Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Emil Kirkegaard

Emil Kirkegaard's article was recently created. There has been some controversy recently about him in a number of newspapers for his advocacy of child rape and Nazi views. On his personal twitter he seems to have posted a comment recently telling his friends to delete sources on his article. It be best if there were some eyes on the article. As this guy is currently in the news, it may be a magnet for edit-warring or meat-puppetry. Rebecca Bird (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(Emil) It is not correct that I told people to delete sources. My Tweet is here and the complete text is "Looks like Oliver (editing as Storyfellow) is trying to have his way on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, WP has strong protections against his shenanigans (BLP etc.). If you are an editor, please help clean up the article.". Deleet (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted two of StoryFellows edit's because I believe they should be discussed on the talk-page first, not without consensus. As for telling people you know to edit your article. This is not recommend, see WP:MEAT. It's possible an associate of yours [1] is now adding original research to the article. Rebecca Bird (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Making a public tweet telling people to clean up an article is not "telling people you know to edit your article". I don't know who Tickle me is. MEAT is not violated because I am not an editor in this conflict (have not edited my page), and because TM is not a single purpose user nor is it a new account (contribs). However, Storyfellow is a single purpose user (contribs). Deleet (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Telling your followers to clean up the article about you is generally regarded as a violation of WP:MEAT, in the sense of "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Everything I posted is well-sourced. Another source is the Telegraph, that notes Kirkegaard is a fellow of a white supremacist institute that receives grants by the Pioneer Fund as well as the fact Kirkegaard "justified child sexual abuse on his personal blog". So Neo-nazi/white supremacist & child-rape apologist are accurate descriptions.Storyfellow (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(Update) - The article has been submitted for deletion. Rebecca Bird (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many of the contributors here have been blocked for sockpuppetry, in particular User:Rebecca Bird and User:Storyfellow. The puppetmaster was User:Anglo Pyramidologist. User:Maunus (and me) know a little bit of the prehistory, which started in the Department of Linguistics in Aarhus. Interested editors can read the ongoing WP:AfD. Mathsci (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Dating the Bible

This is about [2], namely verifying the dating of the Bible to a book by Richard Carrier, who peddles the fringe Christ myth theory. We had a longer discussion about it at User talk:Tgeorgescu. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Other participant here,

The book in question: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus, is a peer-reviewed scholarly publication from respected academic press Sheffield Phoenix Press, which specializes in biblical literature. In short, it is not some crazy rant, it's part of the scholarly literature in the field. The presence of peer review and acceptance for publication by a scholarly press on its scholarly merits makes it reliable by definition. That should be the end of the discussion right there.

The material that it (and its citations of scholarly literature) were cited for is not original research by the author, but a scholarly survey of existing academic literature (as he specifically says on p260) with extensive citation of that literature.

The book is not being cited for material directly related to the Christ myth theory.

If there had been substantial omissions or misrepresentations on a basic factual question, the experts in the field who peer reviewed the book would have caught them and insisted they be corrected. That the cited data was published as it is suggests that the reviewers were comfortable with Carrier's use of the evidence and his portrayal of the state of knowledge.

Portraying Carrier as 'peddling' the Christ myth theory is perjorative and inaccurate. He has done a Bayesian analysis of the likelihood of historicity and mythicism based on the evidence as a scholar. The book does not advocate for any particular Christ myth theory. And it's trying to be as generous to historicity as it can be within the constraints of the evidence, by the author's explicit methodology, which includes the dates of the new testament books. So he's not 'peddling' or 'pushing' any such theory, he's analyzing the likelihood relative to historicity of that class of theories as a scholar. And at the end he's explicit - this isn't a firm conclusion, it's a call for better arguments and better methods and to have a scholarly discussion in the literature. That's not peddling anything.

Regardless, none of those arguments about the Christ myth theory are what is cited in this case. If Carrier was incapable of properly handling the scholarly literature, it never would have passed peer review and been published by a scholarly press.

By comparison, the citations on the page in question are a mess. Some of them are apologetic works. Many of the ones I checked (and could check) cite no sources when they give their dates for various books. Carrier's treatment of the subject is substantially better in terms of pure scholarship. So not only is the book reliable, but it's comparatively more reliable than the material that is already cited.

I should also note that I could just cite the scholars Carrier cites, but I have not personally read the works myself, and so I cite Carrier *and his sources*.

--2602:306:CFEA:E360:987C:301:C455:C8EE (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If you're interested in what I feel: I have sympathy for later dating of the books of the Bible, but it has to be done according to WP:PAGs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(Carrier) has done a Bayesian analysis of the likelihood of historicity and mythicism based on the evidence as a scholar. This attempt to use "Bayesian analysis" on the question of Jesus' existence met with widespread ridicule by academic scholars. Carrier does not hold a professorship or any academic post. Scathing review of Carrier's book by Christina Petterson of the University of Newcastle, Australia, in the academic journal Relegere- [3] - says his methodology is "tenuous", was "shocked" by the way he uses mathematics,and that he uses statistics in a way that seems designed "to intentionally confuse and obfuscate", statements in the book "reveal Carrier's ignorance of the field of New Testament studies and early Christianity", etc."Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception is a journal dedicated to the study of reception history, broadly conceived, in the fields of religion and biblical studies. Relegere is published online two times a year and is open-access. All articles undergo blind peer review".[4]. Carrier is 100% fringe, the "Christ myth" which he does indeed literally peddle, has zero academic credibility.Smeat75 (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In short, it is not some crazy rant, it's part of the scholarly literature in the field. You mean to say it's "...barely not some crazy rant." Carrier's views on the historicity of Jesus have moved him to the furthest fringes of scholarship, and he has a crap reputation, except with parts of the Atheist movement. And for the record: books like that are not subject to a peer-review process unless and until they are reprinted in a journal, which to my knowledge, this work has not. You keep claiming it's peer-reviewed, but his peers only reviewed it after it was published, and they did not have very good things to say about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The book was specifically and formally peer-reviewed. Among other places Carrier specifically mentions that, see here (https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9085). "... On the Historicity of Jesus, which was published by an academic press and did pass formal academic peer review." I mean, I suppose someone could query Sheffield Phoenix Press about the matter, but it seems like the kind of thing that would be hard to lie about publicly. --2602:306:CFEA:E360:987C:301:C455:C8EE (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this part: Portraying Carrier as 'peddling' the Christ myth theory is perjorative and inaccurate Congrats, IP: You've just eliminated any remaining vestige of credibility you once possessed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll excuse me if I'm commenting on the work itself. I don't know the man. I know what the book says. Attacking the man over a book which makes arguments is regardless a fallacy (generally known as ad hominem). --2602:306:CFEA:E360:987C:301:C455:C8EE (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I honestly think it's kinda fun when random people on the internet start talking about fallacies, because they usually get something wrong. So let me lay this out and you can tell me if you can spot the problem with it:

1. Richard Carrier's reputation is built entirely upon his work, including that book. Other historians and textual critics don't base their professional opinions of Carrier on his personality, looks, or that he has a bitchin' Camaro and knows how to be the best wing man.
2. Carrier's reputation is pbbbt.
3. Therefore, Carrier's work is of low quality and minimal value to this issue.

