing more then assumption).Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course. The only paranormal claims are those made in the book by Moberly and Jordain. Historian Roy Strong has noted that although the Moberly-Jourdain story has been debunked it "retained its hold on the public imagination for half a century." Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC).

Yes, when it comes to fringe claims like time travel and ghosts, we report what independent third party sources have said about those claims. No problem with that. The problem is WP:GEVAL, which I assume you've read up on. You've reverted attempts to change the WP:WEASEL-ish header from "Some explanations" to "Natural explanations" or modify the awkward text which cites ghosts and time travel as one of the plausible explanations. How do you suggest we proceed? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The section "some explanation" reads to me like a "time slip" would be the default explanation, and then in addition to that there is an alternative presented. That is clearly not the impression the section should give. And the last part about being lost is important, too. I strongly prefer the version from LuckyLouie. --mfb (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Time slip was indeed the explanation implied by the two women, as I am sure you found from reading the book, but their explanation was not supported by any independent authority, not even the Society for Psychical Research. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

You made it worse. It still sets up time slip as the default explanation and presents non-supernatural as alternative views. Again, I'll ask, have you read WP:FRINGE? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I had a go at it. The article was, surprisingly, in somewhat better shape than I had remembered when I asked for a GA-reassessment (and despite an acrimonious discussion resulted in no consensus and not even a single !vote for keeping or delisting). I fixed some obvious WP:ASSERT problems and tried to neutralize the more audacious claims and prose. jps (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not at all convinced that we should link time slip to this article per WP:ONEWAY (the time slip article could certainly link back to this one, IMHO). Dunning of Skeptoid makes reference to this proposal in the title of his critique even, but I think that the use of the term time slip is highly anachronistic. Of course, neither of the claimants ever used that term as they were quite dead by the time it was coined. jps (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Much improved as the result of recent edits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

References

SU(6) (physics)

A user and his corresponding IP has entered a good deal of original research and pseudoscientific nonsense about consciousness into an article on quantum physics.[46] Can someone with knowledge of quantum physics help to separate the wheat from the chaff? Or maybe a wholesale revert is preferable. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Particle physicist here: Full revert was the right action. --mfb (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

BEMER Therapy

BEMER Therapy, a new article, says it "is an alternative medical treatment method." May need looking at. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Does it heal cancer, without even discussing the type? Let's check. Oh yes, of course it does. Could be speedy deleted via G11, unambiguous advertisement? --mfb (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Not much RS. But from this it's safe to say it's dodgy as hell. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Effects of blue light technology

• High-energy_visible_light
• Fluorescent_lamps_and_health
• Effects_of_blue_light_technology

light bulbs are going to kill you, don't you know? makes you blind, makes you craaaazeeee health claim I wrote a bunch of stuff on the effects of blue light technology page before I made an account as mitigation toward all the scare marketing but I'm still a bit concerned about the other ones and cant really see much of a justification for a lot of the health claims on those pages. As background, I just did simple math with references to point out that researchers have been basically frying rats eyeballs out of their heads with welding mask tier near-UV bright lights and comparing it to green light as some sort of proof that you need magic glasses to stop your eyeballs from falling out because they used the wrong equipment to check the light levels.

The basic problem is that people doing the research are in ergonomics departments which use colorimeters because until recently they were studying office space light levels and i guess nobody told them how they work. Verify references (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh my god. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have to admit I've always been concerned with the severe idiocy that can accompany discussions of the effects that visible light has on human health. jps (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Weeding the garden

I think we should start to pare down this mess of articles. To that end, I proposed a merge of Effects of blue light technology and ‎High-energy visible light. They are both about essentially the same subject (and the latter article title should conceivably just be redirected to blue or violet, fercryingoutloud.

As I removed a bit of EMF paranoia from one of the articles, I discovered that we have TWO articles on essentially the same topic: Mobile phone radiation and health and Wireless electronic devices and health. So I propose we merge those too.

Help is appreciated from all you wonderful people.

jps (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• merge would agree with merge-Mobile phone radiation and health and Wireless electronic devices and health.-Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• merge that merge makes sense irrespective of the fringe-ness of the topic: they are both about global population exposures to fractional-watt radio transmissions in the overlapping bands used for cellular, DECT, and WiFi devices. Whether the hazard is large, small or merely speculative, there is a great deal of sloppy science being published on the topic, mixed in with a few careful works. The press-driven furor is as usual nearly devoid of useful information. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Tartary

User:Mountain157 has persistently attempted to edit Tartary to assert over the past few days that Tartary was a historical country, and has recently claimed in Talk:Tartary that the reason the country of Tartary is completely unmentioned in modern academia was because of a conspiracy to suppress its existence. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I cited a document from the CIA on page 12[[47]] which mentions this. I never made a statement of that type in the talk page[[48]] and I believe this constitutes WP:PERSONAL.Mountain157 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You clearly stated "In other words, Tartar history was to be re-written --let us be frank, was to be falsified== in order to eliminate references to Great Russian aggressions and to hide the facts of the real course of Tatar-Russian relations", which is complete conjecture and extrapolation from the given article. I would also like to add for benefit of moderators that [the concept of Tartary being a real country has already established by various fringe theorists.] Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

What you just quoted was by the DOCUMENT, not by me. As I said before this user is clearly abusing the word fringe repeatedly in order to force his POV which in his mind is that "Tartary did not exist" and that it is just "rumours"[[49]]. Mountain157 (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history): historical articles should always comply with the major content policies as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:No fringe theory and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I think the promoted idea about Tartary as a separate Empire does not meet the criteria above. Jingiby (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you realize that the source I gave for the information comes from a government agency? Wikipedia's fringe theory policy states that "Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources", for which I am pretty sure the CIA meets the definition of.Mountain157 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

1. Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
2. "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
3. Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography
4. Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography.
5. Earlier scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic.

Your source does not meet no one. Jingiby (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Should a discussion continue here if it is also pending at WP:ANI, or should the discussion here be closed until the conduct dispute is resolved? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - It was already closed there. Jingiby (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The original thread was closed, but it was immediatly reopened at ANI as a boomerang. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - My intention in opening up the threads both at ANI and here was to cover use conduct there, and the actual article content here. If it is decided that they are redundant, I will accept their ruling. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Moore (environmentalist)

Patrick Moore, currently described with the disambiguation "environmentalist" on Wikipedia, is best known for being for anything the environmental movement is generally against, all the while backing industry-friendly talking points, many of them quite fringe (comically, such as claiming one could drink a quart of glysophate without harm, only to refuse to do so). His apparently false claims about his former Greenpeace involvement (see the organization's statement on him) provide him cover to claim to be yet so concerned about the environment, especially when sources like Wikipedia claim he's an "environmentalist".

Predictably, this is red meat for his intended audience: the petroleum industry, and America's right wing, "environmentalist" figures in the orbit of the Trump Administration (resulting in Fox News articles like "Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit'" and Breitbart articles like "Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’" (link blacklisted)). This is deeply fringe stuff.

