Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 77

< Wikipedia:Fringe theories‎ | Noticeboard

Lew Rockwell

In case someone would like to work on this, I noticed that this article directly quotes Rockwell's view of environmentalism using a primary source but lacks any treatment of such nonsense... —PaleoNeonate – 22:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I could not find any reliable secondary sources. RationalWiki has an article about him, but it uses only primary ones too. It seems that his position on that specific subject is not notable and therefore not WP:DUE. I guess the word "Paleolibertarian" already implies inability to comprehend why people exist who have values that cannot be measured in dollars. The form this inability takes is a minor detail, and the Wikipedia article should not mention it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I too searched for independent sources discussing his anti-environmentalist views but other than the directly related orgs only found a university dissertation and a few blog/opinion posts. Since we can't use those to refute the obviously misleading "an ideology as pitiless and Messianic as Marxism.", I wonder if the quote should be kept as-is (afterall, it speaks for itself) or removed, so I left it for now. I found a source that could be used in the article but it wasn't about the environment: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/27/george-lincoln-rockwell-american-nazi-party-alt-right-charlottesville . —PaleoNeonate – 18:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hmm the article may be about someone else?  —PaleoNeonate – 18:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm having some trouble here, in the first place because I find lots of political analysis works which cite the statement as an example of right-wing rhetoric. The other thing is that I'm wondering when "refuting" him got to be something we, in the voice of WP, need to be doing in his article. My personal reaction is that that impulse comes all too close to proving his point.
As far as quoting him: the quote itself ought to come from a primary source if at all possible, due to the demands of academic rigor which transcend our own policies. I found third party sources interpreting it, so I'm wondering what the actual problem is here. Mangoe (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the actual problem is here I think the problem is that the third party sources you found are not in the article. Instead, the statement is sourced to Rockwell himself. Also, the quote itself ought to come from a primary source is problematic for fringe sources and especially problematic for hate propaganda. There is a reason why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary ones. Academic rigour works only if the sources one uses also apply academic rigour. See GIGO.
I'm wondering when "refuting" him got to be something we, in the voice of WP, need to be doing in his article. If the reliable sources see his position as fringe, then yes, that is what we need to do.
My personal reaction is that that impulse comes all too close to proving his point. Hmmm... so, if someone disagrees with him, that means he is right. Sounds like Catch-22 to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Linking to those sources would be helpful (in a post on its talk page or here) to improve the article. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Adding: when I wrote "such nonsense" above: Rockwell's statement isn't an analysis, but a flawed generalized statement of denial that the environment is precious, indispensable not only to our survival but also that of other species and that its destruction is an ongoing trend. That denial statement is to support unmitigated/unregulated anarchism and capitalism. It's ridiculous that I need to state the obvious... WP is not for the undue promotion of fringe claims even in BLPs and as Hob wrote the solution is to use independent sources. —PaleoNeonate – 13:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Historical figures' sexuality

Matter to be aware of: Talk:Straightwashing#Straightwashed artists Crossroads -talk- 21:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

IPs edit-warring at Stephen C. Meyer

I've reverted three times already this morning... XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The edit summaries are also misleading, interestingly... —PaleoNeonate – 16:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
In cleaning up that mess, I noticed the article on Scott Minnich. It's been tagged as needing secondary sources since 2012. I'm not convinced that he's wiki-notable; there might be a technical pass of WP:PROF#C1 on citation counts, but on the flipside, I'd expect that microbiology is a high-citation field, so he might not actually stand out. Setting that aside, all the article says he did was testify on behalf of the cdesign proponentsists in Kitzmiller v. Dover. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I found a mention in an independent source (added), but it's still only a mention as one of the rare scientists to be involved in the movement. —PaleoNeonate – 19:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Just noting that more watchlisters for Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) are also welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 16:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok so Scopus says his top-cited work (not even first- or last-author) only has 98 citations, and there are just 901 unique documents citing all his work. I would definitely not call him notable within his field. JoelleJay (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
In relation to Minnich? Thanks for the research, —PaleoNeonate – 07:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Surviving Death

New article about a recent web video series, sources appear to be press releases with claims like: not by believers, not to promote beliefs but explore, scientific, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 08:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I dont think the director has thought things through properly. In what appears to be a quote from the Grone ref, she says "Some of us are cynical about the possibility of an afterlife because we don’t want to set ourselves up for the most crushing disappointment." -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 09:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Related: some recent discussion at Mediumship about why it can't be called a pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The article is now expanded with review welcome, but I was careful not to include that seemingly parodic statement.  —PaleoNeonate – 00:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Criticism wasn't very difficult to find and I'm done there for now as it's already getting long. Anyone know of Explica.co? My impression was that their review is anonymous... —PaleoNeonate – 07:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Manual of style and conspiracy theorists

—PaleoNeonate – 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pluto in Scorpio generation

Doubtful that this is notable woo, but wanted to make people aware one way or the other. Mangoe (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer

May become more active again, see [1]. More eyes could be helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I figure Rossi eventually solves the problem of backwards time travel too. Pity it took so long for anyone to care about his paper on how the e-cat works but hey at least it means we don't have to worry about it for about 18000 years. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Frazzledrip

Here is another conspiracy theory I never heard of before today. Worth a separate article?

Despite Google CEO Sundar Pichai being grilled about it in front of the House Judiciary Committee, it has the usual problem with Internet conspiracy theories, which is that only sources that cover the Internet (Vice, Vox, Dalydot) cover it. I don't think we will see this on CNN or NYT unless someone gets arrested in connection with it.

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not sufficient sources for its own article, but if it’s a Qanon-related belief, it could be mentioned in QAnon#False_predictions,_claims_and_beliefs under the “False claims” subsection. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I found where it already resides: Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory#Frazzledrip. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Good find. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Recently created Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin article nominated for merger/redirection

Discussion is taking place here: Talk:Frédéric Chopin#New article: Sexuality of Chopin

I would have AfD'ed it but someone tagged it for merger first. There's an RfC on the same talk page about how to cover the material. Crossroads -talk- 05:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It was converted to a redirect and taken to RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin. The RfD is meant to cover whether it should stay a redirect or be a separate article. Comments welcome. Crossroads -talk- 22:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

All "sexuality of" articles probably ought to die. If it needs to be forked out of the main article, it's probably academic pornspeculation . Mangoe (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The All

Could probably use attention of those familiar with hermeticism. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparently fringe journal someone wants to use to show cow urine is good for you

See WP:RSN#Is this journal a reliable source? Would its use be a violation of WP:MEDRS? Doug Weller talk 08:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa - Hindutva and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh had not been on my watchlist yet... I somehow overlooked them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

How Many House Republicans Believe the Jews Attacked California With a Space Laser?

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

John A. McDougall

This article in relation to a diet may benefit from more page watchers. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Watching. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Luxury guru puff piece

I fear our article on Jaggi Vasudev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (aka "Sadhguru") takes an insufficiently critical stance. His dubious positions on politics and the laws of physics are only given place at the bottom of the article, and while much is made of his purported public speaking events and connections (though less of the financial and ideological ones) with the president of India, I feel not enough is made of his legal vicissitudes, seeing as he reportedly killed and hurriedly cremated his wife before fleeing to the US and his disciples all swore they witnessed his spouse's conscious abandonment of this life and ascent into higher planes through her powers of spiritual advancement, etc. I can find little independent evidence, for instance, of the claim he addressed the House of Lords, though he did apparently appear at Davos for a meditation session. Or something. GPinkerton (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • With 2,465 edits and 138,138 page views in the last 30 days, yes, it can have some attention. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sri Lanka holy man's 'miracle' coronavirus potion turns sour

"Pro-government media gave widespread publicity to Bandara who claimed the formula was revealed to him by Kali, a Hindu goddess of death and destruction of evil... The government has scrambled to distance itself from Bandara, whose preparation was approved as a food supplement by the official indigenous medicine unit."[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the more obvious issues for a sec, why would a goddess of death and destruction want to help people avoid death?--65.92.160.124 (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The afterlife gets overcrowded if everyone is dead. Also how long will a god or goddess last if all the followers are killed? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
He might be doing the right thing; Sri Lanka have been criticised by UNHCR for cremations of Covid victims, including Muslim cremations. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Great Barrington Declaration (again)

Fresh input is requested in recent discussions at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration, on the question of the relationship between Holocaust denial and the Great Barrington Declaration's author(s). GPinkerton (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

California Association of Ayurvedic Medicine

Spotted in today's AfD log: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Association of Ayurvedic Medicine. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Ayurvedic Medical Association. XOR'easter (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
And, relatedly, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matha Ayurveda Eye Hospital. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Two forks for AfD?

Your comments welcome:

Dueling Banjoes?

jps (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Both kept at AfD, and both probably in need of eyes from fringe-savvy editors. Alexbrn (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Revisionist histories of Mao Zedong

The Mao Zedong page needs more eyes, in particular in regards to what appears to be revisionist histories that portray Mao's actions as having a positive impact and making extraordinary claims about his actions (e.g. the Cultural Revolution is responsible for the economic growth that mainstream scholars attribute to Deng Xiapeng's liberalizing reforms). An examination of the cited sources, as well as the broader academic literature, is needed to make sure that fringe viewpoints are not given UNDUE weight. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption at Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

See also the discussion at WT:MOSWTW. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I'll start with stating simply that does Marjorie Taylor Greene believe in and espouse conspiracy theories (i.e. is a conspiracy theorist)? isn't really the question here. The obvious answer is yes, from multiple RS. I also dismiss any arguments regarding bias from the same, given that the sources used to support the claim include AP, the Independent, AL.com among others.

This is about the weight applied to her beliefs in fringe theories, as it relates to the lede. There may be some nuance that I'm missing, but this is I think a reasonable starting point. Jdphenix (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

One note - Greene is the only serving or served 21st century American politician that has conspiracy theorist in the entire article in Wikivoice. Only one other article, Donald Trump, has the phrase, but in an attributed quote. Other articles are candidates who failed to be elected. Jdphenix (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Lauren Boebert has denied it, and distanced herself from Qanon, has Greene?, if not that might be one reason.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it in the lede first sentence. Pretty much every main-stream news story I see that mentions her in detail, and some that only do so in passing, refers to this in some manner. In part this is because they have so little to otherwise contextualize her, but it is what it is. It shouldn't be whitewashed simply due to her election success - that made her also a congresswoman, not instead a congresswoman. Agricolae (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree; I'm fine with the first sentence as it is. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

One other question - should the level of discussion that any particular option may attract be a factor in our decision here? Jdphenix (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course (see wp:undue) the degree to which RS considers an issue significant or worthy of note should be an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
If you're asking about the level of discussion on the article's Talk page, then no. Some options will undoubtedly make people upset, but it's not our job to placate them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely. Makes sense to me. I just wanted to ask to make sure it's explicitly stated to be pointed to. Jdphenix (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is happening in a lot of different places.
If this is being actively discussed at ANI, I'm not sure it makes sense to have a parallel discussion going on here. ApLundell (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Content versus conduct. Jdphenix (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
We also have one at MOS as well (in effect).Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Calling her a conspiracy theorist is giving her too much credit in my opinion, because its somehow implies deep thought. I'd say something like, "Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974) is an American politician, businesswoman, who supports multiple baseless conspiracy theories." Without the baseless theories she propagates and acts on I doubt we'd know much about her. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe “known for supporting...” etc. since there are already some accounts that have her distancing herself from conspiracy beliefs, which could lead to further equivocations, and result in clumsily worded rebuttals in the article lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Probably a good distinction to make although I doubt she is really distancing herself. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This morning, the New York Times is calling her the conspiracy theorist just elected to Congress from Georgia [3]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Options

Just to keep this sane, keep the discussion above and add reasonably possible outcomes here. Hopefully it will be obvious what we settle on.

  • The current first sentence, Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974) is an American politician, businesswoman, and conspiracy theorist serving as a U.S. Representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district. including the conspiracy theorist label is appropriate and given due weight.
  • The current first sentence is inappropriate and the conspiracy theorist label should be removed. Instead, content in the lede should overview conspiracy theories she has supported or advanced, but not in the first sentence.
  • The lede should not mention conspiracy theories, but depend on the article content and structure for due weight.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCOP formalism (2nd nomination)

I don't see why this was kept the last time around, but in any case this needs review/work from people who know both about fringe physics and real QM stuff. THe whole thing smells off to me but I'm a computer scientist, not a physicist. Mangoe (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll recuse on the AFD, but want to note that Diederik Aerts was created by the same SPA, is largely sourced to his own papers, and contains a lot of fringe horse-manure. Quantum cognition is also very bad, but can probably be remedied through editing rather than deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Great Barrington Declaration

There is a discussion at Great Barrington Declaration concerning whether long lists of signatories make a manifesto less FRINGE. Additional perspectives on this could be helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Koreshanity

Just noticed this for the first time. May need more watchers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I also didn't know about it until this thread but found a mention in Regal's pseudoscience encyclopedia, thanks for the notice, —PaleoNeonate – 06:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Cryotherapy chamber

I didn't know if I should come here with this, or go to WPMED. I just wanted some bright people to see if they see what I see. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, heard of this just yesterday, apparently they're popping up next to a tanning salon near you ... did that foot-nibbling fish fad go out of business or what? I for one would like to know what WP:MED says, maybe there's always a chance one of these things will turn out legit ... GPinkerton (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a more balanced description at Cryotherapy#Whole_body_cryotherapy. Either some of that text could be appropriated for the chamber article, or the chamber article could be merged and redirected there. - MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe that's where I read about it before, it was familiar but this article seems new... Because it somewhat looks like someone in a washing machine, it also evokes memory of a TV clowns show I saw as a kid, where one mimed going in the machine with clothes on to wash them. —PaleoNeonate – 17:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked at this and... Is there anything worth merging? The difference is mostly claims that do not appear to be supported by WP:MEDRS. —PaleoNeonate – 17:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: Now a redirect, —PaleoNeonate – 06:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Black Egyptian hypothesis

I am of the opinion that this article is curated to push a race realist POV. I can find no sources which identify something called the "Black Egyptian hypothesis" as a coherent proposal made, for example, in any serious literature.

jps (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: Now deleted by consensus and a redirect, —PaleoNeonate – 06:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Aquatic Apes, 2021 edition

In which it is discussed whether scientists see this as pseudoscience, or not. Alexbrn (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: this was still about Tuomisto's claims (as if an apparently misrepresented poll would change that the AAH is not science) and the editor who was recently pushing it seems to have stopped for now, —PaleoNeonate – 04:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Science Fictions

"Science Fictions" -- A comic based upon the work of Stuart J. Ritchie:[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice. And, on a Wikipedia note, the confirmed problems mentioned there that occur in publishing are why we avoid putting undue weight on primary sources. Crossroads -talk- 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I started collecting some sources (like book reviews), hoping to eventually improve the BLP article. Unfortunately their interpretation of the book(s) conclusions are themselves conflictual (with cherry picking in some cases)... —PaleoNeonate – 05:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why Creationism Bears All the Hallmarks of a Conspiracy Theory

Key quote:

"I would argue that the present-day creationist movement is a fully fledged conspiracy theory. It meets all the criteria, offering a complete parallel universe with its own organisations and rules of evidence, and claims that the scientific establishment promoting evolution is an arrogant and morally corrupt elite. This so-called elite supposedly conspires to monopolise academic employment and research grants. Its alleged objective is to deny divine authority, and the ultimate beneficiary and prime mover is Satan."