If you would like a more explicit explanation, then what I am saying is that the scholarly consensus is that Carrier's work is extraordinarily sub-par, and at times seems to be almost willfully dishonest in the pursuit of advancing a fringe theory that has no academic support, but which (coincidentally?) reinforces deeply held beliefs of Carrier's.

If you were referring to my response to the quote I pulled from your comment above, then you should follow the same general reasoning. Also, be aware that I'm not condemning you personally; only on the qualities of your argument. Your suggestion that Carrier doesn't peddle the CMT is factually inaccurate (Carrier is one of the most prominent peddlers of the CMT), and your suggestion that the claim is "perjorative[sic]" is also factually inaccurate (the CMT has virtually no scholarly support because the arguments in favor of it are anything but compelling, hence it requires "peddling" to the masses to survive). So much so, in either case, that it strongly suggests that you will be unable to participate in a discussion about this subject in a helpful manner, as those inaccuracies strongly suggest a very low level of familiarity with this subject.

Ad hominems are not always informal fallacies, either. They are often a form of statistical syllogism, as many arguments require a degree of credulity for the acceptance of their premises. A non-fallacious use of an ad hominem argument generally conveys the meaning "we cannot trust that your conclusions are sound because we cannot trust that your premises are accurate." In the case of Carrier; he's demonstrably ignored evidence that didn't support his conclusions, provided incorrect numbers, used methods that are inappropriate to the problems he was attempting to solve and failed to follow the historical method when doing so would undermine his points, while treating arguments and evidence that supported his view with much greater care and more professionalism.

Don't get me wrong: Carrier is very intelligent, very knowledgeable and generally qualified to make uncontroversial statements about (his area of) history, academia and Atheism. For example, he is one of the most notable secondary sources for the thoughts and feelings of Anthony Flew, surrounding his re-embracing of religion. But when it comes to the historicity of Jesus and closely related subjects (which were not at all a focus of Carrier's until much later in his career, and never the primary focus of his training), he is on a level similar to entirely unqualified authors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

First, the relevant bit - I'm not trying to cite his book regarding the historicity of Christ (or the contrary). I'm citing his summary of the scholarly literature on the dating of the new testament, which includes ample citations of other experts in the field. Can we both agree that peer review would have caught obvious errors in his text here? Or that citing the authors he cites would also be valid, and since that dictates his specific conclusions in this case, then citing him is no different than citing his sources, because he's only doing a review of the scholarly literature on this point? I mean, you concede he's a qualified historian, that means he knows how to review and summarize scholarly literature, right? (Nothing I cite him for is original research, as, among other reasons, that would violate the need to use secondary sources. But a summary of the state of scholarly literature is clearly secondary). Nor should any of this be controversial *to an academic biblical historian*.

Second, ad hominem is always a fallacy when deployed against someone making argument. It is only not a fallacy when deployed against testimony. (If you need a citation, I can offer without looking something up: Bruce Waller. 1988. Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict.)

Third, as to peddling, I think you actually need to read the book. He claims he has not conclusively proved mythicism is true (preface p.xi). And that aligns with the result: his conclusion a fortiori on historicity is not certain enough to say it is conclusive, merely that the balance of probability is against historicity. The book, as argued, is that mythicism deserves more scholarly attention, to lay out a proper methodology for answering the question, and to survey the evidence that does exist and make an attempt at following the method. The end is quite open to being wrong, and new evidence or arguments reaching a different conclusion within the methodology. That's hardly peddling. (I say it's pejorative because you're using it as such, and to imply he's shilling it as god's honest truth, irony intended, when the book at least is not).

I'd love to hear your claims about evidence ignored and so forth, but this is hardly the right place for that.

--2602:306:CFEA:E360:987C:301:C455:C8EE (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"He is not reputable enough" may be an ad hominem upon your turf, but it is how we do things around here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This whole discussion is frankly bizarre. "Fringe" applies to *ideas* not *people*, and I'm not citing Carrier for any fringe belief (like Mythicism). Consider one of the elements I cite him for: "Consensus is that Luke and Acts are written by the same author..." That's not a fringe belief at all - it's completely mainstream in NT studies. (Not unquestioned, but definitely the consensus). This whole conversation is going off the rails - it shouldn't be about whether Carrier holds any fringe beliefs, it should be about whether what he's being cited for is fringe or not, and whether the *book* (not the person) can be considered reliable for accurately summarizing the scholarship in that particular area. (Which, given the book is peer reviewed, and the material it's being cited for is purely scholarly review of the relevant facts, not original research by the author, shouldn't have any problems in being found reliable *on this limited question*). I agree, if I was trying to cite Carrier's arguments for mythicism (in a section not devoted to that), then it would qualify as fringe. But I'm not trying to do that. --2602:306:CFEA:E360:987C:301:C455:C8EE (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The assertion is credible, but source/author aren't. Here we do arguments from authority big time. If we remove the appeal to authority, Wikipedia will crumble like a house of cards. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't matter of Carrier gives good info in part of his book; the book advances a fringe theory, is discredited by the scholarly community and thus cannot be trusted. If we can verify that the info is good, then we can use whatever resource we used to verify it as a source; instead. Carrier is not an RS for any claims related to Jesus or biblical history, except where his opinion is WP:DUE and it is written explicitly as being Carrier's opinion. As for the dating of the NT; Carrier's been criticized about that by reputable scholars, as summarized in Did Jesus Exist?. So you're trying to cite a fringe work, by a fringe author, for a claim that's been subject to mainstream criticism. Even if you wanted to use it to cite a consensus that Carrier is disagreeing with (eg, he presents the consensus then explains why he thinks it's wrong), you can find much better sources for that consensus, and there will always remain significant doubt about the accuracy of Carrier's claim. Any time Carrier claims "this is the consensus" he should be viewed with suspicion, even if that level of suspicion is much less than we would use for someone with no credentials. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure how Ehrman's book criticize's Carrier's book on dating, when it predates it by 2 years, unless you're proposing Ehrman foretold the contents of the book by prophecy. To the best of my knowledge, On the Historicity of Jesus has never had its dating criticized, and the one academically published review which even mentions that part finds nothing wrong with it, merely finds the need to review the literature on dating tiresome. (That would be the Petterson review: "The following chapters, "Primary Sources" (7) and "Extrabiblical Evidence" (8) reiterate with tiresome pomposity debates over dating and authorship of the New Testament texts and extrabiblical evidence." - which is all she says on the matter, finding nothing factually wrong, and just bored with the need to do it). The only other two academic reviews/responses I'm aware of are Lataster (which doesn't mention the section and is otherwise favorable), and the recent Gullota paper (which I just found out about by googling, and doesn't seem to make an issue of dating at all). So as best as I can determine, the dating section has received no academic responses at all. --2602:306:CFEA:E360:987C:301:C455:C8EE (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure how Ehrman's book criticize's Carrier's book on dating, when it predates it by 2 years Carrier has been talking and writing about dating since well before he wrote that book. Again; if you're not well-versed in the issue, you're not going to get any traction here.