Moore himself appears to have been involved with the article under a few different names (for example, [50], [51], and [52]). This article needs far more eyes, particularly this talk page section on what to change the article's name to. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Good grief, there's a few half-witted Oppose comments in that move request. Anyway ... Black Kite (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Arguably, refusing to drink an unspecified liquid of unspecified concentration is a completely reasonable thing to do. You very likely could drink a quart of glyphosate at an "as-sprayed" concentration without ill effects. --tronvillain (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

We need to have an article on eating/drinking DDT. See Mickey Slim and [53][54][55][56]. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Just saying, you could drink a quart of piss without harm too, doesn't mean you'd happily do it when prompted. 38.68.203.42 (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Moore is now asking his Twitter followers to edit his Wikipedia page. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Modern Monetary Theory

The article Modern Monetary Theory fails to clarify to readers that it is a marginal idea within economics and the article fails to cite "reliable sources... that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner", as WP:FRINGE instructs us to do. Most of the article reads like a personal essay, and the article cites a lot of working papers by heterodox economists. The lede to the article is a word salad that fails to clearly explain what MMT is. Furthermore, there also appears to be gatekeeping going on in the article, as one editor removed the IGM Economic Experts Panel survey of leading economists, which showed unanimous rejection of MMT by leading economists.[57] This is a problematic article which is not compliant with WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:Lawrencekhoo -- he being an actual economist and all -- so maybe he can weigh in. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There can be more discussion of the mainstream viewpoint. The lead definitely needs some discussion of how most economists reject the assertions made by MMT. However, I think the body of the article is OK as of today, since it makes clear that this is a heterodox theory with very little support outside the circle of adherents. Will edit the article a bit, hopefully uncontentiously. LK (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a problem with the criticism section of the article that you reference, listing the mainstream response to a claim of "deficits don't matter". That claim is not a part of MMT, and prominent/founding MMT academics like Randall Wray explicitly refute it ( http://rooseveltinstitute.org/deficits-do-matter-not-way-you-think/ ). Any representation of mainstream views regarding MMT, should be relevant to what MMT actually states - not what other people incorrectly claim it states - otherwise it will just be subject to consistent straw-man misrepresentations. Arfed (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, no. Any representation of mainstream views regarding anything should be, well, representation of mainstream views. It's pretty straightforward. --Calton | Talk 07:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

For the same reason that WP:Fringe requires proper attribution of an ideas acceptance for the mainstream view, it has to be shown that the idea is accepted among the non-mainstream view in order to even attribute it to them in the first place. In this case, we are talking about specific ideas/claims that have already been rejected by the non-mainstream view - and I've updated the article to show this. It would be absurd to have a criticism section in the article stating mainstream rejection of a particular claim - without also noting that the non-mainstream/MMT view also rejects that claim, after all. Arfed (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of fringe scholar Margaret Barker as a source

Raised at WP:RSN#Is Margaret Barker a reliable source for the Book of Enoch or Seven Archangels?. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Busby

There has been an uptick in activity trying to push a POV that this individual is not pushing Fringe science and promoting supplements that are claimed to mitigate the effects of ingested radioisotopes. Additional eyes will be helpful. --VViking_TalkEdits 17:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ghost hunting

A student enrolled in a college editing course needs help understanding WP:OR. They have WP saying that Kirlian photography "introduced the use of technology and cameras as a method to find evidence of ghosts during paranormal investigations“, when there isn't any sources for that connection. Also they are rather fond of large scale cut-and-paste from other articles. Another voice appreciated here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Kirlian seemed to believe more in "auras", which as I understand it are different than "ghosts". But he certainly used cameras and technology to find what he believed was evidence for that phenomena. ApLundell (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

David Frawley

Although there is criticism in the article, there's no mention of his Hindutva views. An IP added some sources on the talk page a while ago, and it was brought to my attention today so I've added another. No time quite yet to work on it. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hallwang Clinic GmbH

• Hallwang Clinic GmbH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would appreciate some more eyes on this page, which is about a clinic offering complementary therapies for cancer patients, and its talk page. It has been argued that we should provide balance to reliably-sourced criticism by a qualified oncologist by allowing content sourced to a TV report that doesn't name the clinic and to a fundraising blog, and also that anyone who criticises complementary therapies is necessarily non-neutral. I have tried to discuss the issue, but, quite frankly, I am finding this too stressful to deal with further. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory, editor adding material showing that low birth rates can be beneficial

See WP:NORN#Are these edits to White genocide conspiracy theory original research? and particular Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's worse than that. The basic idea behind the white genocide conspiracy theory is that whites are having fewer children while minorities are having more children. The editor pushing WP:OR on Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory insists that white supremacists are just as concerned about declining birthrates among blacks. I guess that's why the racist bastards advocate sterilizing all blacks... :(

This one calls for the liberal application of a Clue By Four... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

After going to ANI and being shot down, the editing at White genocide conspiracy theory has started up. I have purposely avoided looking at these edits because I think I may have an unconscious bias. I would reall appreciate it if someone else here looked into them. I am offering double the normal rate of pay and as much overtime as you want to work. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

White supremacists (and trolls pretending to be white supremacists) have lately been inspired to crawl out from under their usual rocks on the internet. But I don't see any new material regarding birth rates added to the article since you last edited. Did I miss it? Handy dandy master diff: [58]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

After being shot down at ANI the disruption has pretty much settled down to pushing WP:OR on the article talk page. And it doesn't look like the current problems are with white supremacists but rather an overzealous editor pushing ideas like "The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people." No, that's not a typo. And no, no source says that. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

That claim, while poorly phrased, is not facially ludicrous as you seem to think it is. One could argue that those who spread the theory do it for this reason: to make white people afraid ("They are attacking and attempting to destroy our culture and way of life") in order to inspire them to political action ("Rise up to oppose them, strike them first before they can destroy us.") It's pretty clear from their talk page posts that's how this user intended that sentence to read. The source used for that claim is an SPLC researcher saying that the white genocide conspiracy theory's purpose is "to strike fear in the hearts of white people in countries that are diversifying" [59] (there's more in that source along those lines). It's an unconventional (and I'd argue incorrect) use of the word "terrorize", and the sourcing is not sufficient to make such a claim in wikipedia's voice, but it's not an absurd thing to argue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Negro-Egyptian languages

How does this stuff get by AFC?[60] See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negro-Egyptian languages. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Gerard Gertoux

This is about [61]. My claim is that Gertoux is WP:FRINGE: he seeks legal remedy against "the great French academic conspiracy against Christian fundamentalism" (although many Catholics, Eastern-Orthodox and Protestants would not recognize him as a Christian). On the internet there are details about his PhD candidature and how he accused his own professors of discrimination. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I've seen some citations made to his works to contradict other scholars in the past and my impression is similar. —PaleoNeonate – 08:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm I will ping two editors who are not regulars here, but may have more valuable advice in relation to this topic than me: Jeffro77 and PiCo, in case they would like to comment. —PaleoNeonate – 08:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I have occasionally seen 'Gerard Gertoux' inserted as a source on articles relating to the topic of 'God'. The sources involved are generally self-published and do not reflect scholarly consensus. Agree with an assessment as 'fringe'. Whether he is 'recognised as Christian' is quite irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I've never heard of Gerard Gertoux. I gather from a quick google-search that he's a graduate student at Université Lyon, which is not a very high academic ranking. (I mean being a grad student isn't - nothing against U.Lyon). Still, it's not the individual who's supposed to be reliable or fringe, it's the idea expressed - on academic subjects we should look for widely held positions common to people at the top of their profession, in this case biblical studies. Gertoux is not at the top of his profession, and I'd prefer to look elsewhere for the same ideas.PiCo (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