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting read; thanks for finding it! XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I found some of its links useful also, —PaleoNeonate – 04:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Certainly creation theory is a conspiracy theory. But what articles do you plan to change? Were Augustine and Thomas Aquinas conspiracy theorists? TFD (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Sitz im Leben (an article that needs work, BTW).  —PaleoNeonate – 08:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Pop quiz:
Does the top of this page say...
"This page is for discussing possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories."
...or does the top of this page say...
"This page is only for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories. If anyone dares to discuss fringe theories in general or to have any discussions related to fringe theories, make sure you call them on it and demand that they list what articles they plan to change and how they intend to change them."
Please note that article talk pages do have such a rule:
"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the [article name] article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."
Noticeboards, not so much...
"Gentlemen, you can't fight discuss fringe theories here. This is the war room fringe theories noticeboard!" --Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
How often have I admonished people that this is for posting notices only, when discussions got too long? Nobody ever quoted that at me. Now I feel silly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don’t think this reflects the views of a majority of creationists. This is more “fringe of the fringe” territory. I would say that creationism (itself) isn’t a conspiracy theory, but rather that some creationists are conspiracy theorists (and so view everything, including opposition to their religious beliefs, through that lens). Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    It's a very common idea among creationists. They need an explanation why creation science is not taught at universities. It can't be because it's crap, it must be conspiracy by atheist scientists.
    More of the same, a bit more general: Science denial: A form of conspiracy theory --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    And the bias of the "worldy" mainstream media, that proper peer reviewed scientific journals don't accept bogus papers for _insert whatever ideological reason here_, etc. That when a public teacher is fired for failing to follow a program and proselitizing instead, it is because of their beliefs rather than their incompetent actions; that evolution is an invention to justify sin (or a Satanic conspiration) rather than an incredible and actual discovery about the natural world with an understanding that has advanced incredibly since Darwin's time, etc. That the world is about to end so there's no need to stop polluting it (or to properly plan the future and pursue higher education and a career)... I was personally raised in a family with such beliefs. I stop here per notforum but could fill the page. —PaleoNeonate – 16:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Geneva Consensus Declaration

For editors interested in fringe viewpoints on the subject of abortion, the article Geneva Consensus Declaration could do with some watchers. (And assuming a response is forthcoming to my recent edits, some additional attention as well). Currently, the central claim seems to be that faithfully reporting the criticism published by RS is a manifestation of systemic bias. Sunrise (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The editor then seems to have made some WP:POINTy edits at other places but in related to gender and notability and Wikipedia. I don't think the arguments about avoiding mainstream reliable sources is valid. —PaleoNeonate – 23:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A moral pov hardly qualifies as fringe.PailSimon (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably a gray area since this is a declaration presenting itself as protecting women's rights while it at the same time aims to limit their rights. —PaleoNeonate – 02:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes that's a moral pov and fringe doesn't apply to it. PailSimon (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As already stated by ApLundell below, any viewpoint can be fringe if it is sufficiently far from the mainstream. The mainstream is defined by the reliable sources, weighted by how authoritative those sources are. We’ve had discussions here about fringe interpretations of religious texts, for instance.
On issues of morality, the most authoritative sources are philosophers and ethicists. As I understand it, those groups have largely favorable views towards the morality of abortion. However, I don’t know enough to say e.g. whether the viewpoint that abortion is morally wrong is sufficiently marginal to be considered fringe. In this case, the fringe nature of the subject is more immediately due to a group of countries going against (what I understand to be) the general consensus on the nature of human rights. Sunrise (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Adding: similar Commission on Unalienable Rights makes claims about "manufactured rights" as if rights were not always a human legal matter and were never created and adapted to face challenges of societies (were holy or fully natural, etc. List of ancient legal codes). —PaleoNeonate – 02:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Also worth adding is that anti-abortion is scientifically untenable (medically and statistically). Where it is illegal, girls and women resort to unsafe practices and services and may additionally suffer persecution when discovered. —PaleoNeonate – 05:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Again that's an ethical view, not a scoentfici one. PailSimon (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"Fringe" does not necessarily imply "Fringe Science", it can apply to any "idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. "
I have no opinion on whether that applies to his discussion, I just wanted to point out that "not a scientific view" does not disqualify something from being fringe. ApLundell (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Netert Mudat Egyptian Scarab Map

Is it a hoax, and if so, a notable one? Deletion is being discussed now. Mangoe (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Linking at closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netert Mudat Egyptian Scarab Map for archives, —PaleoNeonate – 04:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Damn, wish I'd commented on that one ... maps only started having north at the top in the Renaissance ... GPinkerton (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Scientist, or ... pseudoscientist

It's the question of the moment at the Talk page of

This would seem to be a WP:FRINGE-pertinent question. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The talk page would certainly confirm that. Nonetheless, let him sink or swim on his own talk. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard

This article was recently created by a new account, probably a sock-puppet [6]. Kirkegaard is a well known fringe figure associated with eugenics. There was a previous deletion discussion. Kirkegaard himself was banned from Wikipedia [7] in 2019. Any idea what to do here? The article contains no criticism of his fringe theories and seems to play Kirkegaard in an entirely positive light. Should there be a new afd? Or should the article be redirected/fixed? Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Just for clarity, here is a sample of Kirkegaard's papers, per his researchgate page:
  • "National Intelligence Is More Important for Explaining Country Well-Being than Time Preference and Other Measured Non-Cognitive Traits"
  • "What Happened to Brussels? The Big Decline and Muslim Immigration"
  • "Pupil Size and Intelligence: A Large-Scale Replication Study"
  • "Mental Illness and the Left"
  • "Are Danes’ Immigration Policy Preferences Based on Accurate Stereotypes?"
One or two studies like this could be excused as academic clickbait, but his list goes on with this drivel interminably. He is also is (or was very recently) the website host for Mankind Quarterly, and Richard Lynn's misnamed "Ulster Institute".
The current article doesn't really explain any of this. Grayfell (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
If secondary sources interpreting these are not available I would support deletion at AfD. The previous one that resulted in deletion happened only a few years ago (2018). I'm not sure if the following is usable in a BLP but a sock who participated there linked at this student paper article. We already know of the reputation of Mankind Quarterly and OpenPsych and more sources about those are likely available. —PaleoNeonate – 04:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
An account on rationalwiki by the same username stated that they were Jordan Lasker, an associate of Kirkegaard's. He was pretty explicit in his intentions

I don't know much about [Rationalwiki] but the articles on race theorists and intelligence researchers appear to be too negative. I was recently asked by Emil Kirkegaard to personally write a Wikipedia article which I have now done on Wikipedia without any of the criticisms found on this website about him. Wikipedia has better traffic than RationalWiki. Our aim is to get his Wikipedia article to the top above the RationalWiki article on the first page of Google which contains too many criticisms of Kirkegaard.

He also stated in another comment

More and more people are waking up to the fact racial intelligence is a reality. The Wikipedia article for Emil Kirkegaard will be above the RationalWiki in less than a month. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. I was interested in knowing why you guys hate Kirkegaard so much but I see now this appear to be an anti-white man website. You seem to smear white intelligence researchers as "pseudoscientists" but we are published in peer-review

This of course could be a Mikemikev impersonation, I am not sure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Someone tagged it for CSD G5 (created by banned user), although since other editors worked on it since it might not be accepted. —PaleoNeonate – 05:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The creator of the article was BerlinburgerTor (supposedly Jordan Lasker) not Mikemikev (Michael Coombs) so the speedy deletion criteria is not met. (Unless this is Mikemikev socking, which is plausible). It's probably going to have to go to AfD again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Article has been moved to draftspace by DGG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Update: an interesting comment at the draft's talk page points out at the similarity between it and the OpenPsych article. Merging may be one of the options, —PaleoNeonate – 03:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Manifestation (popular psychology)

All new and stubby. Is there such a thing? Who knows? --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup, it's part of this, and it's pseudoscience [8], which would need to be mentioned in the stub. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Above source integrated, thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
And a mix of traditional magical thinking (if I believe enough it might become true) and self-motivation (it apparently encourages actions rather than only hoping for magic to succeed). When I first looked I wasn't sure that "popular psychology" fits yet one of the sources does discuss it as such. Another question is if it should be merged in Law of attraction or Positive thought, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 02:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Top-tier merging candidate. "Psychology" is too good a word for it. GPinkerton (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Really weak article on Manifestation. Heaps of other sources around on this topic. Now, are they primary or secondary sources? You be the judge. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Whiteguru, if there's any question of that kind they're not reliable. Should the article be AfD'd or just blanked and redirected? GPinkerton (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

MEDLEAD

More input is needed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#MEDLEAD. Crossroads -talk- 06:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

New accounts and SPA at Cryptozoology

After a long period of quiet, a new account and some embedded WP:SPAs have popped up at over at cryptozoology (see for example Talk:Cryptozoology#Henry_Gee's_2004_Nature_article_quote). If you're not already watching this article for activity, it is periodically a hotbed for fringe promoters angry about the numerous sources we have on the article listing cryptozoology as a pseudoscientific subculture. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

While I broadly agree with the article as it is currently, it could do with the input of the work of Darren Naish, the only academic zoologist to seriously engage with cryptozoological claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Check out the talk page for some recent discussion regarding Naish, who seems to have been for a long time a cryptozoologist or, uh, cryptoozologist apologetic (or whatever he was trying to do exactly). As far as I can tell, Naish left the topic behind several years ago. It looks like he eventually threw in the towel rather than pursue his push to promote somehow making cryptozoology more prescriptively 'science' (eg. becoming zoology but somehow different?) rather than what it had been basically since it was founded: deeply fringe and aggressively opposed to toward mainstream science. I haven't encountered any notable secondary analysis of Naish's fixation with the subculture yet but I'm sure that'll come in time. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that Naish is often too sympathetic to cryptozoological claims, but I don't think it is fair to lump him in with the hardcore cryptozoologists. The question of whether Naish's work on the topic should be included depends a lot on how it is presented. As someone who mostly writes on vertebrate palaeontology I can say that his work in that field is well regarded and definitely not fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also see the amazingly convoluted Talk:Cryptozoology#Concerns_that_the_article_does_not_meet_NPOV_standards,_proposed_revision_for_introductory_text, and the bluntly familiar Talk:Cryptozoology#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_5_January_2021_(2). - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I may not have the time to comment on the talk page today but have left a few DS notices, —PaleoNeonate – 19:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Just going to testify that the talk page has several sections in serious need of more participants from this noticeboard. Crossroads -talk- 20:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sphinx water erosion hypothesis

Sphinx water erosion hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is too generous by half. Needs a review and a toning down of the fringe. GPinkerton (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I tried to remove the section about Colin Reader's claims, who appears to be a non-notable geologist, but Schazjmd reverted me citing me as the section being quote "under discussion" despite the fact that there have been zero responses to the relevant thread Talk:Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis#Colin_Reader since the 6th of December, over 2 months ago. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia, in that discussion, one person questioned the inclusion of Reader and two editors (one me) felt it should remain; with your edit, it appeared to me that you didn't think it belonged, so reviving that discussion seems appropriate. Whether Reader is Wikipedia-notable doesn't factor in to whether his views on the hypothesis are reliable or due, which is why I reverted. You're welcome to discuss why you don't think Reader should be mentioned there on the article's Talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Since when would notability not matter IRT WP:DUE? Wikipedia generally reports about what's widely covered in reliable secondary sources. —PaleoNeonate – 19:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not understanding the view of notable in this context. I think of notability as the guideline by which we determine whether a topic or person should have a stand-alone article. If WP:GNG is going to be applied to filter out what can be mentioned in an article, rather than WP:RS or WP:DUE...I don't know what to do with that viewpoint. I've restored Hemiauchenia's removal and unwatched that article. Schazjmd (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Quantum cognition

Is Quantum cognition actually a thing? The article describes it as an "emerging field which applies the mathematical formalism of quantum theory to model cognitive phenomena such as information processing by the human brain, language, decision making, human memory, concepts and conceptual reasoning, human judgment, and perception.". "Quantum cognition" is apparently distinct from Orchestrated objective reduction the fringe theory pushed by Penrose and others that consciousness originates at a quantum level via microtubules. The article provides no critique of the methodology. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's actually a thing, and it is distinct from Orch-OR, but it's pretty fuzzy. My own sense as someone who works in quantum information and hears about stuff in the gray areas around physics is that there's a lot of unclear thinking, under-motivated arguments, publications in dubious journals, etc., even if the basic "can we use this kind of math to model how people relate concepts psychologically" kind of questions are legitimate. XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The article sounds pretty dubious to me. As if people are trying to merge two subjects (consciousness and quantum physics) because they understand neither of them and want to have only one thing they don't understand. Same as homeopathy and quantum physics. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
"Quantum cognition" isn't about consciousness, for the most part, but about taking bits of quantum (or quantum-inspired) math and trying to apply them in experimental psychology. My sense is that few people outside that little niche have bothered to apply much critical scrutiny to it (or when they do, they don't write it up formally). XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Did an interstellar spaceship take a loop around the sun in 2017?