We've already explained the rest to you. Whether or not you accept it is up to you, but the only two editors interested enough to comment on it are clearly set strongly against you, and you are unlikely to make a case that an author widely perceived as an unreliable source for claims about the bible is acceptable in this particular case with the wider community. I suggest you move on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Bible encyclopedias and dictionaries of some sort seem to me to come out on an almost annual basis, and many or most of them will at least acknowledge the prevailing academic consensus on the dating of various Bible books. If the book is old enough to be potentially mentioned in one or more of them, it shouldn't be too hard to find them and see what if anything about this book or idea they say. If it isn't that old, there should still be reviews of it in various biblical academic journals. And if it isn't old enough to even be reviewed in the journals yet, we can wait to determine what to do with it until it is. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been reviewed. The reviews coming from mythicist Atheists are glowing, while the reviews coming from historians and NT scholars are entirely negative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on that information it would seem that the work is probably too fringey for more than a passing mention if that in the main articles on the Bible, given the negative reception by the most directly relevant academic group, but at the same time significant enough within the atheist community to possibly merit discussion in an article on atheistic or agnostic views of the Bible, particularly the Christian Bible. Christ myth theory isn't quite the best target article for such content, but if it is notable enough as a topic for a separate stand-alone article on agnosticism/atheism and the Bible, particularly the new atheism and the Bible, it could very reasonably be discussed there along with the opinions of other agnostics or atheists, like Bart Ehrman, on the topic. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Palmer (psychologist)

This AfD of a parapsychologist may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interconnectedness. The pages interconnectivity and interdependence look pretty bad too. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, the "interconnectedness" page is now dead. Anyone feel like trying to find something salvageable in the other two? XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Input welcome

Please see Talk:David_Wolfe_(entrepreneur)#Scienceblogs Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

History of Ukraine in the 5th century

A user repeatedly added a paragraph describing the history of Ukraine in the 5th century. I reverted this couple of times as original research, and then they returned with a reference [5] (this is Mykhailo Hrushevsky. Could someone please have a look whether the edit is ok? I doubt very much Hrushevsky could know anything about the area before the 9th century, as there are no sources available, but may be we need to write "In Hrushevsky's opinion" or smth like this? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You should have asked for a citation before deciding it was original research. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 23:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I did ask for a citation, and this is in the end of the day why they produced one. It is just the book is of the 19th century.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

So, now you know that the material was not Original Reseach. The material may be based on an outdated (or even fringe) source... but it came FROM a source and so isn’t ORIGINAL research. The next question you need to look into is “what do modern scholars say?” Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not the NOR noticeboard, this is the fringe theories noticeboard. But I got the message. There will be no help coming from here. Thank you for your time.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Your original post framed this as being an OR issue... so that’s what we responded to. Suggest you start over, focusing purely on what you think are the fringe issues. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Just forget it. Someone sometime will find the article and clean it up.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Buell

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Buell

I think more people from this board might be able to help with this difficult to decide situation. Although I !voted delete, I can see the other side, but remain unconvinced.

jps (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Paranormal State, Buell's TV show, was pretty messy. I removed a large criticism section that was sourced to a psychic's blog. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theory of the month - Noah called his son on his cellphone

And of course the Ark had a nuclear reactor, but you knew that, right?[6] Doug Weller talk 19:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've had enough Tide laundry pods to understand this. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It gets better: "He claims that the birds Noah released were not actually birds but unmanned aerial vehicles." Dimadick (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• ...And he's got the selfies to prove it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. And this is the same species that produced Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Any indication who his service provider was?John Carter (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ark Telecom. ‑ Iridescent 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Everyone has a cellphone, no? the birds are used for intel in the story (finding resurfaced land), and there are a whole raft of issues with the original ark story [7], that adding a nuclear reactor might just make things more plausible. Or not.Icewhiz (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

somewhat related^[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 11:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theory of next month: The Storm

Totally different subject but equally insane: a new bonkers conspiracy theory called "The Storm" [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] making the rounds of the kookosphere. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"Alex Jones’ Infowars is now fully endorsing it..." Well, OK then. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, a person could build their philosophy on truth around Infowars. If Infowars endorses is, it's untrue, and if Infowars rails against it, it's true. It would be fairly hard to go wrong, that way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I´m looking forward to read The Storm (conspiracy theory) and the afd's. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The great thing about it (from a CS connoisseur standpoint) is that it states they're just about to make arrests. So it can keep going forever, with the fans of the theory saying "Yeah, but they keep finding more and more evidence, so they're not making their move yet". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget that the leader/revealer (called "Quanon", or "Qanon", or simply "Q") is supposedly a high official who must remain anonymous; which can give rise to infinite storylines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cost-effective. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I should have known that Q would be behind it all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