(From the abstract of another paper by Gertoux: "Chronology is the backbone of history" is usually taught in schools but what is very disturbing is the total absence of reliable chronology to fix the Exodus because the date goes from 2100 to 650 BC (Sparks: 2015, 60); such a 1500-year gap is not at all serious. Furthermore, Exodus pharaoh identifications and theories (page 61) are absurd because the pharaoh of the Exodus died suddenly in the Red Sea according to the biblical text (Ps 136:15) and it is easy to see that the state of the mummy of Seqenenre Taa (Cairo Museum, The Royal Mummies CG 61051) proves that his body received severe injuries and remained abandoned for several days before being mummified. In addition Crown Prince Ahmose Sapaïr (Musée du Louvre, Paris: statue E 15682), who was the eldest son of Seqenenre Taa (1543-1533), died shortly before his father (Ex 12:29), who himself died on May 10, 1533 BCE. According to the biblical chronology based on absolute dates, not to the scholarly chronology of Edwin R. Thiele, the pharaoh of the Exodus died on May 10, 1533 BCE (exactly the same day). Consequently Seqenenre Taa was the pharaoh of the Exodus, according to absolute chronology." Not confidence-inspiring.)PiCo (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

(And....: To be or not to be is a crucial question regarding Moses as well as the Exodus because, according to the Bible, the character related to that famous event forms the basis of the Passover which meant the Promised Land for Jews and later the Paradise for Christians. However, according to most Egyptologists, there is absolutely no evidence of Moses and the Exodus in Egyptian documents, which leads them to conclude that the whole biblical story is a myth written for gullible people. Ironically, if one considers that “truth” must be based on two pillars: an accurate chronology anchored on absolute dates (Herodotus’ principle) and reliable documents coming from critical editions (Thucydides’ principle), that implies an amazing conclusion: those who believe Egyptologists are actually the real gullible ones. According to Egyptian accounts the last king of the XVth dynasty, named Apopi, “very pretty” in Hebrew that is Moses’ birth name (Ex 2:2), reigned 40 years in Egypt from 1613 to 1573 BCE, then 40 years later he met Seqenenre Taa the last pharaoh of the XVIIth dynasty and gave him an unspecified disturbing message. The eldest son of Seqenenre Taa, Ahmose Sapaïr, who was crown prince died in a dramatic and unexplained way shortly before his father. Seqenenre Taa died in May 1533 BCE, after 11 years of reign, in dramatic and unclear circumstances. The state of his mummy proves, however, that his body received severe injuries, in agreement with Psalms 136:15, and remained abandoned for several days before being mummified. Prince Kamose, Seqenenre Taa's brother, assured interim of authority for 3 years and threatened attack the former pharaoh Apopi, new prince of Retenu (Palestine) who took the name Moses, according to Manetho (280 BCE), an Egyptian priest and historian. In the stele of the Tempest, Kamose also blames Apopi for all the disasters that come to fall upon Egypt, which caused many deaths.

From the first page of that article we have this: The present chronology of the Bible is an elaborate system of life-spans, ÒgenerationsÓ, and other means which delineate the events over the 4,000 years of narrative time between the Creation of the world and the re-dedication of the Temple in 164 BCE. And this footnote on the same page: The early Church Father Eusebius, attempting to place Christ in the chronology, put his birth in AM 5199, and this became the accepted date for the Western Church. As the year AM 6000 (800 CE) approached there was increasing fear that the end of the world was nigh, until the Venerable Bede then made his own calculations and found that Christ's birth took place in AM 3592. Martin Luther placed the Apostolic Council of Acts 15 in the year AM 4000, believing this marked the moment when the Mosaic Law was abolished and the new age of grace began. This was widely accepted among European Protestants, but in the English-speaking world, Archbishop James Ussher switched the focus back to the birth of Christ (c. 1650), which he found had occurred in AM 4000, equivalent, he believed, to 4 BCE, and thus arrived at 4004 BCE as the date of Creation. Al of that is taken from OUR wikipedia article on Biblical chronology - I should know, I wrote it. Much as it hurts to say this about my own material, this is not reliable. PiCo (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• "what is very disturbing is the total absence of reliable chronology to fix the Exodus because the date goes from 2100 to 650 BC" How do you fix the dates of a fictional event that never happened? There is no more evidence about the historicity of Moses, than the historicity of Little Red Riding Hood. And frankly, her tale is more realistic. No miracles or divine interventions.
• "Seqenenre Taa" is Seqenenre Tao. The injuries on his corpse indicate death in battle, or assassination.:
  • "it is not known whether he fell upon the field of battle or was the victim of some plot; the appearance of his mummy proves that he died a violent death when about forty years of age. Two or three men, whether assassins or soldiers, must have surrounded and despatched him before help was available. A blow from an axe must have severed part of his left cheek, exposed the teeth, fractured the jaw, and sent him senseless to the ground; another blow must have seriously injured the skull, and a dagger or javelin has cut open the forehead on the right side, a little above the eye. His body must have remained lying where it fell for some time: when found, decomposition had set in, and the embalming had to be hastily performed as best it might."
  • "The wound on his forehead was probably caused by a Hyksos axe and his neck wound was probably caused by a dagger while he was prone. There are no wounds on his arms or hands, which suggests he was not able to defend himself."
  • "Until 2009 the main hypotheses have been that he died either in a battle against the Hyksos or was killed while sleeping. A reconstruction of his death by Egyptologist Garry Shaw and archaeologist and weapons expert Robert Mason suggested a third, which they saw as the likeliest, that Seqenenre was executed by the Hyksos king. Garry Shaw also analysed the arguments for the competing hypotheses and other physical, textual and statistical evidence concluding "that the most likely cause of Seqenenre’s death is ceremonial execution at the hands of an enemy commander, following a Theban defeat on the battlefield." "Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"There is no more evidence about the historicity of Moses, than the historicity of Little Red Riding Hood" - See also The Truth About Hansel and Gretel. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

About [62] mentioned before and [63]. The deleted arguments are in secondary sources: Robert J. Wilkinson (2015). Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions. Brill. p. 93, 94. ISBN 9789004288171., Pavlos D. Vasileiadis (2014). "Aspects of rendering the sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek". Open Theology. 1: 56–88. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help), Didier Mickaël Fontaine (2007). Le nom divin dans le nouveau testament (in French). Editions L'Harmattan. ISBN 2296176097. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help), and Didier Fontaine (2009). S. Pizzorni (ed.). Il nome di Dio nel Nuovo Testamento. Perché è scomparso dai testi greci nel I e II secolo? (in Italian). Translated by S. Appiganesi. Azzurra 7. ISBN 8888907106. (primary source is not a self-publishing source Gertoux, Gerard (2002). The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH which is pronounced as it is written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its story. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. ISBN 0761822046. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) and its French version, Gérard Gertoux (1999). Un historique du nom divin: un nom encens. L'Harmattan. ISBN 9782738480613.). Thanks in advance. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If the arguments appear in valid secondary sources, cite those sources, giving due weight based on how those views are considered by experts in the field. A PhD candidate would not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As I demonstrated above, Gertoux has plagiarised Wikipedia for his articles. He is not a reliable source.PiCo (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you very much for taking the time to answer. I am not dealing with the subject of Exodus, Pharaoh or Moses, but the arguments that I mentioned before and why should not be included, if they are supported by secondary and even tertiary sources of experts in the field?. Gertoux does not have a high degree, but the authors of those secondary and tertiary sources, so that I consider that it would not be the problem anymore. I agree with Jeffro77, I will analyze how the information is presented, in places where it is not a direct textual quote. Sorry for the insistence. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Then why would we just not cite to those sources? Yes it would still be a problem, we use high quality sources when available (in fact we are encouraged to use the best available), so why would we use him?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