Avi Loeb at Harvard, with a list of credentials as long as your arm, thinks it did.[9] Our article on him is out of date because he at first thoughtʻOumuamua was a meteor. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth created by User:Drbogdan. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I made a thread here a month ago on this topic, see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_76#Avi_Loeb_and_alien_contact but it was mostly ignored. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller and Hemiauchenia: as far as I can tell our representation of this issue at ʻOumuamua, Avi Loeb, and Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth is fine: we note Loeb's views, while explaining that most scientists believe ʻOumuamua has a natural origin. My impression is that a reader walks away with an accurate understanding of the scientific consensus. Isn't that right? -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
In related news: Someone let the panspermists out of their cages again. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Darouet: I think so, although I don't see why the meteor is the last line in the lead. Presuming that isn't the object he thinks might be a spaceship, I'm not clear about that. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: interesting. In that paper [10] they write, "Either way, the meteor had an unusual origin," and later, "Potentially, interstellar meteors could deliver life from another planetary system and mediate panspermia (Ginsburg et al. 2018). Interestingly, the high speed for the meteor discussed here implies a likely origin in the habitable zone of the abundant population of dwarf stars, indicating that similar objects could carry life from their parent planetary systems." Not sure if they mean to imply it could be a spaceship - if so they don't write it directly. -Darouet (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This theory will likely grow legs. There is a two-page spotlight article in the latest issue of Guardian Weekly, 5 February 2021, Vol 204, No7, pp30-31 --Whiteguru (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Martin Rees is not pleased. Avi Loeb enjoys going out on limbs, but in this case he has assiduously ignored the actual experts on interstellar comets in ways that remind me of motivated reasoning. Why he is so motivated, I shall not speculate. jps (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
He explains in his material that the lack of funding to pursue the idea in mainstream scientific venues is a problem (according to some sources used in the book article), so well, there's popscience. —PaleoNeonate – 05:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
His unusual form of existentialism might be a clue.[11] Doug Weller talk 09:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug. Great analysis by Jason Colavito there. jps (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Colavito notes that "[Loeb] openly imagines that the aliens will provide a materialist revelation". But where will we find "meaning" when the aliens' edits to Avi Loeb are found to be not reliably sourced? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Interesting read, thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

To answer the question posed by the OP, NO, it was me, joyriding. -Roxy the astronaut. wooF 14:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Categorization

Not sure whether to ask this here or at WP:CATEGORIZATION (so let me know if this is the wrong place)... a while ago, I included our article on Robert Lomas in cat:Pseudohistorians - based on what various reliable sources said about his books and theories. This categorization has been challenged by an editor who feels it is libelous for us to include him in that category. Rather than engage in an edit war, I figured I would ask for additional opinions. Is the categorization appropriate or not? Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Strongly no. If we have to label him somehow in an article with sources, fine. To label someone in an overarching way like this in a place where there are no immediate sources to support the attack is not good in my opinion. And this is an attack. I can understand that to label him as an historian might be hard to bear, but if that's the case, I'd just not bother with a category at all. This is not directed at you Blueboar, I respect you a lot, but at us as a community; perhaps we take too much on ourselves when we label like this. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
No problem Olive... If I was going to take it personally, I would not have asked for input. I simply assumed that if sources (directly) say an author’s writings are “pseudohistory”, it was appropriate to then categorize that author as a “pseudohistorian”. Not so? Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Within an article yes, where there is context and an easily seeable source, but as an overarching label, with a BLP, I'm not comfortable with it, without that kind of supporting information. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Any one disagree? Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Littleolive oil. In this specific instance, "pseudo" doesn't even appear in the article so it would be confusing to a reader to see that category on the article. It doesn't meet WP:CATDEF either. Schazjmd (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I biefly searched and found various criticism in the sense of pseudohistory but mostly by non-notable blog authors, among bookstore links (it makes me wonder if the article meets BLPN?) But also found this mention by Colavito: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/searching-for-the-templar-merica-star . Anyone can infer pseudoarchaeology and pseudohistory from reading it, although those terms are not used as-is (except "pseudo-science" in a user comment). It could serve to add yet more attributed criticism but I'm ambivalent about if the category is necessary. —PaleoNeonate – 21:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: I tried to improve the article a bit and integrated the above in the prose in relation to the book (but didn't restore the category). —PaleoNeonate – 06:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Global warming controversy

Pretty persistent denialist demanding extraordinary evidence for the "extraordinary claim" that climatologists are doing their job right. Also does not understand what Talk pages are for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me like your observation that they're not actually actually looking for evidence is quite correct, and that you and others have assumed good faith as much as can be reasonably expected. Perhaps all that's left to do now is to stop feeding the troll? Lennart97 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
As a "denialist" myself (I accept 100% of the peer-reviewed science, but have my doubt regarding the oft-repeated claim that the only possible solution is to increase the size and power of the federal government in multiple nations, so that makes me a "climate change denier") I can say with confidence that that statements such as...
"What I think is missing is the smoking gun, the evidence, that demonstrates undeniably that climate change is human caused... Where is the evidence? Can the public access it? Is it too much to ask?"[12]
...can only come from refusing to accept a large body of peer-reviewed science. and dismissing the extensive coverage of same on Wikipedia with WP:IDHT. See [ https://xkcd.com/1732/ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: That first part of your comment is an unwarranted generalisation. I'm definitely one of those that think government action is a big part of the solution (not the only possible solution, and to be honest I don't think that's such an oft-repeated claim as you claim it is), but that really doesn't mean I would consider you, who accepts the scientific consensus but might have different ideas about solutions, a denialist. I'm not sure if what you said is how you honestly feel about it or whether you were trying to make some other point, but I did feel the need to point this out. Lennart97 (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I really have been called a climate change denialist for the reasons above, multiple times and by multiple people. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
That's fair enough. Here's to hoping that me calling you not a denialist helps to balance your perception of the "pro-government-interference" crowd a bit :) Lennart97 (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I bet you have also been called a pharma shill for opposing quackery and an atheist for opposing creationism, multiple times and by multiple people. You should not believe everything people say :-) --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Wait...what? You mean that I should not believe everything I read on the internet? I have been doing it wrong for all of these years...
Don't recall being called an atheist, but pharma shill? Yup. I don't think "medicines" containing toxic levels of mercury and lead are a good idea, even if you do "purify" them by baking them in cow shit. Obviously a pharma shill. I have also been accused of being a vegan because I wrote that those people who choose to eat nothing but beef should throw in a multivitamin and some dietary fiber powder. My favorite came from saying that compact fluorescent bulbs use less energy than incandescent bulbs. Obviously I am being paid by the Twisty Bulb Cartel. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Major changes to the content of Bulgaria during WWII resulted in shrill accusations of a "Macedonian network"! GPinkerton (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Doug Weller for this [13]. In my view a disruptive edit like this [14], with a mendacious edit summary, would warrant an immediate block. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: I likely would have blocked if I saw that on the 30th, but it's a bit late for that.Doug Weller talk 17:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Bryant G. Wood

At this Creationist archaeologist's article User:Niqmadu22 is deleting the fact that another archaeologist is also a Creationist and adding a Creationist site to the external links. An earlier relevant discussion is at Talk:Bryant G. Wood#PROFRINGE controversy. The OP there is no longer active having stopped editing shortly after the discussion (and after I gave them an AP alert), but I'll ping the rest: @ජපස, Joe Roe, Hob Gadling, and Tgeorgescu:. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Nutrisystem

A commercial weight-loss programme without much evidential support. Has seen much recent activity following an apparently abortive WP:DR attempt (of which I was a participant).[15] More eyes could help I think. Alexbrn (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I am no fan of dodgy consumer products, but looking at the article it seems to be biased against the company. There is nothing fringe about the concept that if you replace your current diet with an expensive lower calorie diet you will lone weight, and there is nothing fringe about the fact that pretty much every diet stops working and you gain the weight back when you go off the diet and start eating as you did before. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the edit warring has got to 6RR and the Dispute Resolution Moderator has stood down. Page needs to go to RfC and be locked pending outcome. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • All fad diets are WP:FRINGE as being altmed-adjacent. Ineffective, marketed with dubious claims, sometimes expensive, and distracting from the medically-known course of action (healthy diet and/or lifestyle changes). Alexbrn (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    Except that some fad diets are the medically-known course of action. If I tell you that you will lose weight by exercising and dieting in the exact same fashion that and doctor or nutritionist would recommend while also taking my expensive homeopathic pills that by an amazing coincidence just happen to look exactly like a popular brand of sugar free breath mints, you can't say that what I am selling is "ineffective" -- just that you can skip the minty-fresh pills and get the exact same results for free. And saying that people who go off the diet (whether it includes the mints or not) usually gain weight -- as the NutraSystem page currently does -- is a stupid criticism. You could add a similar claim to every diet and exercise article, and to a boatload of our regular medical articles. Wearing sunscreen reduces sunburn. A majority of persons get sunburned again when they stop using the product and therefore many are compelled to return to using sunscreen within a year. Regarding the phenomenon of former customers getting sunburned and having to return to using sunscreen, the president of Acme sunscreen has stated: "It’s a sad thing from the consumer’s standpoint; but it makes a very attractive business model." There are plenty of actual bad things you can say about NutraSystem without making stuff up up. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ying Yang Woo

CLOSED
To the extent that there is a consistent argument expressed about the influence of ancient Chinese philosophy on modern sciences, there is a strong consensus that the arguments advanced and challenged here do not belong in Wikipedia articles. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

We might want to keep an eye on W727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have a real world commitment and cannot deal with this right now.

Samples:

"17th century German mathematician and philosopher Leibniz invented the modern binary numeral system with a bivalent interpretation to Yin-Yang hexagrams that eventually led to modern digital computing technologies, and 20th century Danish physicist Niels Bohr invented the particle-wave complementarity principle with a dualism interpretation to Yin-Yang that eventually led to quantum computing"
"...that disproves spacetime geometries as the geometries of light and truth-based logics as the logics of photon but identified bipolar quantum geometry as the geometry of light and bipolar dynamic logic as the logic of photon for reaching mind-light-matter unity and resolving the mysteries in quantum mechanics. The result may sound somewhat too dramatic to believe, but it is based on a formal equilibrium-based bipolar logical system rooted in the Ancient Chinese YinYang philosophy with logically definable causality and analytical quantum intelligence in bipolar dynamic set-theoretic terms"