TIL by falling down this rabbit hole that Roseanne Barr is out on that limb: [13]. Her new reboot show might be interesting to watch if you're into that sorta "O how the lefty have fallen" sorta thing. jps (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"But Trump is on to all of this and he’s going to break up the pedophile ring, arrest ... wealthy members of the Illuminati"

The Illuminati went defunct in 1785. Is Trump going to exhume 18th-century human remains and arrest them? Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Reactive multi-layer foil (NanoFoil)

The Wikipedia published an article about Reactive multi-layer foil - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_multi-layer_foil On the website of the company Indium Corporation, Dr. Andy Mackie reports about very simple extremely exothermic (heat-generating) stoichiometrically reaction

Al+2Ni -> AlNi2 http://www.indium.com/blog/nanofoilr-nanotech-comes-to-indium-corporation.php This is either a mistake or fake. Or is it real-the discovery of a new compound of Nickel with aluminium? It's necessary to supplement the chemistry textbooks and encyclopedias. Wikipedia about Nickel aluminide - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_aluminide Publications about NanoFoil® technology initiated funding similar receach worldwide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.70.9 (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2018‎ (UTC)

NO idea, what do RS say.?Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Fringe at Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

I just noticed a bit about someone named Brian Stubbs (although not in the text) being enhanced to include his all but dissertation work. The text is "One Mormon linguist, a specialist in the Native American Uto-Aztecan language family and graduate level studies in Near East language, has recently published works on similarities between Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic languages (specifically Egyptian and Semitic languages). "

I have a couple of problems with this. He's got one journal article, something by "Grover Publications Provo Utah" for which I can find no details although a few other books list it, and the latest one isn't published but simply printed by a printing company. Details on the article talk page. This is all in-universe and I can't find any mainstream sources commenting on this major claim that there is serious linguistic link between Uto-Aztecan languages and Egyptian/Semitic languages. Isn't this WP:UNDUE? I haven't had the stomach yet to look at the rest of the article. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Since migration to the continent likely first occurred in pre-agriculture times (~20k years ago) and that what we know of those semitic languages and abjads goes back to only ~4000-1000 BCE, this appears very unlikely; what I wonder is if some notable criticism of Stubbs exists on the subject. If not, it couldn't be mentioned at all in relevant articles, except perhaps in the context of Mormonism itself with attribution (if notable enough). And as we know everything relating to the Book of Mormon is fringe except to Mormonism. Likely undue as you suspect. —PaleoNeonate – 22:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There have been previous attempts to connect language families of the Old and New World. For example the Nostratic languages hypothesis groups together the Afroasiatic languages with almost every language family in the Northern Hemisphere. The Borean languages hypothesis is even wider. Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is pretty classic Mormon pseudoscience. Establishing a link between the Levant and the Americas during the first millennium B.C.E. is their version of ID. I can tell you right now it's bunk based on sheer probabilities (Mormon author pushing a highly improbable claim that supports Mormon doctrine), but I'd have to read more about it to know exactly how it's bunk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I checked all the sources by Stubbs, and none of them reaches RS. The paper hosted on BYU comes the closest, but since it wasn't published in any peer-reviewed journal of linguistics or history, it can't be given any academic credence. The other two sources from Stubbs were both published by outfits too small to even have their own website, as far as I can see. That means no reputation for fact-checking, etc... The last sentence saying that some linguists have rejected all such claimed links was okay as far as sourcing, but a WP:OR, as the source only says that the author doesn't accept the claimed links. So I removed the entire paragraph and watchlisted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

My favorite scientific paper abstract

Do Large (Magnitude ≥8) Global Earthquakes Occur on Preferred Days of the Calendar Year or Lunar Cycle? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Here's one that has the opposite conclusion, which I came across a couple years ago and saved the link: http://bssa.geoscienceworld.org/content/64/5/1363

GeoSienceWorld seems to like brevity in their published abstracts. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Another proof that watchlisting this noticeboard was a good thing. Such things make for great entertainment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• I startled my coworkers with my laugh at that. I was expecting the usual 3-5 paragraphs with a joke embedded in there, somewhere. Oh, and those two actually come to a very similar conclusion, Anachronist. To say they're Poissonian is to say that each such earthquake (with aftershocks removed) happens independently of the previous earthquake. It's saying essentially that "there's no pattern", though there are further depths than that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Depths. I see what you did there. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

being a thoroughly grounded individual (a real salt of the earth type, if you will), I'm sure I have [14] idea of what you mean. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sensory integration therapy

AfD going on here. Personally I object to the relevant articles being deleted, but they need seriously cleansed of woo and possibly merged. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 13:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Jeff Lindsay (engineer), another fringe Mormon author

There was a brief discussion at RSN about him a while ago.[15] Use of him seems to have crept back in, or perhaps was never entirely removed. Genetics and the Book of Mormon, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Scot and Maurine Proctor, Endowment (Mormonism), Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, Mormonism and Freemasonry, Danite and Polytheism show up with a Wikipedia search, and an external links search[16] turns up others. I note that his article claims he has published in a peer reviewed journal, The Interpreter. But that states "Reviewers are generally of the LDS faith, but are not required to be. It is required that the reviewer not be hostile to LDS truth claims and that they are supportive of the Interpreter Foundation’s mission statement. Quite honestly, most reviewers are LDS simply because the majority of non-LDS scholars don’t have the source-level expertise required to provide a peer review of LDS-oriented scholarship."[17] so I'm removing it from his article. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it

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.

---

Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it – That's the title of an article in The Guardian today.[18] It starts with "University College London has been unwittingly hosting an annual conference attended by race scientists and eugenicists for the past few years. This might have come as a shock to many people. But it is only the latest instalment in the rise of “scientific” racism within academia." It discusses "Race realism", Mankind Quarterly, Richard Lynn, etc. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And you are notifying us because... ?? Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Likely because it's of interest to a number of editors watching this page, and because it's news which involves both science and activism, it's something we may soon have to deal with at articles we watch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

As perception of scientific discourse shifts from FRINGE to non-FRINGE (or vice-versa) we should update Wikipedia to reflect consensus.12:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Let’s remember the purpose of this noticeboard... which is to discuss WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES that delve into fringe material. It isn’t a forum for discussing fringe theories in general, or for warning people about the latest fringe theory that is out there. So... is there a specific WP article where this is actually an issue? Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It can be useful for having this knowledge though as it can help deal with fringe material. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

How?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Telling us what to keep an eye out for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