About secondary and tertiary sources, I would be grateful if you would allow me to ask why they are not high quality sources, if they come from the authors mentioned above in conjunction with the publishing house.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Coming in late, sorry. I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (2nd nomination) and a discussion with User:Khruner on my talk page last October. As I pointed out then, he still doesn't seem to have his PhD.[64] Doug Weller talk 15:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Lupus in fabula. [65] Khruner (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Please, someone who refutes me directly, without deviating from the subject. The point is that if a reliable source it reads about someone's argument, regardless of who it is, why it should not be included?. The authors and its Publishers were wrong to include a sentence? I do not question the fact that Gertoux does not have a high degree, but it's not what I question. If it is considered that I am wrong, or maybe there is something that I do not take into account, I will change my view . Also let me apologize for coming in late. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Pandeism

• Catholic Church and Pandeism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pandeism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Criticism of Pandeism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hyperbolick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello! In mulling over which noticeboard to use, I considered RSN as well as BLPN, because of related issues, but it seems to me that "pandeism" and the specific "experts" being invoked here are actually fringe territory, so have at it. Hyperbolick is here claiming that "experts" are admissible, such as those cited by "biblefalseprophet.com" and Rousas John Rushdoony of the "Chalcedon Foundation", even in blog form, for supporting extraordinary claims about the doctrine of pandeism, as well as extraordinary biographical claims about such figures as Pope Francis and Barack Obama. I don't know about you, but when I see poorly-formatted rants on low-rent websites named "biblefalseprophet", red flags go up and I consider whether we are dealing with fringey beliefs here. Furthermore, there are some WP:SYNTH issues with the way he is citing the Catechism and Catholic Encyclopedia comments on Pantheism and Deism to support assertions about Pandeism in particular. Hyperbolick is a passionate and dedicated proponent of Pandeism, and all his edits (as well as edits on previous accounts) are focused in this topic area. He does not seem interested, so far, in discussion or examination of the applicable policies and guidelines. I would appreciate a few more eyes on the topic, and voices in the discussion, to build some consensus here and resolve this amicably. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Like the poster above, I don’t know where to begin, so much nonsense to deal with. Easily proven untrue. First that “all edits are focused in this topic area.” Been here two years (only this account, have picked up drafts left by others), I have close to 9000 edits. Vast majority nothing to do with this. Go back a page or two in my edit history, makes this lie obvious.

Nobody is claiming here that Obama and the Pope are Pandeists. Simply accurately pointing out that others have called them that, meaning it as a criticism of Pandeism. No different then if we were talking about Neptunian aliens, and some renegade astronomy professor or New York Times pundit claimed Obama and the Pope are Neptunian. Hang on, more to come. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This anonymous character has unusual ideas about some policies. Didn’t like that Kramer wrote to a blog (yes, Kramer is a published expert, go to Amazon and search books by “Father Paul Kramer“), so I cited to Gloria.tv. Good enough for what it is being cited for. Rushdoony isn’t a blog at all, unless our anonymous friend thinks people are blogging in 1971. The cite is a published book. As to synth, Pandeism is a kind of Deism. Would be absurd to discuss the Church position on Pandeism without discussing position on Deism. It’s called background. There is no article, Catholic Church and Deism, so where else to put this? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Last point. Criticism draft is a draft. Not sure why somebody would get bent over something not even an article. Sometimes drafts have material waiting for citation or for better citations or for working into some other form. But don’t delete a bunch of stuff in draft just because you think it wrong for article space, where it isn’t. I’d like the removal of material by the IP from across these articles reversed. If you think better citations are needed, there’s a tag for that. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

We've been here before, with a discussion here in 2013 and a no consensus failed deletion attempt back in 2005. I just don't have time now to sort through it, but unless there's been a lot of sourcing improvement, there are problems. Mangoe (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

First, the accusation that User:Hyperbolick is some kind of WP:SPA is definitely false. They have 8,000 edits as of now, and I actually didn't have to look hard to see that they have edited in many diverse areas, including creating lean but potentially useful stubs for the Guyana National Service, Thomas Price (governor), and for the name Sally.

With respect to the actual dispute at issue: neither party has acted blamelessly, but the IP has the worst of it. The IP removed text from an article on the basis that it was poorly sourced. Hyperbolick seems to have tried to remedy that, since they restored the text but also added a source, though not a great source. The IP then went on what comes across as a vindictive edit-warring tear, removing material including properly sourced material, and removing similar material from another article and a related draft, and edit-warring against the restoration of some permissible material, rather than leaving it in place and moving on to discussion. Hyperbolick did make an uncivil comment in reverting one of these deletions and the IP also made an uncivil comment on the talk page in my opinion.

The actual controversy here can be avoided with a little common sense. WP:BLP concerns are a red herring, as no one will read a "renegade priest" of middling notablity calling the Pope a pandeist as Wikipedia claiming that the Pope is actually a pandeist. However, the claim is of very low importance. It isn't really a claim about pandeism, or about the position of the Catholic Church on pandeism, so Hyperbolick would be well advised to just let it go and not fight over it further.

I have a few other comments about the content, but will leave them on the talk page of the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the SPA comment. I had confused the current account of Hyperbolick with the other one he ran for eight years. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Let’s call it done and move forward positively. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Elsevier

publishing crap. Ancient humans who had 12 strand DNA used sun crystals for propulsion of their rockets and special clothing for their space-suits.......∯WBG^converse 11:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there an article this is relevant to or is this just a general announcement? Natureium (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Natureium, this board has a tradition of being used for dissemination of miscellaneous information about fringe-issues that may not be linked to the immediate development of any article. ∯WBG^converse 11:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If genuine, it raises questions about the reliability of Elsevir as a source. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC).

Obviously non-RS, and another reminder that Elsevier is not a source per se. It is a publisher that publishes a lot of solid scientific literature and a lot of crap. Materials Today: Proceedings, which is essentially an on-demand publisher of random conference proceedings, will almost surely always fall into the latter group. Abecedare (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is also a publisher that publishes solid news along with rubbish. How do we discriminate? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC).