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Looks like fashionable nonsense indeed. Feynstein (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: @Feynstein: Please note that the above quotes from W727's blocked edit are incomplete. For instance, one missing part is ".. an equilibrium-based formal Yin-Yang bipolar logic has been developed based on bipolar coexistence and reciprocal interaction---a key concept of ancient Chinese philosophy. For the first time in science philosophy, the Yin-Yang bipolar logic reached logically definable causality." That is a STRONG argument in formal science as definable causality is predicted by Einstein. A formal proof of logically definable causality has to be a logically verifiable scientific breakthrough. After all, input-output bipolarity is observed everywhere (such as import-export). That is formal science, not fringe or pseudoscience. The KEY HERE IS THE WORD "FORMAL." Hope you would reconsider this point. Quote from Wikipedia: "Formal science is a branch of science studying formal language disciplines concerned with formal systems, such as logic, mathematics, statistics, theoretical computer science, artificial intelligence, information theory, game theory, systems theory, decision theory, and theoretical linguistics." Thanks for your reconsideration. --User:W727
The comment I left on our talk page is hopefully useful. As for technical details about how the quantum mysticism claims were formulated, it doesn't change the fact that a secondary source should make those connections and interpret the claims for us; if the material is then considered WP:DUE because it's well covered in the literature, it could be mentioned, citing those sources and presented in the way those independent sources do... —PaleoNeonate – 03:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Quantum computing is based upon western physics. Yin-Yang has nothing to do with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
BTW, at one epoch I was an I Ching practioner, wrote some literature about it and some related software (not in a previous life).  While Qubits and QCL have "sustance" and actual applications in mathematics and cryptography, the Tao, while part of an elegant and interesting philosophy, at least in my current understanding, remains a product of the mind (that too doesn't need quantum processes to work) and tradition. —PaleoNeonate – 05:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Thanks for the response. Regarding "Quantum computing is based upon Western physics. Yin-Yang has nothing to do with it." Please note that Niels Bohr--father figure of quantum mechanics gave Yin-Yang a particle-wave interpretation. Leibniz who invented the binary system gave Yin-Yang a 01 bivalent interpretation. Both interpretations so far failed to reach logically definable causality. But the -+ bipolar interpretation to Yin Yang reached logically definable causality. Seemingly, 01 bivalence, particle-wave, and -+ bipolar interpretations are all scientific interpretations. The -+ interpretation should be more fundamental due to logically definable causality. Regards. --User:W727
@PaleoNeonate: Regarding the Dao, I remembered its central claim is Yin-Yang equilibrium and nature-human harmony, not just mental equilibrium. The problem of the Ancient Chinese philosophy has been its lack of a formal logical basis. Such a formal logical basis with logically definable causality may benefit science and quantum physics greatly. That does not seem to be pseudoscience or fringe science, but a resolution to quantum mysticism. Regards. --User:W727
@W727: "quantum mysticism" is itself fringe pseudoscience by definition. It is of unlikely to be of benefit anywhere. GPinkerton (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: The word "QUANTUM" does not mean "quantum mysticism." Quantum mechanics is an accepted science field. (re. Wikipedia: "Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics). While the particle-wave interpretation cannot provide logically definable causality, the bipolar interpretation did it in a formal logic in both crisp and fuzzy set terms. That is formal science for computing and modeling in AI, not "quantum mysticism." Again, definable causality was predicated by Einstein for his grand unification of quantum theory and general relativity in physics. It is said the following are Einstein's words: “Physics constitutes a logical system of thought... Evolution is proceeding in the direction of increasing simplicity of the logical basis (principles). We must always be ready to change these notions—that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics — in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically.” --User:W727
The word "QUANTUM" does not mean "quantum mysticism." If the whole word is capitalized, then, yes, it does.
Quoting Einstein platitudes does not help. Quotes by Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli would not help either, since they were all familiar with Eastern philosophy and injected its wording ("dualism") in the Copenhagen interpretation. That does not mean there is a real similarity. The number 2 is a pretty small integer, so it is not surprising that it is the answer to many different questions, such as "Black and white: how many words are that?", "Night and day: how many words are that?", "how many sexes are there?", "in how many directions can I change the temperature?", and "how many different models of the electron do we have that do not quite work?"
BTW, everybody knows that quantum mechanics is an accepted science field. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling: I believe we are getting deeper and closer to the bottom. Thanks for the lead. Yes. There are too many different dualism pairs such as "Black and white" "Night and Day" "Male and Female" "truth and falsity" "real and imaginary" "zero and one" "particle and wave". But are they essential? The answer is a NO. Quantum mechanics took the particle-wave dualism complementarity interpretation and could not reach logically definable causality (Re. Bohr's word). The ancient Chinese Yin and Yang took too many of the other pairs and failed to reach the status of science philosophy for thousands of years. Why? Because they are not most fundamental. That could be why bipolar complementarity claims that -+ (negative, positive) bipolar Yin-Yang is the most fundamental property of the universe. That coincide with the observed fact that particle-antiparticle or input-output bipolarity is the only property that can survive a big bang and a black hole. That is why Yin-Yang bipolarity is against many of the non-scientific pairs to be the only logical system to reach logically definable causality with a formal logic that can reveal truth in formal logical forms with different applications. It also falsified truth-falsity as the most fundamental pair because American philosopher asserted that truth is in the mind and does not exist in Nature. It seems the formal bipolar logical system has reached a logical unification of the quantum and classical word. Should that be valid quantum information science? Thanks again for your guide to the bottom. It would be great if you could falsify particle-antiparticle or input-output bipolarity as the most fundamental property of the universe to guide the discussion to go deeper. Since a logical system has to be relatively small, not too many pairs. I do think Einstein words helpful. Re.: “Physics constitutes a logical system of thought... Evolution is proceeding in the direction of increasing simplicity of the logical basis (principles). We must always be ready to change these notions—that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics — in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically.” (One point to add: I double checked a published paper that also falsified space-time as most fundamental property because space-time is not directly bipolar and cannot form bipolar quantum entanglement.) --User:W727
This is still just the old "let's look for every equation where the solution is X (in this case, 2. Others choose the Golden Ratio), collect them in a list, point to it, drop our lower jaw, and claim that something deep, fundamental, and important is going on, when actually, the only thing this is going on is cherry picking". Boring. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

My brain is sending me little warning messages. Is this another one channelling Deepak? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Quite possibly. There are many fascinating conversations that could be had about the founders of quantum physics and their various philosophical influences, but this kind of woo is helpful to exactly zero of them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: @XOR'easter: Not possible. A formal logical system that is claimed a logical unification of the classical and the quantum worlds with different applications can only be academic and noble. Reputable publications and recognitions can be found on this topic. Logically definable causality should be very significant in science and AI, especially, in mind-boddy unification. If the bottom is reached, it is formal science. If the bottom has not been reached, lets getting to the bottom. Please, no hasty conclusions. --User:W727

I call certifiable. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The main issue is that you need to cite those alleged reputable secondary sources so that relevant philosophy articles can mention it (Wikipedia articles appeal to the authority of reliable sources). Since this noticeboard is also not a paper or forum to expand on the topic, maybe one of the reference desks would have more editors welcoming discussion about the topic itself... —PaleoNeonate – 18:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@W727: I'm not sure the word "Quantum" means what you think it means. You're talking about philosophy here, much like the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The difference is that this interpretation starts from the physics itself. The theory you're talking about starts with "Ying-Yang" being the most fundamental property of the universe, whatever that means. I have spent enough all-nighters doing 50 pagers quantum mechanics homework to know that what you're talking about is not included in the mainstream view of it. If it ever were to be included here, it would require at least a few physicists to cite that work in order to give it some credibility. And I mean, you don't get to touch pages like causality and the 2nd law of thermodynamics without having VERY solid stuff. There are plenty of pseudoscientists who think that "Einstein was wrong" enough at it is.[16] I looked at the work done by this Wen-Ran Zhang[17] and it's not exactly what one would call mainstream.Feynstein (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: To my knowledge Zhang's work is in computing and information science that belong to formal science. Einstein did say "Physics constitutes a logical system of thought." But physicists are not logicians, computer and information scientists are. Now, should we wait for physicists to become logicians so that they can reinvent logically definable causality? Is Einstein's physics mainstream?— Preceding unsigned comment added by W727 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@W727: This sentence from Zhang: "Based on bipolar dynamic logic and bipolar quantum linear algebra, a causal theory of YinYang bipolar atom is introduced in a completely background independent geometry that transcends spacetime. The causal theory leads to an equilibrium-based super symmetrical quantum cosmology of negative-positive energies." means exactly nothing. "Bipolar quantum linear algebra": not a thing. "The causal theory leads to an equilibrium-based super symmetrical quantum cosmology of negative-positive energies"... This one I'm not even commenting. It has the hallmarks of quack pseudoscience. It's literally a bunch of buzzwords put together. The rest of the article unironically looks like the original Sokal affair paper. And yes, relativity is pretty mainstream. GPS wouldn't work of it wasn't for relativistic corrections. Feynstein (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: Thanks for the message. The bashing of the causal and logical approach to quantum theory seems to me unjustified. To my knowledge definable causality has been a major pursuit in quantum theory without success. The algebraic model seems provide a mathematical bridge from the quantum world to the classic world for mind-matter unity. I read his succeeding IEEE Journal papers (1) From Equilibrium-Based Business Intelligence to Information Conservational Quantum-Fuzzy Cryptography — A Cellular Transformation of Bipolar Fuzzy Sets to Quantum Intelligence Machinery, IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems, 2017. (2) Ground-0 Axioms vs. First Principles and Second Law: From the Geometry of Light and Logic of Photon to Mind-Light-Matter Unity-AI&QI, IEEE/CAA J. 2021. It seems a dramatic logical/mathematical bridge from AI to quantum intelligence and mind-light-matter unity. I do not think it is an easy matter to get the word "AI" "QI" "mind-light-matter unity" together to IEEE Journals in the classical world. Therefore, bashing the logical approach may not help. --W727 (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Calling obvious pseudoscience "pseudoscience" does not qualify as "bashing the logical approach" just because the pseudoscientists used the word "logic". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling: It seems that, logic needs formal formulation and proof; "obvious pseudoscience" seems to be subjective and volitional but could be an authoritative judgement. --W727 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
It is true, one needs knowledge to recognize pseudoscience. You don't have it, so I should not have called it "obvious" just because it is obvious to me as a physicist experienced in examining pseudosciences. But here is a tip for beginners: a high concentration of buzzwords that actually signify unconnected concepts, such as "quantum", "fuzzy", "mind", "matter", "unity", "Yin-Yang", "dualism", and "business" should ring alarm bells.
Please learn how to format your edits. "Show preview" can help. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@W727: I just read parts of your comments higher up. You're talking about the wave-particle duality as if it's something fundamental in quantum physics. It's not. It's an historical artefact dating back to De Broglie's Matter wave. Wave functions describe objects both as particles and waves at the same time without needing two separate theories to analyse the evolution of a system. Are you aware of that? Your "Ying Yang" symbol instead of being made with a black and a white part is actually a big dull gray circle. Feynstein (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: Thanks for the comment. I read a paper about De Broglie's natter wave and Bohm's causal wave. It seems to me they did not reach logically definable causality and mind-light-matter unity as Zhang presented (re. above). Do I have a "Ying Yang" symbol or a big dull gray circle? Confused. I know Yin-Yang can be black-white or red-blue. But in Bohr's Coat of Arms the Yin-Yang symbol is red-black. It seems you have more knowledge on this matter. --W727 (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Call for close

  • (Please don't ping me. I have a watchlist and know how to use it.) W727 has posted multiple comments arguing their position, yet from what I can see not a single editor agrees that Yin-Yang hexagrams led to modern digital computing technologies or to quantum computing. It is time for W727 to drop the WP:STICK and for us to close this thread. The essay at WP:1AM may be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    Agreed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    Agreed. --User:W727 --W727 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2021 (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.

Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

An article that may benefit from improvements in relation to climate change denialism (I've not checked for independent sources but the article currently describes its own views with its "scientists confuse" and "catastrophist" language). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Same with Oren Cass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Putin's Palace

User RenatUK (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes my contribution (diff) or changes it to mean the exact opposite.

As written, the article is intentionally misleading/fraudulent, because it neglects to mention that the imagery is high-quality Computer-generated imagery and not the real-world photographs they are easily mistaken for. It is also interesting to know how they are copyrighted to Creative Commons, being stills captured from a video release from Navalny's FBK, which is also nearly entirely computer-generated. Nonetheless, it should be their copyright and not the posters.

I provided a link to a video actually taken on site by YouTube channel Mash Video, which demonstrated that there are absolutely none of the extravagant luxury furnishings the computer animation features. It is merely an empty concrete shell with no interior furnishings whatsoever yet. This is documentary footage, which should speak for itself.

RenatUK (talk · contribs) claims that Mash is either obscure, or not reliable due to being "pro-Kremlin" (which he happens to do with every Russian media) citing marginal sources and sources hidden behind the paywall. Now, even if it is labelled "pro-Kremlin" by somebody else, it is not necessarily false, being documentary footage touring the actual site. As opposed to fancy CGI intended to misrepresent itself as such? Incidentally, is my provided reference, Mash, a major new media outlet with an office and full-time editorial stuff, best known for their Telegram channel Mash on Telegramhttps://t.me/breakingmash with over 900000 subscribers. As you may well know, Telegram has a policy of non-cooperation with the Russian government, which has tried to shut it down on multiple occasions (via Forbes) Muchandr (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not a fringe topic. There is plenty of mainstream news coverage of this (e.g.[18]) and so far as I can see the (CGI or not) "furnishings" are not a topic that is covered in them, so is not of interest to Wikipedia. Stuff in Telegram channels is not reliable/due. Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
FTN isn't the place to deal with copyright issues. But I'd note that AFAICT, no one is claiming any contributor owns the copyright to those images. Instead all it's claimed is they were CC0 released by the copyright holder. There's no requirement that media uploads must be uploaded by the copyright holder, all we require is sufficient evidence of a compatible licence. To be fair, I couldn't find any evidence that either the video or that particular image was CC0 released so have asked the uploader where they found that, it's possible I missed it somewhere as the content is in Russians. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Alexbrn (talk · contribs) The coverage is rather lopsided. Don't you think that it is principally dishonest to try to pass computer-generated imagery as real world footage? I offered to include a real video shot on site, which demonstrates that it is nothing but an empty concrete shell yet, containing none of the detail displayed. It is also available on Youtube [19] This, the user RenatUK (talk · contribs) claimed for "anonymous Youtube channel" See for yourself, it is documentary footage that should speak for itself. Unlike the CGI, which have since been established to contain at least the following fantasy elements with zero possibility of being true.

1. The library room is an exact replica of a room in the Czech National Library in Prague
2. The double-headed eagle seen on the wrought iron gates is the coat-of-arms of Montenegro, not Russia [20]

Also note that the original Navalny's video misidentifies the source of no-flight zone as requested by the FSO (Federal Security Service, a new agency in charge of guarding government VIPs including Putin). The article text already corrected this to the real no-flight zone id really issue to the FSB for Krasnodar region, who are really really regular border guards and the cost guard. Which ought to surprise no one, given that the property is smack between the busiest port on the Russian Black Sea, Novorossiysk, and the busiest airport, Adler.

It is fringe context insulting to anyone's intelligence, because Putin already has a free use of an even larger and more luxurious government mansion at nearby [21] which he retains even as ex-President of Russia, free of charge. Why would he want to buy another one and pay the running costs? Muchandr (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Who said anything about Putin buying something? I thought one of the big concerns was that Putin himself is unlikely to have directly paid for it even if he may control it, and probably isn't paying for the upkeep either. BTW, what images are you talking about anyway? The image in the infobox doesn't seems to depict any furnishings. It's just a shot of the exterior. Some of the images in the gallery below do, but these clearly aren't taken from any recent Navalny video since they've existed since 2011. It appears they originated from ruleaks.net although where ruleaks.net got them from, I have no idea. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Mao Zedong

Needs more eyes on it (page history) and there are also separate issues on the talk page that could use comments from those familiar with the topic. Crossroads -talk- 17:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

BBC Article about Yoga, QAnon, and Covid-19 conspiracy theories

Does yoga have a conspiracy theory problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is basically conspirituality isnt' it? This came up in a previous discussion about JP Sears. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
There certainly is a large conspirituality aspect, but the bit about QAnaon purposely trying to radicalize Yoga is new. I am seeing more and more Yoga websites pushing the same anti vaccination, anti facemask claims typically found on QAnon websites. Related:[22] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Related: "Below is a list of wellness industry figures that have posted, shared, or explicitly created QAnon-related content."[23] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

David and Jonathan again

Background: there exists a cottage industry of painting historical, mythical and fictional individuals as somehow being gay icons despite a lack of evidence. Anne Frank, Shakespeare. Robin Hood. You can always find some fringe source that supports the claim, but never any actual historians or social scientists.