MEH... There is more than enough fringe stuff CURRENTLY in our articles to keep us busy. We don’t need to discuss what MIGHT... someday... maybe... perhaps... become an issue. There are other venues for doing that. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Any more then we already know this? None of this is new, a;; that is new is another source that might be added to pages we are already watching. I see no need for this notice at this time, and in fact makes us (I think) look just a bit too POV pushy for my liking "DANGER!, DANGER WILL ROBINSON POV I DO NOT AGREE WITH", this looks all just a bit too panicky and (frankly) a tad too close to canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If racism does "creep back into mainstream science", then our duty will be to adjust scientific articles to reflect the new mainstream, won't it? Regardless of whether it's wrong or evil or anything else, Wikipedia is supposed to show the significant viewpoints among experts in a field. So if major scientific journals start publishing more articles about the differences between races or the superiority of some races over others, then we'll be forced to give those viewpoints more weight — at some point they'll no longer be fringe theories and will just be theories. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The article says that these views still have no substantial support (the views sound also fairly speculative, anyway), so at this time no POV adjustment is necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've read the article, and yes I agree no changes are necessary now, and hopefully never will be. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a tiny little grain of truth to some of this fringe group (the connection between intelligence and genetics), but there's no scientific support for race as a biologically meaningful term, for intelligence as a single variable, for the assumption that intelligence can be used to order individuals in a linear fashion, for the significance of differences in metrics associated with intelligence between ethnic groups, for any link between intelligence and visible traits associated with race, etc, etc, etc. So it's really not surprising, the picture this article portrays. The central point that many of these academics openly support isn't all that controversial, so they find themselves publishing works around that central point. It's only when they try to group it into a coherent theory that there's a correlation between race and intelligence (which a shocking number of them are wont to do, given the chance) that they descend into lip-flapping stupidity.

The trend described in this article (I don't know that I agree that it is a trend, to be honest) is not one that, I believe, will require a change in focus with respect to what is considered fringe. It may, however, require us to keep a keen eye out for agenda-driven editing as a result of this (possibly nonexistent) trend. At the very least, it's distinctly likely that some white supremacist will cite this article to support the claim that such fringe researchers are actually mainstream scientists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Plus an article in The Guardian today is somewhat misleading. The page in question is an opinion piece by Angela Saini in "Comment Is Free" (the user-generated-content section of the Grauniad), not an actual article by a Guardian employee. That's not to say it's necessarily wrong, but it needs to be borne in mind that Saini currently has a book to promote called What Are You? The Mad Science of Race – and Its Fatal Return and consequently an obvious vested interest in making "racism is on the rise in the sciences!!!" sound like a big deal. ‑ Iridescent 15:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that editors wanting to help in this area could usefully add Race and intelligence to their watchlist as a start. Alexbrn (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion seems out of place and improper. It seems preachy. It smacks of "we know better than others". Duh. I thought we were not here to right great wrongs. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In what way, exactly, do you find this discussion "preachy"? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The original opinion piece linked above is somewhat preachy (mostly the title) but what it's actually about is fringe views getting somewhat more exposure lately. I imagine that the idea of bringing it here was not to rally the troops for a grand crusade, but to make editors aware of an issue that might emerge on articles related to this particular fringe theory. So the goal isn't to right great wrongs, but to make sure that fringe theories aren't given undue weight. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

IF and when these fringe theories are actually GIVEN undue weight on WP, they certainly can (and should) be raised here... but, at the moment, no. It’s premature to spend any time on them. Alerting us to their existence, when they are not being given undue weight in WP does come across as being “preachy”. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The impropriety is that this is anticipatory. We should be allowing the pieces to fall where they may. We should not be approaching potential questions with preconceptions as to what assertions we should wish to be making. To do so would be to risk the skewing of our future content. We have to keep an open mind and report what sources say with mindfulness of countervailing views to impart balance of weight to differing views. In this discussion I detect a preaching for an outcome that fails to take into consideration the facts on the ground at some future point in time. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In what way are you concerned this will "skew" content? Geogene (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is that pseudoscientists can be found in surprising places, including legitimate scientific conferences [19], and they can have real academic qualifications [20]. This is obviously hazardous for Wikipedia's "verifiability not truth" model of epistemology. It requires a level of vigilance, and sometimes even competence, that I doubt many editors are capable of. But awareness is a useful first step. Geogene (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is still anticipatory. I think you are positing that our future editors will not be able to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

True. But many of our current editors are unable to do that, so I think it's a valid concern. Geogene (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And this is the Fringe theory, not the reliable sources notice board.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and we're discussing Pseudoscience here, thank you. Geogene (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any sources under discussion. I do see a fringe theory under discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought I saw two users talking about being unable to distinguish between RS and not RS, my mistake.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

People who hold fringe views are often unable to do so. You're missing the forest for the trees. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: you're right that it's an opinion piece and I apologise for using the word "article", which I was using loosely. @Slatersteven: I'm not asking anyone to do something, so I don't see this as canvassing. It's a bit of a surprise that posting something relevant to fringe theories on which we have articles has caused such a fuss. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller—in an edit summary you note "maybe using the title of the article as the section heading caused problems".[21] I think it was not the best choice in section heading. Even if it were simply reduced to "Racism is creeping back into mainstream science" instead of the present "Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it", I think that would represent an improvement. Bus stop (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It never occurred to me that people would see it was a title, I stated clearly that it was, or that people would get upset by the title. Doug Weller talk 06:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic. Mathsci (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::I updated the section title, and moved the quote of the external article's title to the body of the section – didn't seem too difficult. @Doug Weller: please get your priorities right on what "simply isn’t important enough": I followed this yesterday and can only conclude that you're in no position to lecture others on what is important and what isn't, like you did on my talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Warning - Fringe theories exist!!!

An example of someone citing an essay in a situation where it doesn't really apply

There are fringe theories that relate to the topic area you care about. Someone may try to give them undue weight. Place any articles in the topic area on your watchlist.