Start by looking at the publisher: Elsevier is somewhat of a mixed bag. Then look at the specific journal: its publishing history, editorial board, impact factor, reviews/citations in non-technical media etc. Then look at the particular article: type of article (consensus statement, review, original report etc), authors, type and number of citations etc. Then look at the actual claim being sourced to the article, to judge if it is routine, novel, controversial, or extraoordinary. Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

One red flag for me is that it is a conference paper. At least in my experience, conference papers and abstracts often are not peer-reviewed; typically accepted and printed as submitted; and can be non-RS. As a result, such publications are of highly varible quality and can include fringe science of the worst quality. As a geologist, I have seen Young Earth creationists and fringe catastrophists regularly present their thinly disguised ideas in conventional sounding posters and talks at Geological Society of America (GSA) and American Geophysical Union (AGU) Meetings to build up their appearance as serious scientists and create a list of legitimately sounding citations as support for their ideas in their tracts and apologetics. There are often too many abstracts at AGU, GSA, and many other meetings for each one to be vetted. Typically, my experience has been is it is Caveat emptor when dealing with conference papers and abstracts. Paul H. (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a very good point. ∯WBG^converse 11:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Cryonics activity

A COI editor has been working on Cryonics and has asked for help at User talk:Mbark22#Help me!. Maybe needs watching. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I've alerted the user to the discretionary sanctions for complementary and alternative medicine. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC).

Skeptical journals and Skeptoid as reliable sources

Some help needed please. I know we have had discussions over the years about using Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptic magazine (UK, Australia and USA) as well as Skeptoid as reliable sources. I thought I had these discussions bookmarked and probably do but it is in a sea of bookmarks. Can someone please point me to the final decision. From time to time I run into people saying that they are "just blogs" which is obviously incorrect. Sgerbic (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We have a relevant policy: WP:PARITY. It says:

"Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals."

-Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Fringe theory of the month: fake snow that burns instead of melting

Did you know that the snow that paralyzed Atlanta, Georgia in January of 2014 was not really snow? It was some sort of weird engineered chemical that didn't melt, and scorched when held to a flame! Here is a video where our fearless investigator risks his life by trying to set fire to a snowball with a bic lighter. What will happen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmT3wcu8Ed0

Bonus science: How Microwaving Grapes Makes Plasma

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCrtk-pyP0I

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This was as big fad on social media years ago.

Is it coming back around? Is there a content dispute in some snow-related article? Or are we just laughing at how dumb people were in 2014?

ApLundell (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

No. No. Yes. Natureium (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Blue Moon (1934 song)

Just noticed that text related to a dubious authorship dispute, which received publicity recently in the New York Times, has been getting excessive weight in the article. Beginning with the aggressive efforts of an SPA, the authorship of the song was actually listed in the lead sentence as "disputed" even though this fringe theory has not even been mentioned in scholarship on Rodgers and Hart, much less given any credence whatever. I searched Newspapers.com and Google Books and found no mention of it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Location hypotheses of Atlantis

Location hypotheses of Atlantis seems to have accumulated quite a large amount of cruft. While historic speculation about the location might be notable many of the referenced "theories" do not appear to be. Numerous dubious "references"[66] and broken links[67] to unreliable sources among many other issues. --mikeu ^talk 16:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

May need a purge or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn't some technical issue that "may need a purge or something" but an issue about independent reliable sources. That article needs such reliable sources that write about claims of the location of Atlantis, not unreliable sources that make such claims. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

About time. I'll try to help. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh my. The Google search atlantis location has as the top result the pull quote "According to Michael Hübner, Atlantis core region was located in South-West Morocco at the Atlantic Ocean." --mikeu ^talk 22:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That's funny. Nobody mentioned it when I lived there. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You lived in the Atlantic Ocean? Is your secret identity Aquaman? If so, good job fighting those Nazi U-boats. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Carlton Fredericks

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

IP editor is objecting to use of QuackWatch to source the fact that this health-guru of yesteryear was a heavy smoker. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian

Needs some eyes. Doug Weller talk 21:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

and Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

This needs cleaning up, it's being rewritten from an LDS perspective. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

South Atlantic tropical cyclone

There's currently a debate going in that determines of Anita is a tropical cyclone or subtropical cyclone. It's widely known that Anita is a tropical cyclone, but sources added by User:Livia Dutra states that the storm was actually subtropical and never transitioned into a tropical cyclone. The user added some sources that appears to be reliable, but I feared that those sources violates WP:FRINGE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:SPS. What do you all think? INeedSupport ^:3 23:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty skeptical that it would ever be possible for controversy over the classification of a storm as either tropical or subtropical would ever fall under the remit of our guideline about fringe theories. jps (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Does it go clockwise or anticlockwise looking from here? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

That depends on where "here" is. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with jps that this seems to be a content issue rather than anything concerned with fringe topics. You say that it's widely known that Anita is a tropical cyclone, so I would suggest that you discuss this on the talk page on the basis of recent sources that contradict those added by Livia Dutra, rather than carry on reverting. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Got it INeedSupport ^:3 17:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

Need more eyes at Answers in Genesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- recently protected for three days because of edit warring, protection about to expire. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Pre-Big Bang physics

Pre–Big_Bang_physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I stumbled across this stub today which appeared to be a poorly executed POV-fork in my judgment. (White hole cosmology is an Answers in Genesis argument, incidentally.) I think the easiest thing to do is to redirect to our main article on the subject, so I did that: [68]. Hopefully no one objects, but thought I would post here for transparency.

jps (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Failed predictions in Arctic sea ice decline

Can someone take a look at Arctic sea ice decline, in particular this series of edits by XavierItzm, which puts a lot of emphasis on purportedly failed predictions of "sea ice-free summers" in the Arctic?[69] The section seems intended to highlight how climate scientists are alarmist and repeatedly fail to predict the climate. I don't know enough about the section to gauge whether the text is compliant with WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the use of news media sources here is a problem. One, such sources tend to prioritize the most dramatic claims irrespective of whether they are widely held or not. Two, mostentimes when I see news media discussing Arctic sea ice they still are more hedged than the sample presented by that editor. Seems like the edits should be reverted as they rely on not tip-top and apparently cherry-picked sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis

See [70]. Not fringe? Doug Weller talk 05:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That's clearly out to lunch. The only source added for any of these changes was this, which they called a "CIA source". I have reverted pending discussion on the talk page. Bradv🍁 05:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I struggle to understand why we have true polar wander separated from this article. This article appears to be a WP:POV fork of the less well-developed article on polar wander. Should we merge and cull? jps (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Scientific studies performed on private revelations and visionaries

• Scientific studies performed on private revelations and visionaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New article uses some combination of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE in an attempt to to connect science with various religious miracles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific studies performed on private revelations and visionaries GMG^talk 15:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Also came across Scientific method and religion - an odd, essay-like meandering jumble. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for E. Michael Jones

Based on some of the things the fellow has written, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. Michael Jones may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

cryonics

Hi Arbitration Committee

Thank you for pointing out where I have gone wrong. My apologies, I am new to this.

My reason for joining was to learn how to create an article for our non-profit arts foundation. A colleague of mine has had dealings with the Cryonics Institute in the US. I was talking to him about how I intend to create a Wikipedia article and that I was learning how to do it. I then had an email from one of the people at the Cryonics Institute asking me if I could assist them, purely voluntary.

I did not realize that the subject of complementary and alternative medicine fell into a special category and I underestimated the sensitivity of the subject and its controversial content.