This brings me to:

By my count the article has 1840 words out of a 3214 word article (57%) that discuss whether or not David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship. In particular, the "Traditional Christian interpretation" section, despite millions of words written on other aspects of David and Jonathan, paints a picture of bible scholars only discussing whether they were gay.

In my opinion, this is far too much WP:WEIGHT given to a WP:FRINGE theory, but we all know what will happen if I try to reduce the sections on homoeroticism.

So, what to do? RfC? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

What else would go in the David and Jonathan article besides speculation without evidence on the nature of the relationship? We already have an article for David and an article for Jonathan (1 Samuel). Why is the long-standing western tradition of emphasizing their relationship as a paradigm of male-male love (of whatever sort) "fringe"? What else is there to discuss about them which isn't better covered at either main article? What are these millions of words written on other aspects of David and Jonathan; what aspects do they describe? GPinkerton (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
They describe male-male love. That's the mainstream view. The fringe view is that they had a homosexual relationship. And Wikipedia is not the place for "speculation without evidence". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
As an analogy, there is a lot of material that talks about Roy Rogers loving his horse. He even made a movie about it: My Pal Trigger. Does that mean that we should devote 60% of the Roy Rogers page to "speculation without evidence" that he had sex with his horse? Not a perfect analogy, of course -- homosexuality is considered to be normal and bestiality is not -- but the core idea of "strong evidence of love, no evidence of sexual love" is there in both relationships. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Just an idea: maybe a clue to look if some reputable scholars have treated of it would be searching for some writing about comparative mythology (i.e. Gilgamesh and Enkidu, considering how the epic influenced later tradition like the Noahide flood myth). However, it is obvious that gay interpretations of David and Jonathan are not traditional but contemporary... —PaleoNeonate – 23:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
What kind of evidence is there likely to be? It's the Bible and the people are not real. Where is this evidence going to come from? It's all exegesis - ancient Greek for "speculation without evidence". If there are sources saying this is an exegetical thing, it's a thing, just like every other interpretation of antique fiction. What kind of evidence does a non-fringe interpretation have that distinguishes it from a fringe one? Weight of rabbinical tradition? Are we to write off all those art critics and historians as "fringe" simply because there's no "evidence" that for centuries Western artists homoeroticized the martyrdom of saint Sebastian besides the paintings themselves? If writing poems addressed to women was enough for Sappho to give her island's name to all lesbians forever, then I don't know why this long-established tradition of conjecture from textual evidence only should exclude Shakespeare, who wrote some poems to a "lovely boy". We'll never really know, so educated speculation is all there is. That doesn't make it fringe. GPinkerton (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with GPinkerton. The only reason David and Jonathan's relationship has its own article is the homoerotic nature of the relationship of these two fictional characters. Evidence for the relationships of fictional characters is unlikely to be found, all we have are depictions and interpretations. These are far from fringe. If the homoerotic material is removed, I would suggest deleting the article for lack of notability. Dimadick (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
While "evidence" has a different meaning for this than for scientific topics, there are absolutely still fringe theories in history, art interpretation, and the like. Crossroads -talk- 19:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads, and what evidence is there for describing this as one of those? GPinkerton (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE doesn't just cover flat earth-level fringe but also discusses minority views, and sometimes fringe theories do get mentioned as long as they are properly contextualized and are not given undue weight. Regardless, I understood you to be speaking in a more general sense, and so was I. Fringe theories of this nature crop up for other persons as well. Crossroads -talk- 20:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
From WaPo: "Author Hannah Moskowitz was browsing Wikipedia last summer when she fired off a tweet: "me, yelling at the 'personal life' section of Wikipedia: JUST TELL ME IF THEY'RE GAY."" It's what the people wants. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, because one op-ed author is obsessed with it is no reason to change well established practice which tends to, coincidentally, also usually prevent overlong sections full of trivial mentions. For the record, my personal take is "why does anybody care about the private lives of celebrities"? Re. the specific subject of this, if the majority of sources that can be found discuss this relationship and its implications, whether historical or modern, then it's not UNDUE to have the majority of the article devoted to such implications. Whether some specific sections are overblown is another question, its not a subject with which I am familiar. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
One could maybe make a case that some of it could be condensed (e.g., the list of six bullet points), or that some of it reads as OR-ish (like a long run of proof text-y citations to Bible verses), or that a lengthy blockquote should be summarized and paraphrased instead. But none of the sections look completely out of place. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, such a cottage industry absolutely exists. Sometimes it seems that pretty much any historical or fictional character who has a close friendship with someone of the same sex has someone claiming it just must have been homoerotic and means they were gay/bi/queer/fluid etc. Most of the time, this is restricted to blogs, Tumblr, and other obviously garbage sources, but occasionally it makes it into the pages of the likes of The Guardian or into other sources that have essentially zero uptake by the relevant academic experts.
    When it comes to historical figures in general, I think BillsYourUncle's advice from when Anne Frank came up here is worth repeating: I think we need to require that any source is a longterm historian who has thoroughly studied this particular person in depth, otherwise the author has absolutely no hope of knowing what Anne Frank was "really like". That means: 1) No dabblers who flit from one subject to the next, writing a book on a different subject every year. 2) No authors from outside the history field, in fact no one from outside the subfield of WWII or mid-20th century history. 3) Absolutely no political activists, novelists, playwrights, etc. 4) Preferably someone who has written at least three or four books on Anne Frank or a closely related topic. That means even if the source is an article in the NYTimes (normally an RS), if it was written by a fashion editor trying to link a historical person to their favorite political cause then that's just an opinion by someone who doesn't have anything relevant to say about the subject. This is frankly just the normal procedure for an encyclopedia, which is supposed to rely on scholarly academic sources written by respected specialists on a relevant topic. Obviously this advice can be adapted to other historical figures.
    In this case, I don't see that we have grounds to remove all reference to the idea that David and Jonathan were homoerotically involved. It seems to have been brought up too much to do so and to have made an impact on modern religious LGBT culture, and since the idea is out there, it educates readers who may otherwise be unaware to show them the arguments against. Still, I haven't read this article closely, so it's possible there is some unreliable material that can be cut.
    I will say that I much prefer this idea be covered in this article rather than twice in the articles on the individuals themselves, unduly weighting them. Crossroads -talk- 20:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    The issue is any historical or fictional character who has a close friendship with someone of the same sex is the best evidence we are ever going to get for a same-sex sexual relationship of any historical or fictional character. Besides rumour, a close friendship the best evidence any of their contemporaries (co-fictionaries?) would have had, given the risks involved, let alone the ancient historians and scripture-writers at centuries' remove from the hypothetical sweaty minutes. GPinkerton (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    (Not in the case of Anne Frank, obviously, since she actually wrote down her feelings herself.) GPinkerton (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    We're not in the business of judging evidence; experimental, historical, or otherwise. Scientists and scholars do that; we just relay what they say with due weight. And legitimate mainstream scholars don't judge every close friendship as homoerotic. Straight people have close same-sex friendships but lack interest in sex with their friends, and also make up the vast majority of the population; so the default assumption by scholars would be that friendships were not homoerotic relationships unless they have additional good evidence otherwise. For many of these friendships, no relevant experts feel that way; the only people who do are people who lack the relevant expertise. But we don't have to decide the facts, in any case; we just follow the best sources with due weight. Crossroads -talk- 21:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    Good summary. I agree with both of you, evidence may never exist but it doesn't really matter if Wikipedia only reports what historians wrote (that may include notable speculation). —PaleoNeonate – 02:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal - honestly, I suspect that the best thing might be to see whether David and Jonathan slash fiction is a notable topic - based on the sourcing of the existing article, I suspect that it is - and SPLIT the content. The real FRINGE view is that David and Jonathan were historical figures documented in the texts about them, and given the mainstream view that their relationship was not historical, its reception as homoerotic is a fairly normal part of the overall reception to their story in modern times. Of course social scientists aren't weighing in on this any more than they do in the case of other mythical or fictional characters, but that isn't in itself an argument that litcrit and even biblical critical scholarship aren't RS for how the story is received and appropriated more recently. Nor do any BLP issues arise. Newimpartial (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

In a humorous sense, "slash fiction" isn't far off, but I oppose splitting the article. There's not a real separate topic there. As far as if these are historical or fictional persons, I'm not sure what the academic consensus is on whether these two persons did really exist and were mythologized, or if they are completely fictional. Even if they did exist the account is still mostly fiction or mythology. Certainly, RS/DUE/FRINGE apply the same regardless. Crossroads -talk- 21:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
To be completely humorless for a second, my understanding is that there is currently (limited) archaeological evidence for a "David" but not for a "Jonathan". Which places their relationship in the Gilgamesh/Enkidu side of the line rather than the Edward II / Piers Gaverston side. Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, if the influential person existed, that inspired the traditional stories we know, it's still not considered to be history about an actual David, —PaleoNeonate – 02:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

COVID lab leak, yet again

This article has appeared in mainspace, placed by Arcturus. I attempted a bold redirect[24] but Arcturus has edit-warred it back into place[25] (ironically, citing WP:BRD and referring ro the COVID general sanctions, which this restoration was in breach of). This looks to me like a loving, detailed fringe WP:POVFORK of a by-now thorough debunked conspiracy theory. Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Escalate to WP:AN (I believe that's where community imposed general sanctions are applied, rather than arbitration committee imposed sanctions which are dealt with at WP:AE) for sanctions to be applied, clearly unacceptable for that article to be created in that state. FDW777 (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly it wasn't a move of the draftspace article but a full copy that's been reworked, possibly to avoid the talk page history where there was consensus it was a pov fork, —PaleoNeonate – 12:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I've escalated this to ANI, as Arcturus has told me to "fuck off you arsehole" on my talk page, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring,_told_to_"fuck_off"_by_Arcturus Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Behavior at ANI previously was also suboptimal... Hmm it's possible that a history merge be a good idea between the Draft and the new article copy, —PaleoNeonate – 12:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Arcturus has also violated the 3RR after being given an edit warring notice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate:. Nope, not trying to avoid anything. All stuff from the Draft Talk page now copied over. Arcturus (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Arcturus: if you're going to copy stuff, please ensure you comply with WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I don't see that you have, since looking at the edit history of the talk page, I have no idea where the content came from just some mysterious draft page. Looking at the article edit history, I do hope that the content you copied was entirely your own work since it's even less clear where any content was copied from. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Looking into this more, I managed to find Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and User:Arcturus/Lab leak by checking your edit history. Confusingly although as per the edit summary, the talk page was copied from the draft talk page, not the user space page which has no talk page. However going by the edit summaries on the article, I would assume all content was copied from the user space page, and none was copied from the draft page. In that case, the lack of any clear attribution is fine from a copyright standpoint since you're the only editor of the user space page although it's still somewhat confusing from an editor standpoint. However assuming any copyrighted content was copied from the draft page, this is a serious WP:Copyvio. I see no indication in the edit summary of the main article that any content was copied from the draft article. And even if I find the user space page, which is difficult since it's not named in the edit summaries AFAICT, I see no indication in the userspace page edit summary that any content was copied. Wikipedia editors should be entitled to have their copyright respected, the same as we respect the copyright of anyone else. Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The userspace version was copied from the draft version, there might be some alterations on the first version in userspace but it's clear there's unattributed copying from the draft and the creation in userspace is an attempt an at end-run around consensus. FDW777 (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and this (probably notable) topic is already dealt with, in a NPOV manner, at COVID-19 misinformation where is makes most sense in that context per WP:NOPAGE. Spinning it out into a fringe fork is an undiscussed split. Alexbrn (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
e/c - Who did that then. It is too convoluted for me to figure out. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
That's the draft version that existed prior to February 8. The sections "Seeming pre-adaptation for human transmission" and "Mojiang miners pneumonia incident and the origins of RaTG13" are probably the most important, although I didn't check further. There is the first version in userspace from February 8. Although the sections detailed don't appear, if you look at the "Uncertain origins" section you'll see those section headings are suppressed, they appear in the text as "== Seeming pre-adaptation for human transmission == (needs rewrite)" and "== Mojiang miners pneumonia incident and the origins of RaTG13 == (needs rewrite)". I haven't down a word for word comparison, but a quick look suggests they are the same, as indeed the "needs rewrite" label next to each suggests, why else would the first version of a draft in userspace need a rewrite unless it had been copied from somewhere else? FDW777 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory has sufficient notability to warrant its own article. The problem with this version is that it provides false equivalency and promotes the theory.
As with any conspiracy theory, the emphasis should be on who promotes it, why and its impact on society. It should not be treated as a medical topic, any more than articles about women impregnated by aliens.
Also, it should clearly distinguish between legitimate speculation and conspiracy theory. The 1977 H1N1 virus after all is widely assumed to have escaped from a Chinese lab. Conspiracy theorism has its own logic and rules of evidence unlike legitimate theorizing.
TFD (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, "widely assumed" is not good enough for an article, and speculation is not good enough to serve as substitute for evidence. Though perhaps a widespread assumption, there does not appear to be enough of that assumption to generate a standalone article, even after all these years. GPinkerton (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
You are missing my point. There is an article, 1977 Russian flu, and it says, "it is widely believed that the virus was leaked to the public in a laboratory accident." I only mentioned it to show that a lab leak would have been one of many possibilities so if someone had asked in December 2019 to check it out, the World MEDRS police wouldn't have run for straitjackets. Explanations become conspiracy theories when their proponents reject evidence and rational argument. And that's when it moves from the realm of epidemiology to social science. Note that this discussion thread is about fringe theories. They are allowed in Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Another draft to monitor, —PaleoNeonate – 07:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Some sandboxes about COVID-19 that include suboptimal sources:
—PaleoNeonate – 07:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
There most probably should be a short mention with a link to the misinformation article (if there's reliably sourced material there treating it as such, it could also be used to improve the misinformation article)... https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/superspreaders-top-covid-19-conspiracy-theories-75898559 mentions this conspiracy theory, —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
WP has articles on other such events like 2015 Military World Games so deletion is probably not the way, —PaleoNeonate – 22:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Cleaning up articles sourced to Physics Essays

I was doing a bit of cleanup and discovered that Physics Essays has published papers claiming to derive spacetime from consciousness, that energy conservation refutes relativity, that relativistic length contraction is a logical contradiction, and so forth. It's now listed among the "questionable" journals on Wikipedia:CITEWATCH. I've been looking into the articles that cite Physics Essays for their sources and have found a few that need attention.