There... now everyone is alerted to the potential danger, and they know the appropriate action to take. Perhaps we can now move on and discuss specific cases where fringe material is actually being added to articles? Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

For the life of me, I can't figure out why a couple of you are getting hysterically upset about this. This is an article alleging that a particular fringe theory is getting more attention. That's all. It's a friendly heads up. Why some folks here are getting bent out of shape over that is really mystifying. If you didn't care, you didn't have to read the section. It's really that simple. Stop engaging shit that bothers you, and you'll find it's much less bothersome. All you've accomplished thus far is diminishing my (and likely quite a few others') opinion of you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

whereas, I can’t figure out why you are getting all worked up about a fringe theory that might... but then again might NOT... show up in an article. It comes across as a shout that “the sky is falling”, when nothing of the sort is actually occurring. But I have said my 2 cents worth and will drop the stick. Have fun righting great wrongs. Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion we are best served by holding in abeyance convictions about the possible distinctions between people based groupings—whether that be by race or any other criteria. I have an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to what seems to be a cautionary stance to something that has not yet come to fruition. As an encyclopedia we should first wait for a situation to arise and then to evaluate it. We should not put the cart before the horse. We should not be saying "What if someone tries to use a source to support an assertion that we deem "racist"? In my opinion we should cross that bridge when we come to it, rather than now, in anticipation of particulars that we cannot now know. Bus stop (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion we are best served by holding in abeyance convictions about the possible distinctions between people based groupings—whether that be by race or any other criteria. Your opinion is noted and promptly discarded in favor of the scientific consensus. I never thought I'd see an established editor actively defending racism on this noticeboard, but they do say there's a first time for everything.

Regardless, I think I'm done trying to explain the concept and utility of meta discussions to editors who'd rather fly off the handle than stay out of a discussion they don't like. So ya'll have a nice time with your sulking and complaints about people using the Fringe Theories Noticeboard as a Noticeboard to discuss aspects of Fringe Theories as they may affect this project. I'll be sure to keep tabs of how many times a discussion gets disrupted by you folks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I am actively defending racism? That's news to me. No, I am advocating for open-mindedness. You are characterizing as hysteria an opinion that you apparently don't hold. You said "For the life of me, I can't figure out why a couple of you are getting hysterically upset about this." Let us put this into perspective. It is more correct to see your reaction as "hysterical". We have to be tolerant of disagreement. Doug Weller called our attention to an article external to Wikipedia. A discussion ensued. Who is trying to suppress discussion? Not me. Am I permitted to point out what I see as improper about some stances taken in the early parts of that discussion? Am I exhibiting hysteria? Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The comment "I never thought I'd see an established editor actively defending racism on this noticeboard, but they do say there's a first time for everything" was way out of line. I suggest that am apology is in order. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, that was me that said that line, and no apology will be forthcoming. The statement I said it in response to was a statement that we should refrain from passing judgement on discredited and racist theories. It's a defense of racism. Now I'm not suggesting that Bus Stop is themselves racist, rather I think they're getting caught up in the argument without due consideration of the implication of their positions. This is borne out by the response, calling for "open mindedness" regarding said discredited and racist theories followed by an immediate change of subject.

Though I would like to alter one small part of my statement about hysterical reactions. In an attempt to avoid being over accusative, I spoke in the plural, when in fact, the only hysterical reaction was the edit that created this subheading. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You are failing to distinguish between the future and the present. At present no legitimate science supports intellectual superiority of one group of people over another group of people. Even myself as a non-scientist supports that view. But am I prepared to take a stance now on the science of the future? Of course not. I will evaluate that source when it becomes available to me and not before. I am not in the habit of evaluating something imaginary. No apology is called for. Disagreement is normal. Bus stop (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Can't tell now from then sounds worse than can't tell science from fringe. The problem is that by definition there are no RS promoting fringe theories. So editors who come here to promote those views have no way to do it other than to violate our policies. Add the problems that some of these editors are highly motivated ideologues, some of them are ignorant of what the mainstream does say, and the result is they rely on bad sources - unvetted, primary, self-published, etc. These are serious structural problems that require constant attention to policy and guidelines. And highly motivated, often single-purpose, editors are not into that kind of thing. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm afraid you've been reading far too much into the things I said. For future reference, be sure to read only what I wrote. The only thing you'll find between the lines of my comments is white space. I never said, nor even implied anything about the future of science. Of course, I presumed you were reading only what I wrote, when you wrote your defense of the possible truth of scientific racism. I suppose it's somewhat more defensible as an abstract "we can't know what the future brings" sort of thing than as a defense of the current pseudoscientific claims making up scientific racism, but not much. You see, there's an actual reason for the current scientific consensus that there's no biologically meaningful distinction between the races, and no meaningful link between "race" and intelligence. That reason being summed up as "a reexamination of the evidence produced during the period when scientific racism was in vogue along with new evidence produced in the decades after that period." So while you may be perfectly willing to suggest that we have no idea what the future of science might be, I feel just about as comfortable predicting that it won't include "race is a real thing and some races are better than others!" as I do predicting that it won't include "Magic is real, lets found Hogwarts!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed we have an article on the author, Angela Saini. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Doug Weller that this is a relevant and important discussion to have, especially where personalities like Richard Lynn are concerned. I have seen Richard Lynn cited in articles, and it has concerned me. In one case a month or so ago I believe, I cleared out all references to him on the page, and posted a message to the talk page alerting others that other scientists have had serious qualms about ethics as well as his interpretations of his works. I have also seen arguments on talk pages that rely seriously on racialist or scientific racist notions -- claims that there exists a "Turanid" race, claims that one group of people are "literally" one race or another, and so forth. Most of these cases I know better than to get myself involved, but it is an important conversation to have.

My two cents: Bus stop's weird sentence about the "future" is kind of not necessary to say the least. Right now not only are racist views completely fringe in academia, but extensive scientific literature shows that the entire paradigm of race is irretrievably flawed -- actual observed genetic differences often contradict traditional ideas about races which are based on perceived phenotypical similarity and cultural notions -- "races" typically don't align to actual genetic groupings. "Races" simply aren't valid categories in science, and the idea that humanity is divisible into discrete categories ignores mountains of genetic and historical evidence of continual contact and mingling in the vast majority of cases. Most studies that claim to show racial differences, like the "Bell Curve", fail because of a spiderweb of confounding socioeconomic and cultural factors that counter-explain their findings; "races" are fundamentally cultural, not genetic, units. Don't take it from me: there is a whole literature discrediting "race" as a unit that people should read. The "future" is entirely irrelevant, as in the present we have an enormous body of literature discrediting any study that attempts to make claims according to "race" outside of sociological context. We do need to have a discussion about how to treat such sources like Lynn. As I said, my view is delete from pages that aren't about them, and where they are discussed, post the mountains of criticism of them which are typically not hard to find. --Calthinus (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well said. While I agree that in theory some day in the future science may overturn our present understanding on this, we will address that when and if it happens. Most scientific theories don't get overturned. In the meantime, we present the views of the majority of scientists, mentioning notable noting fringe theories that disagree with accepted science as appropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Well said, indeed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Double Plus Warning - Some editors don't read the material at the top of this page!!!!!!