There is no conflict of interest as I am not doing this for myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. I do not have any external relationship with the institute or its members.

I was just asked if I can make the following changes: Replace corpse with body - I don't see the problem here as the definition of a corpse is a dead body "Corpse and cadaver are both medical/legal terms for a dead body. ... Although cadaver is the older word, it has come to refer in particular to a dead body used for medical or scientific purposes". Removing the sentence containing the word 'quackery' seems acceptable as by your own definition "A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess". From what I have read the Institute is neither fraudulent nor an ignorant pretender. The other changes follow the same reasoning as above.

If you believe that I am treading on thin ice then please tell me and I'll walk away from helping the Institute!

Mbark22 (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Being asked to edit by someone connected with the subject does count as a conflict of interest; even if it’s not for any tangible consideration, you’d presumably be at least ‘owed a favour’. (Commendable of you to disclose the fact, regardless.) Regarding “corpse”, see the fairly recent discussion at Talk:Cryonics/Archive 2#Terminology. Feel free, however, to bring any new arguments you may have, that are backed by what WP considers reliable sources, to the article’s Talk page. (BTW there’s no need to address the Arbitration Committee: they made the ruling that enabled discretionary sanctions on these topics, but the special rules are enforced by administrators at large.)—Odysseus1479 03:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Is revival unlikely ?

• Now have have issues at Alcor Life Extension Foundation‎, where an editor is taking objection to Wikipedia saying that future revival of pickled brains is "unlikely" (in the cited source, a neuroscientist points out that it's a bit ridiculous to expect much of a brain which has had anti-freeze pumped at pressure into it!). More eyes from fringe-savvy editors could help. Alexbrn (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• The editor has now violated 3RR, but nobody had warned them about it. (I have done so now.) Bishonen | talk 18:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC).

Five Percent Nation

The Five-Percent Nation is a New Religious Movement[71][72] (although the article doesn't call it one and I think they deny it) with categories and a portal that are relevant to it being related to Islam and religion. I'm having a problem with OR and NPOV as are others, see the talk page. Twelve Jewels of Islam may need to be a redirect, and Supreme Understanding needs work. The article on its founder Clarence 13X seems better. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Wilson and vaccination

• Sarah Wilson (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 12 March I received a rather disquieting tweet from the subject of this article. The exchange can be seen here. This gained me a number of new twitter followers who seemed to approve of Wilson's tweet ("go get him!").

Our article is still pretty dire and the content in question possibly undue anyway - but Wilson seems very keen for our article to carry material countering press reports about anti-vaccination comments she made. To my mind the heavy use of her own blog to this end is unduly self-serving. Having been warned-off, I shall leave the content question to others.

As a "PS" I received a further tweet saying "a Group of media academics and I have been attending to the article repeatedly To update the information"[73] which piqued my interest. Whatever the state of the article, it cannot be right for article content to be decided by coordinating WP:MEAT and twitter. No WP:COI disclosures have been made. I notice in recent times the accounts Writingtask and Fransplace seem to have focused on the content Wilson is complaining about.

This may need to go to another noticeboard, but thoughts welcome - this reminds me of a couple of incidents in the past years where there have been issues with decisions about fringe content/BLP being taken off-wiki rather than thrashed-out transparently here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Incredibly problematic. I will have a crack at cutting the promotional content when I can. – Teratix ₵ 10:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks better now. --mfb (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The vaccination section was removed on March 29 without discussion on the talk page. I've watched the clip cited as the source, and it does seem like it might be an edge case of endorsement of a fringe theory. If I had to guess, she might have just been playing devil's advocate to garner positive coverage for herself within the anti-vax community while simultaneously including enough equivocations to have deniability (please let me know if this type of conjecture is inappropriate to mention on a talk page). I'm not particularly familiar with the Australian media environment or the subject of the article. Doopwii123 (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I unwatched the page - but didn't this incident get mainstream national media coverage. If so, removing it would seem a bit ... problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I’ve replaced the section, removed with the comment “undue”. Probably ignorance on her part though, but that applies to any antivaxxer.Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, she's not an antivaxer. She was asked to play devil's advocate when she appeared on the show - specifically, she was asked to explain why certain people did not vaccinate their children, shortly before going on. She did some quick research, read some antivax literature, and gave a couple of sentences about what their stance was. Since then she's come out and stated why she fully supports vaccination, but this remains here suggesting that she doesn't. Making one statement on a talk show when you were specifically asked to present the antivax view rather than your own shouldn't result in you being targeted as an antivaxxer for life. We have a tendency to focus on minor comments if there's any brief outrage about them, but we really should sometimes step back and acknowledge that it was a non-issue.

Had she used her platform to continue to make antivax statements the issue would be different, but all she has said since then has been entirely pro-vax. By giving weight to this we continue to give antivax positions oxygen. - Bilby (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Acupuncture again (bangs head against wall...)

[74] :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Obviously people selling homeopathy have no financial relationship to homeopathy and so on... --mfb (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote: "it's not possible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acupuncture"[75]

OK, who wants to take this one to WP:AE per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Standard discretionary sanctions? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

See my talk page for related discussion Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Acupuncture: not sure what to do here --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Fringe at Attack on Pearl Harbor and Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory

POV and unsourced, although the editor vehemently disagrees.[76] Doug Weller talk 14:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I add my support to Doug Weller's actions. Fringe and unsourced theories have no place in Wikipedia. David J Johnson (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Graham Hancock's new book America Before may impact our articles

Jason Colavito has a column Graham Hancock to Archaeologists: "You Guys Are the Pseudoscientists".

Jason says "With the publication of America Before this week, Graham Hancock has launched a major publicity push, larger than the one accompanying Magicians of the Gods four years ago and rivaling his media ubiquity in the late 1990s. According to his U.S. publisher, St. Martin’s, the American part of his marketing campaign will include an initial print run of 125,000 copies, a fourteen-city national book tour, a national media tour, a marketing campaign aimed at scholars and college instructors (!), a featured-title selection at TheHistoryReader.com, and “extensive history blog outreach.” They even offer mail-in prizes, giving early buyers an enamel lapel pin of the book’s logo." See also this. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There are two other Jason Colavito blog posts associated with the above post that you mentioned. They are In "America Before," Graham Hancock Attacks Archaeology 4/2/2019 and A Blast from the Past: "America Before" vs. "Atlantis: The Antediluvian World" 4/4/2019. Both are also worth reading along with the comments of all three. Paul H. (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that Graham Hancock. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Now this is new to me! Seems like another instance of a once-brilliant academic arguing against now-unpopular theories that were prevalent the last time they took classes in college. Doopwii123 (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

"once brilliant"? Please. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right -- one of my professors incidentally told me today what a "First Class" degree means across the pond. Not what I thought! Doopwii123 (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Doopwii123: Graham Hancock was a journalist. But I know what you mean. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature therapy

For info. I wanted to publicise this AfD debate in a neutral manner to get independent eyes on the discussion, but then I thought bugger that, and came here. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The Republican Party's rejection of climate change

There's a discussion about the Republican Party and whether it rejects the scientific consensus on climate change on Republican Party (United States). Editors are disputing that the Republican party and numerous GOP party members reject climate change (even though RS extensively document that this is the case and these RS are cited in the article) by citing the lack of any mention of climate change in the GOP official platform and by citing how Republican Senators voted for a statement recognizing that climate change is real (but also overwhelmingly rejecting a statement that humans significantly contribute to climate change).[77] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Is "we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible" consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There are levels of disagreement, all of which are labled "climate change denial" by the other side.