  • The article Ricardo Carezani was deleted in 2007 and resurrected 10 years later. I've redirected it to autodynamics, as there was no reliable sourcing for an actual biography, and no suggestion that he is notable for anything else.
  • The list of publications in Mendel Sachs claims to be "selected" but clearly isn't.

XOR'easter (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter:, I've nominated Apriorics for deletion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Combinatorial hierarchy will follow unless the mathematics portal finds a reason to keep it. --mfb (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Quantum vacuum thruster needs ... gaaah. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Is a quantum vacuum thruster the same thing as Vacuum to Antimatter-Rocket, which is also "gaaah"? power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations is also something to behold. Tercer (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The editorial board is made up of professors of physics at reputable universities.[26] Note that it is about "Physics Essays is an international journal dedicated to theoretical and experimental aspects of fundamental problems in physics and, generally, to the advancement of basic knowledge of physics." That allows for articles that may challenge current understanding of physics.
The extent if any to which time and space exist outside human experience is an ongoing problem in philosophy and theoretical physics.
There is nothing unusual about a journal of theoretical physics to publish theories that seem strange. That's how science advances. But per WP:FRINGE, we don't include these theories until they gain broad coverage beyond their initial publication. Publication in an academic theory does not on its own make a theory notable or worth mentioning in any article.
TFD (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
There's a difference between challenging the current understanding of physics (which, in some sense, is part of the job of any physicist) and publishing quantum woo and relativity denial. Claiming to derive spacetime from the bodiless consciousness that supposedly takes place during near-death-experiences [27] is the latter. So is A parallel nonphysical universe containing dreams, thoughts, emotions, and memories [...] based on dark matter [28]. That's His Dark Materials, not physics. The existence of an editorial board with some reputable affiliations just means that the editorial board isn't doing any editing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The extent if any to which time and space exist outside human experience is an ongoing problem in philosophy and theoretical physics. in metaphysics philosophy, but there's no valid reason today to believe that physics rely on the mind or conscious observers (other than via some flawed interpretations) and much evidence points to the contrary. For the journal, if it publishes anything, I agree that it then depends on notability (we'll find better sources about the topic including criticism if so), but these also are primary sources and should be treated as such, as always the author, their credentials and if it's due also matter, —PaleoNeonate – 20:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Some precisions: No-cloning theorem isn't possible because the observer is conscious, only because for machines to measure it, interaction is needed, altering the state. Neurological correlates of consciousness exist, even if the problem of consciousness may never be completely solved (it might be someday, but really isn't). Idealist apologetics must find justifications like hypothetical collective minds or a conscious universe but there never was any reliable evidence of such and people familiar with altered consciousness states can understand that those are still subjective (and neurology can partly explain the incredible experiences). Relativity experiments have tested and confirmed hypotheses about space/time and those can run alone. Where mass and acceleration affect it, it's also true for machines. When people die the world doesn't change for other observers except for the loss. We can fantasize and speculate about the unknowable forever, but that doesn't lead to practical applications or to improvement in understanding... —PaleoNeonate – 20:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The editor-in-chief, Emilio Panarella is editor of Current Trends in International Fusion Research (Springer 1994). The senior editor has numerous papers published in academic journals.[29] The editorial board all have credentials. George Vahala for example is Professor of Physics at William and Mary.[30] A. Ravi P. Rau is an alumni professor of physics at LSU and author of The Beauty of Physics: Patterns, Principles, and Perspectives (Oxford, 2014). The other editors and members of the board have similar credentials. They have decided that these articles were worthy of publication. I don't think we are in a position to second guess them. You need to show that experts in the field treat it as a deprecated source.
there's no valid reason today to believe that physics rely on the mind or conscious observers Not sure what you mean by that, but perhaps I didn't explain myself well. Science is conducted by conscious observers with minds. That doesn't mean that if there were no people that the universe would disappear.
TFD (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Theres nothing stopping otherwise reputable scientists from having fringe opinions. Roger Penrose, probably among the world's most distinguished living physicists is the main proponent of orchestrated objective reduction, a fringe theory which has pretty much zero traction in contemporary neuroscience, for instance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Emilio Panarella, the editor-in-chief, edited an obscure book of conference proceedings and was apparently employed in an electrical-engineering department at the time. The senior editor Michael H. Brill works on color vision, not physics. And whatever the editors' credentials, they publish papers claiming that special relativity is mathematically erroneous [31][32], that quantum mechanics isn't necessary to explain how electrons work in atoms [33], that special relativity is logically self-contradictory [34], that general relativity is logically self-contradictory [35], that everything every quantum physics textbook says about the Stern–Gerlach experiment is wrong [36], that free will comes from extra spatial dimensions [37], that there was a hidden error overlooked for 130 years in the Michelson–Morley experiment [38], that   is wrong [39][40], that conscious observers send signals back in time to change quantum probabilities [41], that special relativity is unnecessary because we just didn't understand Newton hard enough [42][43], that radiation, matter and consciousness are the three ways in which existence (energy) manifests itself [44]... Whatever the editors are doing, it's not editing. XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The most reputable name on the "editorial board" list is Marlan Scully, but they give his affiliation as the University of New Mexico, which he left in 1992. It's entirely possible that the journal was founded as a respectable venture while the people originally involved aren't any more. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
It's bizarre to talk about the reputation of the editorial board when we can look at the actual papers and judge them. It's a long series of complete garbage. I don't know who the board is and how do they manage to consistently produce such nonsense, but it doesn't matter. This is not a reliable source, and we shouldn't use it at all in Wikipedia. Deciding which sources are acceptable or not is our quintessential job as editors; offloading it to the scientific community is a dereliction of duty.
It'd also like to note that a couple of months ago some poor soul came to WP:PHYSICS asking for help with a draft about yet another attempt at a theory of everything that failed to even be aware of what the problems with quantum gravity were [45]. Guess where this nonsense was published? That's right, Physics Essays. Tercer (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Per XOreaster and Tercer:

  • Agreed, insofar as Physics Essays is publishing irreputable content, it should not be used as a source.
  • Yes, notable and famous people sometimes have fringe beliefs. They even sometimes turn out to be right in the long run. There is a difference between fringe beliefs and crackpottery: for example, a "proof" that "special relativity is wrong" is crackpottery, its not fringe.
  • Physicists have (or used to have) a fair degree of tolerance for fringe and completely hostile rejection of crackpottery. That is because of direct experience: to make a fundamental breakthrough, you need to consider some pretty wacky, crazy ideas. But you also need to be an extremely harsh self-critic to weed out wrong stuff. This is a tight-rope, a high-wire act. Physics students get trained for that. I mean, the professors actually talk about this, out loud, in class. And not just one or two, but all of them.
  • There are (used to be) several physics journals devoted to fringe topics, which listed eminent physicists on the editorial board, even a Nobel prize winner if I recall correctly. (I forget the names of the journals) My understanding is that they were explicitly created as a forum for stuff that was just too crazy for the mainstream journals, but still seemed to have merit. Something to thumb through on a rainy day. So yes, editorial boards may be famous. That does not imply the content isn't fringe or worse.
  • The quantum-consciousness stuff wavers between fringe and wrong. Unfortunately, it has captured the imagination of the layman. Batting it down is an endless unrewarding task. So it goes.

Hope someone finds these remarks useful. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Heh. I just skimmed everything else on this page. My comments are probably useless. :-/ Sorry 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Your categories of fringe and crackpot and your categorization of various topics in those is just how you personally see it. My experience is that it is a continuum, with slightly odd ideas on one extreme and fully-wacko ones on the other. Tolerance of such ideas among academics varies strongly but tends to decrease from the first to the second end. And of course, academics are less tolerant about crazy ideas lying within their area of expertise. Even once highly regarded scientists can become proponents of batshit crazy nonsense when it lies outside their own specialty.
Regarding Physics Essays: Kill it with fire when people use it as a source. (BTW, I am a physicist.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
If we are going to examine the articles in the 30,000 scientific journals and many more in social sciences and the arts, we're going to be here a long time. Reliability is about facts. The real issue here is weight. We should not be writing about fringe theories that have limited coverage in reliable sources, which seems to be what everyone is worried about.
The article about David McGoveran used to contain a list of all his articles, many of which were written for Stanford and Cambridge, and all of these were removed. It is of no relevance that some of his articles were published by Physics Essays if we don't list his essays anyway.
TFD (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I nominated Combinatorial hierarchy for deletion. --mfb (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been going through a few of the articles and trimming away whatever I felt needed trimming. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Michelle Obama transgender conspiracy theory

I don't know the current guidance on whether offensive fringe theories about BLPs warrant an article, even if some mainstream sources have reported on the theory. Case in point, the brand new Michelle Obama transgender conspiracy theory. Fram (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fram: announce the AfD at BLPN? Or would that backfire? Doug Weller talk 17:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama transgender conspiracy theory WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Now deleted. --RexxS (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all. Fram (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
She'd be a better scrum-half than most of the USAian blokes that've played. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

SIFT technique

Sorry it's behind the NYTimes Paywall, but perhaps someone can provide a liberated link.

Thought this article was very interesting and wonder if SIFT technique might make a good article as there appears to be enough published sources on this to make a go of it (need to disambiguate from Selected-ion flow-tube mass spectrometry, perhaps.


jps (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this what this is about? Not Scale-invariant feature transform? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
You got it! jps (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I like it! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, the article was accessible to me, possibly that the paywall is related to a recent access quota reached, or regional locking... —PaleoNeonate – 01:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about editing of Milankovitch cycles related articles

The user Jean-Louis Pinault has created and extensively edited several articles related to Milankovitch cycles and orbital forcing. I have concerns that their edits may engage in self promotion and the promotion of fringe theories. The Milankovitch's theory and Subharmonic modes of the climate system articles created by them appear to be WP:POVFORKs of Milankovitch cycles, with the former up for a merge proposal with Milankovitch cycle. Their editing of the Mid-Pleistocene Transition (which I reverted) and Milankovitch cycles articles was solely sourced to a MDPI journal Journal of Marine Science and Engineering article entitled Resonantly Forced Baroclinic Waves in the Oceans: A New Approach to Climate Variability of whom the sole author is also called "Jean-Louis Pinault", who is described as an "independent scholar". according to google scholar Jean-Louis Pinault is a published academic, but their main expertise is not climate modelling, but groundwater. This 2014 blog post by climate change denialist Denis Rancourt is the only independent source I can find about Pinault's ideas. The blog post states that Dr. Pinault has developed a model, which he supports with extensive statistical analyses of global spatio-temporal data, whereby relatively small solar variations (relative to the large variations occurring on the lifetime of the Sun) acquire leverage on global climate via an oceanic resonance tuning that operates on the global ocean oscillations on Earth. stating that Pinault had been met with sufficiently significant resistance from the dominant scientific cabal, know as "peer review".This makes me think that Pinault's ideas about climate modelling are fringe, and possibly have connections to global warming denial. Their current editing focus is the Rossby wave article, but I honestly don't know enough about the mathematics involved to make a judgement, but their other editing gives me pause. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I lack the time and know-how to investigate this thoroughly, but this certainly looks sketchy as can be so far and I recommend tagging problem articles with the "fringe" tag and notifying WikiProject Climate Change about this. Crossroads -talk- 20:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I noted that in Google Scholar that as of today, there are 13 citations listed. However, these are all self-citations. Unfortunately, I cannot find any independent reviews by neutral parties of his ideas. Also, he should be made aware of Wikipedia policies pertaining to Conflict of Interest in addition to self promotion. Paul H. (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I undid the edits to Rossby wave on WP:COI grounds (and also did some routine cleanup). XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Very fishy indeed. I think Milankovitch theory can be merged into Milankovitch cycles directly (not keeping anything but title), as it's better to TNT fringe work than see if there are some things salveable. Disucssion is over month old. Saying that AMO is in line with sunspot numbers sets off some more climate denial/fringe bells. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and redirected Milankovitch's theory to Milankovitch cycles, does anyone disagree with me taking "Subharmonic modes of the climate system" to AfD? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for being bold here - this had somewhat drifted out of my attention after starting the merge discussion. One problem being that this really needs an expert to assess what is and what is not kosher about the material, and as noted that'll be a job and a half. I'm certainly more comfortable with it being out of mainspace until someone steps up. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't help that there are only around a dozen active editors with any serious interest in geology, let alone anyone with any expertise in Pleistocene climates and Milankovitch cycles. I am one of the few people here with relevant experience, but it's been a while since I did my master's degree modules on the topic, and my memory of them is foggy to say the least. I'm fairly confident that Mr. Pinault's model as it stands is WP:FRINGE and the wikipedia editing appears to be an attempt to promote his ideas. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Subharmonic_modes_of_the_climate_system. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit familiar with both topics but it was only amateur interest, no expertise. For AfD it should be easy enough: as usual secondary sources should explain it to us, or it's non-notable... —PaleoNeonate – 01:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow! signal in the genetic code