The top of this page says:

"This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Questions related to articles on fringe theories may also be posted here."

It does not, as is implied above, say that this page is only to discuss specific cases where fringe material is actually being added to specific articles.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants is being criticized when he didn't do anything wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And this is not about a possible fringe theory, but a source relating to one we are already fully aware of.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have posted at least half a dozen "Fringe theory of the month" posts about fringe theories that we are already fully aware of, such as flat earth theories and creationism. I didn't notice you or anyone else complaining. --Guy Macon (talk)

I think I did ask at least once what is the point of such posts (but it was a while ago).Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I hate racism, me. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:20, 24 January 2018 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lifespan Integration

Input on this discussion is welcome. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Mirra Alfassa

Besides the fact that most if not all of the IP edits just now need reverting, this looks as that needs a general cleanup. And can anyone remind me where it’s appropriate to use the title “Sri” and when it’s not? Doug Weller talk 08:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hoax vs sting

I hope it's not too far out of context to ask editors here to check the thread at User talk:Remember the dot#hoax → sting. We're talking about the Sokal affair and List of scholarly publishing stings. Remember the dot made a few moves/redirects/edits that I questioned, even though we're in general agreement. Needs more eyes. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Fringe medical treatments used to treat animals injured by wildfires

"Veterinarians successfully used alternative medical treatments such as acupuncture on three wild animals burned in the Southern California wildfires, although one patient — a 5-month-old mountain lion — did keep eating his fish-skin and corn-husk bandages, vets at the University of California, Davis said Wednesday."

"Peyton and her colleagues used some of the alternative methods she already employs with other animals, including acupuncture, chiropractic treatment, and cold-laser therapy. Many health-insurance companies consider some of the treatments experimental or unproven, and do not always cover their costs in human patients."

"Another form of treatment seemed most helpful of all for the bears, vets said. The California vets stitched the fish skins to the animals' burned paws, then wrapped the treated feet with bandages of rice paper and corn husks, after reading about trials on human burn victims in Brazil that placed treated skins from tilapia, a ubiquitous species of fish, on burn victims to soothe pain and promote healing." --Source: Bears burned in California wildfires go holistic for pain

(Wikilinks added.) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No comment on the others, but the use of sterilized animal skins as a dressing for burns certainly isn't fringe—it's been a routine treatment for decades, although in the west it's almost always pigskin which is used as it's light, flexible and readily available. ‑ Iridescent 18:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Our article on Xenotransplantation#Potential animal organ donors does establish that the use of sterilized animal skins as a dressing for burns isn't fringe, but I believe that using fish skins -- especially when sterile pig skin and lamb skin (often used instead of pig for religious reasons) is widely available -- is fringe.

More information:[22][23] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: why are you linking 'experimental or unproven' to 'Pseudoscience'? You risk changing what the author meant when you do that, and it comes across as you editorialising or adding your own commentary or opinions. For example, experimental medicine redirects to medical research. Also, you linked 'alternative medical treatments' to pseudomedicine, when we have a distinct Wikipedia article on alternative medicine that would have been more accurate to link to. What this appears to be is someone trying an experiment on animals, and hoping to "get donations to fund research". The other point to make is that it is important to distinguish between xenotransplantation of organs and tissues that remain permanently in place, and the use of tissues that are replaced by the body's own tissues during the healing process (the distinction between transplantation and wound care becomes blurred in some forms of skin grafting, particularly in relation to managing burns). There are many different methods of wound care (for some reason our link redirects to history of wound care), many of which may seem fringe but are not (leeches and maggots are mentioned - it gets confusing!). Have a look at the 'modern wound care' section of that article, and articles such as wound bed preparation. We also have dressing (medical) (with a subsection on 'biologics, skin substitutes, biomembranes and scaffolds') and articles such as hydrogel dressing, hydrocolloid dressing, and alginate dressing. It is a complex area that would benefit from more people working on our articles on the topics. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Context matters. If the source had simply said "alternative medical treatments" I would have linked to alternative medicine but the context makes it clear that the author is defining "alternative medical treatments" as "including acupuncture, chiropractic treatment, and cold-laser therapy", all of which I consider to be pseudoscience.

I also have a real problem with anyone doing animal experimentation on a specially protected species. Wild animals should receive conventional medical treatment. Alternative medicine should be limited to laboratory animals and to humans who have consented. Call that editorializing if you wish. I call it a breach of scientific ethics. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. The reporting in the article wasn't great. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Carcharoth that a link to pseudoscience in the context of experimental procedures is probably a bad idea. Yes, this does seem to me to be a rather strange experimental procedure, but if something is truly being done as an experiment or an experimental procedure, then to my eyes it doesn't yet claim to be scientific, and if the procedure of experimentation being used is scientific, then it isn't really pseudoscience, and would better be called experimental. Untested procedures open a whole other can of worms. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Carcharoth's first assertion. "Experimental or unproven" means much the same thing as "pseudoscience". The author chose the words "experimental or unproven". It is gratuitous to link to pseudoscience. Here is the fundamental problem as I see it: that which is unproven can eventually be shown to be efficacious. You can't rule out possibilities for the future. We can identify what is a fringe theory at present. But whenever we engage in making assertions about what will apply in the future, we are overstepping our bounds. In this case it is more proper to leave the author's words in the form that she wrote them. The author is conceding that this is "unproven". I don't think any further clarification is called for. A link to pseudoscience is implying a permanent connection between that which is at present unproven and that which will always remain ineffective in promoting health. This connection may not last indefinitely. This would not be the case if for instance it was found at some future point in time that "acupuncture, chiropractic treatment, and cold-laser therapy" held some valuable therapeutic properties. Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's unproven to work, and it's being used to actively treat patients (instead of being used in clinical trials, even clinical trials where the subjects are hoped to benefit from the treatment), then it's pseudomedicine by definition. Acupuncture is unproven. Trepanation is unproven. The laying on of hands is unproven. Psychic surgery is unproven. You may notice a pattern beginning to emerge. Meanwhile, experimental stem cell therapies are rarely -if ever- referred to as "unproven". At worst, they're "untested", and more accurately "insufficiently tested for medical approval". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Why is there a sudden uptick in people complaining about how this noticeboard is used? The complaints above aren't about article edits, but about the way an editor composed a notice posted here. If anyone has a problem with the way this noticeboard is used, unless that problem is that it's being used to canvass, then kindly take the page off your watchlist. I'm sick and tired of every thread degenerating into an argument over whether or not the OP should have opened the thread. Seriously, this is fucking juvenile. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Blog author soliciting people to troll Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra

A post at the "Wikipedia We Have A Problem" blog (I'd link it but naturally it is blacklisted) is soliciting readers to go edit two articles that have figured in past fringe-related edit wars and attempt to relitigate past battles on the talk page. The first request is to go to Rupert Sheldrake and ask about the word biologist in the first sentence (despite the fact that it is already right there in the second sentence). The second request is to go to Deepak Chopra and ask about "why he isn't listed as an MD", again despite the fact that this is right there in the second paragraph. If you are not familiar, this blog is written by someone who has been the subject of several bans and sock puppet investigations, specifically regarding activity on those two articles. Also attn Roxy the dog you are mentioned by name in the article (as am I). --Krelnik (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Related:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive190#Askahrc (Section "Statement by Jytdog", search for "we have a problem" and "Chopra")

Wikipedia We Have A Problem (yes, it is a red link. I am referring the reader to the deletion notice)

https://archive.li/3eTMr

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've known him for donkeys years, way before I ever joined wikipedia. Thing is I only use "Roxy" here so he doesn't know why I know him, which is the only thing that amuses me about him. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 01:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

In fact this is a generic feature of being engaged in any critique of bullshit anywhere. See the SLAPP suits against Britt Hermes, the SGU and, in the past, people like Simon Singh and Peter Wilmshurst. I had to get a court order to get rid of one nutter. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(I see some sockpuppet accounts appeared overnight and attempted to squelch this discussion, thanks to those who dealt with that mess). That's interesting Roxy - do you have a perception of what percentage of what this person does is pure "for the lulz" trolling and what percentage they really care about? That's nearly impossible to judge over the net but since you know him personally I thought I'd ask... --Krelnik (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have seen this sort of thing (and even raised an AN about it) in relation to other pages (and other off Wiki forums). It seemed most peopel felt there was little we can do about off Wiki canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree, I don't think there's anything to be done about the blogging itself (else I would have brought it up on an admin noticeboard). I just wanted to warn those who have Sheldrake and Chopra on their watchlists that they may see some activity as a result of this. --Krelnik (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ditto the above. The only times we could do anything about off-wiki canvassing is when the individual engaged in it is an editor here, and we know which editor. Then, it's a violation of WP:MEAT. In any other circumstances, there's nothing to do but let people know about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Couple of points. I don't know him personally, but have dealt with him before. He has been trolling the world like this for a long time, and will obviously continue. I don't think he's a sociopath like David Mabus, but I always envisioned him sitting in a little dark circle of silence in a loud busy pub, month after month. Trolling is to get attention. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• WP:DUCKs may be shot on site. Tumbleman is very banned. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I personally am not surprised that a disgruntled former-editor takes up their grievances elsewhere. In the spirit of WP:DENY shouldn't this just be ignored? In an unintended consequence, this thread is calling attention to those grievances. The referred-to blog, which I had no trouble finding, is blacklisted for a reason. I'm not sure we should even be discussing it. Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

He was never an actual editor here, he was always disgruntled. We've all heard the "dont feed the troll" schtick over and over again, so much so that it has become a thing. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 21:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Rendlesham Forest incident

There seems to be some PROFRINGE tendentious editing going on there. I am INVOLVED so my superhero tool kit is unavailable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to borrow my utility belt? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm somewhat familiar with this subject. I've watchlisted and will take a look at it during my lunch break. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The article has been reverted to an earlier, and IMO much better version. There seems to be some support for that. Also the source of most of the tendentious editing has been warned about their behavior. Hopefully things will quiet down now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, earlier I sat down in front of my computer with take-out Italian and stared at the screen for five minutes trying to remember what I said I'd look at while I was eating. Eventually, I gave up and watched a photoshop tutorial on YouTube. But NOW I remember what it was. D'oh! At least it got taken care of in the meantime. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

National Vaccine Information Center

• National Vaccine Information Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Checking my biases here. One user wants to treat NVIC as a normal nonprofit and include the mission and slogan, which are:

mission = The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) states that it "is dedicated to the prevention of vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and to defending the informed consent ethic in medicine."

non-profit_slogan = Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice.

Obviously this is NVIC. The "informed consent" they promote is actually misinformed dissent, per multiple reliable sources, and the "choice" to endanger your children and others by wilfully refusing immunisation based on lies and misrepresentations is, as a matter of law, one which the state has every right to overrule.

That said, should we treat NVIC as a normal nonprofit and include these? Or maybe remove the infobox altogether? Guy (Help!) 16:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That said, should we treat NVIC as a normal nonprofit and include these? My gut says yes, but that the article (ABSOLUTELY INCLUDING THE LEDE) should clearly spell out the problems with this org. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The first sentence could stand to be re-written. The details of its founding are not nearly as important as a description of what it is. I'll raise the issue at talk there in a bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is what they say. What we think of it is irrelevant. I fail to see why they are not a "normal nonprofit", as I have no idea what a normal one would be. Care to explain.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A normal nonprofit exists to fulfil some beneficial public purpose. NVIC exists to undermine public health. It would not be allowed nonprofit status in many places (e.g. the UK, Australia). Guy (Help!) 17:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

See my objection to that argument here[24]. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC) (I am the user JzG(Guy) was referring to when he started this thread)

Advocacy groups tend to be non-profits, so who cares? The point is that they are an advocacy group for a fringe position; all else is either evidence or commentary. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it exists to fulfill some beneficial public purpose, the effect of which is to undermine public health. Many non profits in fact have unforeseen side effects (and many are in fact lobby or political organisations whose aims are not "egalitarian" but selfish), the side effects are not what they aim to do (and non profit and charity are not synonymous). You are mistaking their aim with their effect.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)