In order of strongest scientific evidence/craziest opposition to weakest scientific evidene/ most reasonable opposition:

• We are able to measure global CO2 levels, and there is no conspiracy to lie about them.
• We are able to measure global temperature, and there is no conspiracy to lie about them.
• Global atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from starting time X to the present.
• Global temperatures have risen from starting time X to the present.
• Human activity has caused CO2 levels to rise.
• Rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures are correlated.
• Rising CO2 levels cause at least part of the rising temperatures.
• Rising CO2 levels cause most of the rising temperatures.
• Rising CO2 levels cause almost all of the rising temperatures.
• Rising temperatures have some bad effects
• Rising temperatures have almost all bad effects and almost no good effects.
• The only way to reduce temperatures is to reduce CO2 emissions. No possible geoengineering approach will ever work.
• It cannot possibly be true that we have gone too far to reduce global warming.
• Humans can not adapt to climate change.
• No free market solution to global warming is possible. The only possible solution is to increase the size and power of the federal government.
• Reducing US CO2 emissions while allowing China to increase CO2 emissions will reduce global temperatures.
• Reducing California CO2 emissions while allowing the rest of the US to increase CO2 emissions will reduce global temperatures.
• Reducing San Francisco CO2 emissions while allowing the rest of the California to increase CO2 emissions will reduce global temperatures.
• It is absolutely true that many republicans are anti-science because they deny climate change. It cannot possibly be true that many democrats are anti-science because they are antivax or anti-GMO.

There are some Republicans who disagree with the things at the very top of the above list. but most do not. Most republicans (and some democrats) disagree with the things on the very bottom of the list. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If many Democrats are against vaccinations or GMO against scientific evidence and make that part of their politics it should be mentioned in their article. Many of your bullet points are not binary things, which can make it difficult to judge. Take "Humans can not adapt to climate change." for example. We are certainly not unable to adapt to any change. But how much can we adapt, and to changes how large? Anyway, just 3% of Republicans in Congress (2014) accepting rising temperatures from human activities means 97% are in denial of very well-established science, no need to go to later bullet points. That is a very high fraction, and it is important to discuss this. --mfb (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is the text that is under dispute:

The Republican Party is unique in denying anthropogenic climate change among conservative political parties across the Western world.

There has also been a dispute about whether a similar sentence should be included in the lede.

Also, please note that the article, in its current form, already contains a five-paragraph section that discusses the GOP position on climate change and other environmental issues in some depth (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#Environmental_policies).

Finally, I do not see anything in the article that compares the GOP's position on ANY issue to the positions taken by conservative parties elsewhere in the world. SunCrow (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That the GOP position on climate change is out of sync with all mainstream parties, including conservative parties, in the Western world is a notable fact - a fact covered extensively by reliable sources. If there are other policies that make GOP conservatism unique and RS cover those policies, then we can certainly add that as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Are we talking about the Republican party here in USA? Because, if so, Guy Macon's description of what they believe does not match what you can often see them saying on TV with their own mouth. ApLundell (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that the loudest Republicans are also the stupidest, the most corrupt, and those who have the craziest worldviews? From what all the big-name Republicans say, one definitely gets the impression that most Republican politicians are anti-science, especially anti-climate science. Also conspiracy-theory-touting, theocratic, pro-billionaire Bond-villain-like weirdos. But does the Party as a whole agree with the loudmouths? Does it still have a sane wing? Is it actually bigger than the loony one? That would be nice. But if that is the case, why don't they do something about it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, this is an encyclopedia, not a political blog. Take a breath. SunCrow (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

What is "the party has a whole" even? Do all its members agree on anything? The Republicans with the most influence are overwhelmingly denying reality. Here is another list. This is something I have never seen in that amount from other democratic parties anywhere in the world (but my personal impression is not a reliable source of course). --mfb (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

To get a sense of the views of any American political party “as a whole” we can look at documents called “party platforms”. These are formal statements created during party conventions outlining what the party (as a whole) stands for. Individual party members may disagree with specific “planks” of the platform, but they will agree with most of it. The current Republican Party platform does NOT deny the reality of climate change.

That said... I think it would be helpful to separate climate science from climate politics. The fact that that climate changes is science. The various theories as to how and why it is currently changing is science. But... the question of what we should do about climate change... that is climate politics. People can agree on the science, and yet disagree on the politics. Let’s not conflate the two. Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Platforms do not necessarily reflect what a party stands, just as campaign brochures for individual candidates do not necessarily reflect all that a candidate stands for. There are strong incentives to omit controversial items or to phrase controversial policies in vague ways. For example, the GOP platform calls for cutting taxes, yet the GOP in its tax plan raised taxes for some Americans. This is why we rely on reliable secondary sources about what parties and individual candidates stand for. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

e/c Shouldn't the text under dispute say "anthropogenic global warming" rather that "anthropogenic climate change". -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe that they changed "global warming" to "climate change" back when they were warning about the coming ice age, and have largely gone back to "global warming" as the climate has warmed instead of cooling. IMO we should do the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

See Frank Luntz for the reason "they" changed the terminology. . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This right here is a myth. There was never a widespread scientific belief that human activity was causing an ice-age. A few scientists discussed this, and headlines ran with it, as they do, but it was nothing like the current understanding in global warming.[78] (However it's a useful myth for the denyers that like to portray scientists as not really knowing anything and constantly changing their mind.)

In any case, the alleged belief in a coming ice-age was supposed to have been in the 70s. Completely the wrong decade for the fad of calling "Global warming" "climate change".

ApLundell (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree; I don’t remember seeing “anthropogenic” anything from that era. IIRC the talk of a coming ice-age was mainly premised on the observation that the current interglacial period (assuming that’s what it is) has lasted longer than average, so might be expected to end soon. On the question of political parties, my (scarcely informed) impression is that the American Republicans are by no means unique. Canadian conservative leaders generally pay lip-service to the science while allowing (or tacitly encouraging) their members to dissent from it; their party platforms tend to ignore the question except that they generally oppose any political & economic measures intended to mitigate it, in similar fashion to the Republicans quoted below.—Odysseus1479 01:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

See global cooling for the origins of the media myth. . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There was a question above about what the loudest republicans believe vs what the party believes. The party as a whole decided on a platform before the last election. The only place it mentions climate change is here:

From the Republican Party Platform:

"The current Administration’s most recent National Security Strategy reflects the extreme elements in its liberal domestic coalition. It is a budget-constrained blueprint that, if fully implemented, will diminish the capabilities of our Armed Forces... the strategy subordinates our national security interests to environmental, energy, and international health issues, and elevates 'climate change' to the level of a 'severe threat' equivalent to foreign aggression. The word 'climate,' in fact, appears in the current President’s strategy more often than Al Qaeda, nuclear proliferation, radical Islam, or weapons of mass destruction."