This article by Martin Neukamm in The Panda's Thumb (blog) about a numerological nonsense paper pretending to find evidence for Intelligent Design made me search for "Maxim Makukov", one of the authors, in Wikipedia articles, and I found the paper used as a source in Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase and Genetic code. Can someone who understands biochemistry take a look at it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the references; the first use was completely pointless, as it was not about the Bible genetic code at all, and the second was plain WP:UNDUE. Tercer (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Bizarre, the paper was published in Icarus, an otherwise reputable Elsevier journal which mostly publishes planetary science related papers and is endorsed by the American Astronomical Society. Is this a reason to suspect other Icarus papers and their editorial process? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to infer so much from a single data point; good journals have been known to publish the occasional bad paper. (Contrast this with Physics Essays, for example, where one can find half a dozen obviously crackpot papers with minutes of browsing.) A gamely persistent pseudoscientist can cycle a paper from one journal to another until finally getting lucky and drawing a couple lazy reviewers. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It's used as a source for Panspermia#Directed panspermia. I don't think it belongs in ID articles unless reliable sources mention that they use the argument. I noticed that the author also had a paper about it in Life Sciences in Space Research, also published by Elsevier. TFD (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed doesn't belong anywhere except as you said, in some ID/creationism article if secondary independent sources mention it, —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

David Miller (sociologist)

I suspect that the credibility of my reading of MOS:CLAIM will be questioned soon. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that claim is appropriate there, if it's still challenged, alternatives could be "falsely asserted", "promoted the unsubstantiated view that", "promoted the conspiracy theory", etc... —PaleoNeonate – 08:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Lost tribes of Israel and the indigenous people of Jamaica

I've just removed a lost tribes bit from Yamaye, would appreciate a volunteer to watchlist it in case of recurrence. ϢereSpielChequers 23:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Um, is anything in that article real? I mean, there are Neo-Taino groups in Jamaica, and there's Taino ancestry in the Jamaican population. But the rest of it seems like SYNTH (and the image from the 1890s can't be "own work"). Guettarda (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@WereSpielChequers and Guettarda: some terrible sources, but the main problem I've found after wasting an hour of my life is that it appears that Yamaye is a name for Jamaica, Columbus being the first source for that, not a people - unless it's another name for the Taino, Mabrikananixi added that to Jamaica. See this book at Project Muse[46]. It discusses and critiques Rouse, never mentions Yamaye. I'm not surprised Mabrikananixi, who is no longer around, was confused. But their main problem was that they didn't understand WP:RS. I wouldn't trust any of their edits[47] and I think they've added confusion to a number of articles. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I was focused on the very fringey lost tribes of Israel bit, the other bits cover a history I am unfamiliar with and so they aren't as obviously wrong to me. But claiming someone in the notable bit because he is of Jamaican heritage and a DNA test makes him 7% native American doesn't feel right. As for the image, this makes me concerned. ϢereSpielChequers 13:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad you caught the lost tribes stuff. It's a complicated topic because there are sources for this revival group. I'll leave the issue of cultural continuity to others, but it seems like they are accepted by Jamaicans to be what they claim to be. But membership in the group needs to be based on self-identification, not the results of a DNA test.
The article probably needs to be renamed (or at least disambiguated), and it needs to be presented definitively. My first thought was that this whole article was more or less wishful thinking, but after looking some more I think it might be salvageable. Guettarda (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
{{re|Guettarda} it wasn't. The sources don't mention Yamaye - if some people who are identifying as Taino want to be called Yamaye also, we still need reliable sources. What is very clear is that Yamaye is a possible old Taino name for the article. This book, The Earliest Inhabitants The Dynamics of the Jamaican Taíno [48] says on page 1 "Traditionally Jamaicans have been taught that Xaymaca was the Taino name given to the island, meaning “land abounding with springs", from which “Jamaica" - land of wood and water - was derived. However, D.J.R. Walker suggests Yamaye as the possible Taino name for the island, based on information derived from Columbus’s journal (1992,236-37)." Now I have to clean up other articles where he added similarly badly sourced or unsourced material - he was obviously promoting the name. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

JP Sears

Over at JP Sears (specifically Talk:JP_Sears#RFC_on_conspiracy_theorist_in_lede), we've got a user making bizarre claims about the Office for Science and Society with the aim of keeping Sears's promotion of conspiracy theories out of the article's lead. This article definitely needs more users from this board watching it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I've gone and re-added the substance of the conspiracy theory claims to the lead without having outright called him a conspiracy theorist, pending the outcome of the discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The Ark before Noah

A marvelous presentation by Irving Finkel, a curator at the British Museum - funny and informative.[49] Doug Weller talk 17:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, thanks! GPinkerton (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of McGill University's Office for Science and Society

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of McGill University's Office for Science and Society in the context of an article about JP Sears. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § JP Sears. — Newslinger talk 08:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Link update: This is now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § JP Sears and McGill University's Office for Science and Society. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Adrenal fatigue

Adrenal fatigue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be switching from pseudoscience to science and back a lot at the moment. May or may not need more attention. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Part of that is me. The two Pubmed references added do not mention Adrenal Fatigue and this systematic review clearly states it does not exist.--VVikingTalkEdits 15:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Power nap/coffee nap

Power nap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) could use a review; some of the sources are dubious or could be updated. I have particular concerns about the "stimulant nap" section's sourcing, but (some) other sources are (maybe) legitimate but old (1990s medical stuff) GPinkerton (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah the famed "napuccino" ! Alexbrn (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Oooh. The actual practice is super common in engineering circles, but I didn't know that there had been any studied done on it. Seeing Prevention Magazine and Oprah Magazine as sources does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the quality of the research. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The claims might be true, but I think it should be reframed as 'a thing some people do', rather than 'a thing that is scientifically proven to work'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
would agree w/ above editor..a thing some people do--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This is on my todo list, but I may not get to it until next weekend (feel free to beat me to it!). I must say the photo of a man sleeping on the ruins of his house - because presumably he has no place else to go - does not scream "Power nap" to me... Ajpolino (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
An option would also be to merge it in Nap that is also an article that could be improved, —PaleoNeonate – 04:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Another magic pill that cures Covid-19

This one is called Coronil and was invented by Yoga Guru Ramdev.[50] See Ramdev#Claimed cure for COVID-19. I am starting to see the usual flood of SPAs sent here by OpIndia such as 157.36.207.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Plandemic

I recently tagged uncited, then deleted, claims that I considered undue and were apparently only sourced to the movie itself. Since it's contested I expressed my concerns at its talk page. More input welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

GWL is attempting to have this article have a GA review, so I thinks it's a bit of a WP:OWN situation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe a bit of that, but the article itself also has/had some terribly worded prose and not a few complete misrepresentations of sources. I cleaned up some, but I'm sure there are more. It could do with some more care in editorial control than User:Gerald Waldo Luis may have given it. It is certainly not GA quality. I would reject that nomination out-of-hand. jps (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
ජපස, are we here to talk GA, darling? But fringe-wise, PaleoNeonate, I don't think it is undue or a problem to cite the movie. First, it's just a small portion of it, which only completes what RSes don't cover that I think makes the article more comprehensive. And second, it is not a problem to be sourced to the movie as there are no interpretations or argumentations that must merit secondary sources. Out-of-hand, if you can improve the article to a better grammar height please so.
Also Hemiauchenia, I don't think I violate WP:OWN, as I don't think I own the article and I'd favor a civil discussion. The paradox circle of collaboration. GeraldWL 14:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
And I'm not a conspiracist. I think I should put this out so that I won't drive anyone insane that a sockpuppetry investigation upon me commence. GeraldWL 14:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is accusing you of being a sock. My original intent when posting here was to invite input at the article talk page since consensus is not a two-editor thing. —PaleoNeonate – 03:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

From your edits and wording, I don't think you are a "conspiracist", but I am also not keen on some of your editorial skills. It requires considerable care to get articles on topics like these exactly correct and I caught a number of fairly egregious mistakes that makes me wonder whether you have sufficiently understood the sources you are using. jps (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is yet another instance of a docudrama-cum-movie having its "plot" used to grant a free hit to fringe ideas (as with Vaxxed and Unplanned). As in those cases, WP:GEVAL is the relevant bit of NPOV, and is not negotiable: any fringe ideas must be relayed through the lens of mainstream, reputable sources. An article with NPOV problems is never going to make GA. Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Gunnar Kaiser

Another person who has own ideas about COVID-19. Somebody said on the Talk page that the article seems fringe-friendly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritual abuse

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritual child abuse.

It looks to me like there is a QAnon infestation going on. YMMV.

jps (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

One of the tragedies of QAnon is that anyone describing actual, reality-based child abuse issues now sound like crazy racist nut-bags. We should try our best to resist that temptation.
This article is really a list that probably fails LISTN, and I don't doubt that some of it is exaggerated, but it doesn't seem particularly QAnon-y. ApLundell (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
As we're discussing at the AfD, the bulk of the article was authored by non-QAnon peeps and instead some WikiEd students, but I stumbled upon the article because of a disambig creation at Ritual Abuse. The person who effected that change is firmly in the camp of "cults do human sacrifices" swirl according to their userpage. jps (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Definitely a sensitive topic deserving scrutiny, —PaleoNeonate – 02:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
There are a number of topics that don't really belong in that article, such as Circumcision, FGM, Swaddling, Dowry and Bride price, and Food taboos. On the other hand, I read in national news yesterday repeated allegations of Pizzagate. This stuff is not going to go away for some time. I saw somewhere that QAnon uses both an internal version of Gnosticism and rapture prophecy (a coming storm or great awakening). --Whiteguru (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Europeans built the Egyptian pyramids - in the 19th century

Thanks to Jason Colavito.[51] Doug Weller talk 19:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't miss the first comment in the comment section from "Jim". Classic. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Atacama skeleton and NPOV

After having read this by a professional archaeologist, I took a look at the article. Am I right in thinking it needs an overhaul? Doug Weller talk 14:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • The article is safe. Your link is fringe. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you mean https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30025270/ ? The previous is likely usable per WP:PARITY with attribution. All this does is point at some facts about early development and that there was nothing extraordinary with this skeleton afterall, then there's an aspect about ethics that some other sources have also mentioned before... —PaleoNeonate – 02:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
There are a number of peer-review papers about the Atacama skeleton that are either open-access or have reprints available to general public online. According to Google Scholar, some of them are:
1. Bhattacharya, S., Li, J., Sockell, A., Kan, M.J., Bava, F.A., Chen, S.C., Ávila-Arcos, M.C., Ji, X., Smith, E., Asadi, N.B. and Lachman, R.S., 2018. Whole-genome sequencing of Atacama skeleton shows novel mutations linked with dysplasia. Genome research, 28(4), pp.423-431.
2. Nolan, G. and Butte, A., 2018. The Atacama skeleton. Genome research, 28(5), pp.607-608.
3. Halcrow, S.E., Killgrove, K., Schug, G.R., Knapp, M., Huffer, D., Arriaza, B., Jungers, W. and Gunter, J., 2018. On engagement with anthropology: A critical evaluation of skeletal and developmental abnormalities in the Atacama preterm baby and issues of forensic and bioarchaeological research ethics. Response to Bhattacharya et al.“Whole-genome sequencing of Atacama skeleton shows novel mutations linked with dysplasia” in Genome Research, 2018, 28: 423–431. International journal of paleopathology, 22, pp.97-100. Also, linked in papers of Dr. Gwen Robbins Schug and open access at the publishers.
4. May, T. and Nakano-Okuno, M., 2019. How the Atacama Skeleton Might Advance Discussion of Responsible Conduct of Research Responsibilities. Human biology, 91(1), pp.5-8.
5. Snoddy, A.M.E., Beaumont, J., Buckley, H.R., Colombo, A., Halcrow, S.E., Kinaston, R.L. and Vlok, M., 2020. Sensationalism and speaking to the public: scientific rigour and interdisciplinary collaborations in palaeopathology. International journal of paleopathology, 28, pp.88-91. Also, linked in papers of Dr. Anne Marie Sohler Snoddy Paul H. (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Advanced Aerospace Vehicle

Seems to be an obvious POV fork of Unidentified flying object to me. Thoughts? What is the best way forward for this? AFD? Redirect? - MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_Aerospace_Vehicle. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Devra Davis

This article about Devra Davis grossly misrepresents the subject as if she were somebody who mainly operates within mainstream epidemiology. She's actually best known for her fringe work as an anti-5G activist with The Environmental Health Trust, an organization that she founded. The article has a "controversies" section, which is always a sign that a promoter is seeking to white-wash a person's reputation, but this section oddly omits the most glaring controversy which is that she has been strongly criticized by mainstream publishers like Science Based Medicine for talking nonsense about Radio Frequency systems. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've begun a clean-up of this article. Review is welcome. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Whole-food plant-based diet

This article was previously called whole food. It has now been changed to Whole-food plant-based diet which is inaccurate. The article also states that a plant based diet reverses cardiovascular diseases. As of 2021 research is being done on this topic but there is currently no robust clinical evidence that supports this view. The consensus is that a plant-based diet can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease not reverse it.