Compare this with the Democratic Platform from the same year:

"Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time... Climate change poses an urgent and severe threat to our national security, and Democrats believe it would be a grave mistake for the United States to wait for another nation to take the lead in combating the global climate emergency. According to the military, climate change is a threat multiplier that is already contributing to new conflicts over resources, catastrophic natural disasters, and the degradation of vital ecosystems across the globe.

"Democrats recognize the catastrophic consequences facing our country, our planet, and civilization... We believe the United States must lead in forging a robust global solution to the climate crisis. We are committed to a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations to address this threat on a scale not seen since World War II... Our generation must lead the fight against climate change and we applaud President Obama’s leadership in forging the historic Paris climate change agreement. We will not only meet the goals we set in Paris, we will seek to exceed them and push other countries to do the same by slashing carbon pollution and rapidly driving down emissions of potent greenhouse gases like hydrofluorocarbons... The best science tells us that without ambitious, immediate action across our economy to cut carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases, all of these impacts will be far worse in the future. We cannot leave our children a planet that has been profoundly damaged."

So the actual republican party platform doesn't actually deny climate change, but does question whether it is as important as the Democrats say it is. I personally am pretty much with the democrats on this, with the exception of not believing climate change to be more important than nuclear proliferation. The Paris agreement? Not so much. None of the major industrialized nations implemented the policies they agreed on and none have met their pledged emission reduction targets. Which just might have something to do with the lack of any enforcement mechanism or penalty for failure. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I have read a lot of the sources and the debate among editors. It appears to me that the accurate portrayal of the Republican Party's position is that they agree that human activity is causing some of the current warming, but that there is doubt as to how much, that a few degrees more would not be a huge problem for humanity anyway, and that massive CO2 reduction would kill global prosperity, so that no drastic action is warranted. That some people want to call this position "denialism" is a testament to the current hysterical political climate about our planet's climate and how it changes. — JFG ^talk 08:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Fortunately, we have a rule that says that your opinion does not count, and that we have to report the far more reasonable views written in reliable sources.

When science comes to the conclusion that it will be a huge problem, denial of that conclusion by financially and ideologically interested uninformed/disinformed laymen is correctly called denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

See climate change denial for more on the topic. The Republican War on Science is a polemic with some credibility, considering the high position of James Inhofe and the present batch of fossil-fuel lobbyists in position of policy implementation, but there have been and are Republicans with mainstream scientific views: Sherwood Boehlert had a honourable part in the hockey stick controversy . . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Koot Hoomi

Some alleged "ascended master" theosophist whose existence as a real person is doubtful. IPs keep deleting the categories, and the writing in the article is a bit weird. Anybody know more? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Fringe theory of the week: Crude oil touted as health cure in Azerbaijan

"Immersed up to her neck in a dark viscous liquid, Sulfiya smiles in delight, confident that the fetid substance will cure her painful condition.

Sulfiya, a Russian woman in her 60s, has travelled to Azerbaijan's north-western city of Naftalan in the hope that crude oil baths at a local sanatorium will end her years of suffering from polyarthritis, a disease affecting the joints...."

Source: [79]

Well when you've got a hammer 199.247.44.10 (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Moore, Donald Trump, and Fringe Anti-Climate Science Industry Interests

There's an going attempt to get Patrick Moore (consultant) switched back to Patrick Moore (environmentalist) over here. Environmentalist was clearly widely rejected on the talk page. Keep also in mind that both Moore himself and his many Twitter followers have been plaguing this entry since Moore asked them to do so and especially since Trump tweeted a promotion of Moore's anti-climate science and pro-industry comments. A major proponent of fringe ecology pseudoscience, this guy is as much an environmentalist as an ExxonMobil CEO is, folks. Sometimes a duck is a duck, and this certainly needs more eyes from users watching this board. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see ongoing discussion over at this talk page thread. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga

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

A cult? A religion? Certainly a load of hooey within scope of this Project. There has been a ton of editing activity here recently and more eyes could help. Alexbrn (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The main issues:

• 1. A section in a previous version of the article made some bold medical claims, and I felt that this violated WP:MEDRS. I removed it, others added it back, and so forth. Currently it's not in the article.
• 2. Sourcing for the article relies heavily on primary sources, so it reads a bit like an ad for the group.
• 3. New religious movement is a neutral term, that is typically what we use. See Providence. I don't like calling things a "cult" in the opening, though we should cover the controversy over these new religious movements. Calling it a cult is using the factual neutral voice of Wikipedia and "cult" is a slippery term, hard to define, and often used as a pejorative.
• 4. The movement's founder and others have made bold claims about being able to treat a variety of diseases with Sahaja yoga. That is definitely a fringe claim. I'm not sure how to handle this however on Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree we probably don't want to WP:ASSERT this is a cult. However, having an article which doesn't even mention the cult controversy in the opening would seem to be a WP:NPOV violation, since this is one of the key aspects in independent sources. The founder said they were Christ and had superhuman powers ... which is why this topic is apt for discussion here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I myself know comparatively little about them. I just came across their article recently randomly. I'm learning as I go. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This has come up here before.[80] (Thought it seemed familiar). Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think removing[81] the mention cult allegations from the lede is a good idea. Ledes are supposed to summarize bodies so when we have an entire section on "Cult allegations" in the article the fact the lede doesn't mention them would seem not to be WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Cult allegation is in the lede, just not first sentence. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I've seen multiple editors try to remove the designation that it's a New Religious Movement. It's sourced, and a pretty neutral term, so I don't think it should be controversial to designate it as such. So far I've seen an IP and a SPA do this. I know we should assume good faith, but I do suspect this is an attempt to white-wash the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think we need more than just "It has sometimes been characterised as a cult" as the last sentence of the lead. That's not due summarisation of a fairly hefty section at the bottom of the article. Daß Wölf 00:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@@Daß Wölf:, there should probably be a short paragraph in the lede summarizing that section. Overall, the article is rather poor so expanding the lede is low on my priorities. It first needs to be trimmed of primary sources, and then built up using secondary ones.

One of the big problems is that the article has too few people watching it, so the page tends to be ran by proponents of the religion. I've noticed a few SPA and IPs outright trying to white-wash it and remove information on the page that's cited. We need more people to add the page to their watchlist. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The Exodus

The lead (and more) changed today,

Scholars are broadly agreed that the Exodus story was composed in the 5th century BCE.[5] The traditions behind it can be traced in the writings of the 8th-century BCE prophets,[6][7] but it has no historical basis.[8] Instead, archaeology suggests a native Canaanite origin for ancient Israel.[9]

became

The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel, and instead, archaeology suggests a native Canaanite origin for ancient Israel.[5][6] This, however, does not mean that the Exodus narrative lacks any historicity.[7] Scholars are broadly agreed that the Exodus story in its final form was composed by the 5th century BCE,[8] but the traditions behind it are older and can be found in the writings of the 8th century BCE prophets.[9][10] It is unclear how far beyond that the tradition might stretch.[11] Scholars posit that the Exodus narrative may have developed from collective memories of the Hyksos expulsions of Semitic Canaanites from Egypt, possibly elaborated on to encourage resistance to the 7th century domination of Judah by Egypt.[11][12][13]

If someone wants to look into that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)