The same content was added to the plant-based diet article which I removed [52]. See talk page. So we now have two plant based diet articles which is problematic. I suggest the whole-food plant-based diet article should be removed or reverted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Whole Food Plant based diet is an oxymoron and misleading. The title alone suggests you eat the entire plant. I suggest this article be redirected to Plant based diet. As for the claims of this diet reversing cardiovascular disease, I suggest removing same until independent reliable secondary sources are found. Citing studies from 1998 that have never been replicated is misleading. As far as cardiovascular disease is concerned, WP:BASIC sets the requirements. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. "Reversing cardiovascular disease" is such a claim. This is in the realm of WP:MEDRS, clearly. If there's no "robust clinical evidence that supports this views", well then it should be considered whether this is an inappropriate POVFORK of Dieting#Low-fat. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Holford

Wakefield fanboi and multivitamin salesman. Some stuff seems to be unsourced, according to a recent Talk page contribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Germ theory denialism

Obsolete theory or pseudoscience? At the moment, Terrain theory is a redirect to Germ theory denialism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have more time to put on it right now and hopefully other fringe and med-savvy editors can help, but I left a comment at the redirect's talk page if it can be useful, as I noticed it was recreated a few times with another optic, and there was a comment from 2020 there... —PaleoNeonate – 21:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_74#Terrain_theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery 1

Article seems to be an ad space for colleges that sell that thing, sometimes containing a list of the n best providers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I've trimmed a bit a removed the eligibility requirements (what other kind of article about a degree has that?); but in it's current state the article would fail WP:NOTDICTIONARY... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
What is homeopathic surgery? You just touch the skin with the knife and then the body knows how to fix itself? Did the knife had to perform the actual surgery before, or is it sufficient to have the knife in the same room as a knife that did? The sources don't explain that. --mfb (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I hope most of us are familiar with this instructional video about homeopathic A&E. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems like there is a lot of homeopathic hospital stuff we need to start weeding. I'll begin a list:

jps (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

See also Category:Homeopathic hospitals and Category:Homeopathic colleges. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

These articles are about people and organizations relating to homeopathy. The information seems factual and somewhat well sourced. What is the problem? The fringe theory is homeopathy itself, attention should be on its article. If there is a problem here it is rather notability. Rollo (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes things to look for are notability, the quality of the sources and undue promotional content, WP:ABOUTSELF abuse, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 06:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I would question the notability of any bachelors level degree program. But perhaps they are considered more impressive in South Asia. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-k-v7i-QeI - MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Some are. Bachelor of Engineering is certainly notable. Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery says "...In countries that follow the tradition of continental Europe or the system in the United States, the equivalent medical degree is awarded as Doctor of Medicine (MD)". Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery? Not so much. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Other titles that you poor, uneducated sods might want to buy, all for less than 150 Indian Rupee (1.47 Pounds sterling, 2.06 United States Dollars):
  1. Cherios Astro Numerology & Your Star
  2. 2012 Universal Doom Or New Age?
  3. Astrology and Wealth
  4. Comprehensive Vaastu: The Unique Pocket Book on Vaastu/Feng Shui & Pyramid Power
The TRUTH is out there! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
🚁 —PaleoNeonate – 02:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan Lab Leak again

There is yet again agitation at Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Spinning_off_accidental_leak_theory and Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology to give credence to the fringe "Lab Leak" origin of SARS COV 2, feel free to assist if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding a mention of Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory, a related draft that has recently been declined a few times. —PaleoNeonate – 04:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Also adding a mention of The Cambridge Working Group, a new article on an organization whose notability is not too well established (sources have only passing mentions). I wonder if it might be better off smerged into Marc Lipsitch, since little I've found so far really discusses it apart from him. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked a bit at the latest recreation of the leak draft. The lead attempts to convince the reader that only some scientists consider noozotic more likely than a lab leak and that a noozotic only origin would be an increasingly minority view. I left a talk page post about an obviously misrepresented source. If the article is kept, the body will also need work to avoid unreliable sources and synthesis (the old draft's talk page with some synthesis-related examples were lost from public view with the deletion). —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The lede of the draft lays in with some drastic POV-pushing, and much of the text looks like MEDRS violations or at least a disregard for WP:DUE. While looking into the New York Magazine story included there, I did find some commentary that wouldn't be suitable for an article itself, but is still entertaining. A bioethicist: Here's a neatly threaded "oh fuck no" of my response to the @nymag's cover story of irresponsibility, asking "but what if" nCov2019 really was a lab escape. Protip, @nymag: leave What If to Marvel. And a virologist: Baker is in no way qualified to write a deep dive about this topic unless it is regarded as the work of fiction this is. After all, this is the searing insight of a man who once published a entire collection of Literary with a capital L fantasies about people fucking trees. XOR'easter (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nominated The Cambridge Working Group article for deletion for a lack of substantial coverage, given that somebody has already placed a notability template. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This is probably too far on the WP:PRIMARY/editorial end of the spectrum to be directly useful in an article, but it's recent and interesting. XOR'easter (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, good and sad at the same time, —PaleoNeonate – 16:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I think the quote "Despite much noise to the contrary, there is no credible evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was ever known to virologists before it emerged in December 2019, and all indications suggest that, like SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, this virus probably evolved in a bat host until an unknown spillover event into humans occurred." is pertinent. Too many people think that "China is censoring research = there's a coverup", when there is no good reason to that this is the case. Nobody, including the Chinese govt knows the virus's origin. The problem with the "lab leak" postulation is that it appeals to conspiracist thinking, the idea that the pandemic must be a result of human intervention, whether negligence or malice, rather than the pandemic merely being the outcome of natural processes, as with all previous pandemics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Most are probably already aware but in case, there's a related RSN thread: WP:RSN § Are New York Magazine and Infection Control Today reliable sources for the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab? —PaleoNeonate – 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems now that most of the discussion has migrated over to the RSN. I wasn't expecting such a strong response, but its better to have more people to discuss the issue to try to generate some kind of concensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a bit of a disaster area of a discussion, I'm afraid. People seem to be arguing that the "lab leak hypothesis" is a legitimate scientific theory, and simultaneously, scientific sources are not needed to document it. XOR'easter (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, so was the WIV talkpage, at least its mostly in one thread this time. ScrupulousScribe's wallo'text "discussion" style doesn't help matters, which is why I asked for the topic ban in the firstplace. In any article including of the "lab leak" postulation, it needs to be made absolutely clear that a. There is zero actual evidence for it. b. There is a politicized and conspiratorial atmosphere surrounding the origins of the virus. I think it is universally agreed by the participants of the discussion that the bioweapon or malicious origin claims are conspiracy theory. The idea that the virus is a result of "gain of function" research seems to be more fringe than the simple "lab leak" postulation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
To adapt an old joke about the Physical Review, the RSN thread is expanding faster than light, but there's no contradiction with relativity because no information is being transmitted. XOR'easter (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
ScrupulousScribe, one of the main instigators, has been topic banned from "writing about the Covid-19 lab leak theory, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and anyone directly associated with the Institute, on any Wikipedia page (with some noticeboard exceptions described on their talk page) for three months from 20 January 2021. " which should relieve some of the pressure. I agree with Boing that the Huang Yanling article was egrigious, and was the final straw. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Do any of you know the difference between serial passage and virus construction? Feynstein (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a good idea. All a RfC does is create a magnet for canvassing. We already had a discussion on this early last year, which overwhelmingly rejected the "lab leak" supposition. Its already very clear that the vast majority of "lab leak" proponents on Wikipedia are single purpose accounts, some of which are associated with off-site pro "lab leak" collectives which are seeking to influence Wikipedia, while most people who support the fact that it is a conspiracy theory are wikipedia regulars. A RfC will not stop these people, all it does is become a magnet for their attention so that they can then attempt to overwhelm the concensus of regular, non SPA editors. The best tactic, as is usual on Wikipedia, is to stonewall them until they get frustrated and either stop editing or engage in personal attacks which get them topic banned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I suspect you may be right. One hopes the admins will be on the lookout for any shenanigans in the RfC response. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Small comment to let editors know I reported parts of this discussion I find very problematic to WP:ANI. Feynstein (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the clearly undue paragraph that served only as a detailed, uncritical explanation of his lab leak theory.Lennart97 (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Socionics

As happens from time to time, SPAs have been showing up to socionics and causing trouble. Crossroads -talk- 06:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: the article has been semiprotected for 6 months for rampant sockpuppetry. Thank goodness! People may still show up on the talk page, but this helps. Crossroads -talk- 05:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The Mahabharata Secret

And its sequel, The Mahabharata Quest: The Alexander Secret. Too long, too pov, especially the leads. I think I brought it here a couple of years ago and several editors improved it, but the leads concern me. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak theory again

It's a different virus, but a "new" user is insisting on a controversy section which feeds into the COVID lab leak conspiracy theories, using familiar dodgy sources (e.g. Yuri Deigin's). More eyes needed. Probably this article should be protected like others which have been under attack. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting article on QAnon

"QAnon cultivates interesting bedfellows. It's one of the things I've found most horribly fascinating about it. It's a conspiracy theory that represents the perfect apex of every exploitative cult tactic that con artists and snake-oil salespeople have used over the years—an inevitable evolutionary endpoint of the art on preying on peoples' desires. " -- QAnon has some weird overlaps with MMA, WWE, and Wellness Influencer Culture

I found the linked MIT Technology Review article[53] to be especially insightful. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery 2

IPs edit warring to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery.
In honor of the subject matter, I have suggested that they be homeopathic deletions.  :)

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There's already a request at RFPP, IIRC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The disruption continued after the report at RFPP.
Please don't merge sections that I chose to post separately. They cover completely different aspects. One is about Homoeopathic Surgery, the other is IPs edit warring to overturn a valid deletion discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A Homeopathic administrator has Homeopathically semi protected the Homeopathic redirect, so the Homeopathic problem is Homeopathically solved.  :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is a page about homeopathic treatment for "a fishbone in their throat, or a splinter under the nail, or sliver in some other place"[54]

"What remedy fits such a case?"
"If the traumatic lesion produces spontaneous intense pain and the part is lacerated or crushed, whether a penetrating wound by puncture, by a sharp instrument, scalpel, or splinter, give then Hypericum perforatum at the 200th or even better at the XM. This marvelous remedy is particularly indicated for puncture at the end of the fingers, followed by wallerian degeneration, often with dreadful neuritis, ascending from finger to arm, from foot to thigh. This is a condition which is difficult to control allopathically, but one dose of Hypericum XM will restore order in a few days spectacularly. Remember that this remedy is a fine preventive of tetanus."
"Finally, the hypersensitivity to touch in cases of splinters less acute than dscribed above, brings to mind a lesser known remedy, yet a remarkable one, Cicuta virosa, the famous hemlock taken so courageously by Socrates and used by the Athenians to put the death certain criminals. We use medically four types of hemlock, all belonging to the Umbelliferae..."

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Gympie Pyramid

This one I did work on today quite a bit as it major changes had been made. It could still use some work but needs eyes. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Aye, like this one. I see a six and a seven that need some spelling out. If I spot anything more seriously troubling, I'll let you know, thanks for the tip! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thermobalancing therapy

This article could use some eyes from those with more time than I currently have - the creator's been blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and I'm rather skeptical of any article about a medical treatment that cites sources such as "Energy of man’s body cures enlarged prostate" from the Times of India blog. Spicy (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The current sources appear to be primary and a few press releases, so I'm not sure it meets notability requirements. There are some efficacy claims that appear to not be made from independent WP:MEDRS. —PaleoNeonate – 23:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe WP:G5 applies? It's been slightly edited by a few other editors though, —PaleoNeonate – 23:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Northwestern European people et al

Back in July there was a major discussion surrounding articles created by Peipsi-Pihkva about supposed "Pan-ethnic groups" such as Northwestern European people, which appear to have massive WP:SYNTH issues, see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_73#Northwestern_European_people for a refresher. The discussion ultimately ended up with no action. Should these articles be taken to AfD? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Omnibus AfD it. I would have, but it seemed too much work at the time. jps (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I've AfD'd Northwestern European people, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern European people. If that is successful I'll omnibus the rest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I have now nominated Northwestern European Americans, Northwestern European Australians and Northwestern European Canadians for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern European Canadians. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern European people. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
SunDawn has spared me the effort of nominating Eastern European people for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European people. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Grey alien

It seems that someone has been too fanciful in ascribing descriptions of aliens to H.G.Wells, and somebody has compared them with the originals and found them lacking. Anybody interested? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Gordon S. Haight, was a rather big deal in the world of English Lit. scholarship. A new editor has been arguing that Haight has got his interpretation of Welles work all wrong. Or (more likely) that Haight has been misused. Currently, Haight is being used to cite this sentence:
In the 1893 article "Man of the Year Million", science fiction author H. G. Wells envisioned the possibility of humanity transformed into a race of grey-skinned beings who were perhaps one meter tall, with big heads and large, oval-shaped pitch-black eyes.[1]
Someone with access needs to check out the full text of the cited journal [55] to see if this description can indeed be ascribed to Haight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@LuckyLouie: Psst, you do know Sci-Hub exists, right? You can check that yourself if you want to. Volteer1 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Didn't know about Sci-Hub, thanks! So upon review, Haight's description of Welles description of future humanity includes a number of features similar to the modern conception of grey aliens, but does not include grey skin. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Please LuckyLouie, you have been following the Grey Alien talk page, so you cannot have missed Well's description of future man's eyes as "large, lustrous, beautiful, soulful"[2], whereas Wikipedia states "large, oval-shaped pitch-black eyes."[3] You are correct that neither Well's nor Haight mentions grey skin nor the height of future man. So either Wikipedia has made a false attribution or Haight is in grave error.
But there is something I don't understand LuckyLouie. I cannot find Haight’s 1958 journal article on Sci-Hub. If you say the article is there (as you imply you have found it there) and that I am mistaken, then perhaps you will be kind enough to either to provide a screenshot of the relevant passage(s) in Haight, or provide the direct quotes of what Haight has to say (ETA: better yet, provide a link to Haight's 1958 article). Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
In fact, Wikipedia has an incorrect reference – the correct reference is:
Haight, G. S. (1958) H. G. Wells's "The Man of the Year Million". Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Mar., 1958), pp. 323-326.
And if I may be so bold may I suggest that editors, when searching for source reference material, if they notice Wikipedia’s reference is incorrect, then they correct it for us all, so that we minions out here have an easier time of it?
(And if Haight was, as Hob Gradling claims, “a rather big deal in the world of English Lit. scholarship”, then what might he be doing with “Wells’s”?)Tesldact Smih (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
One can however access the first page of Haight’s article here[56]. Frustrating, yes, but does that beginning look anything like a man about to describe grey aliens in Wikipedia’s terms?
ETA: And I am sorry, but I just don't get the point of this argument anyway. Wikipedia states something that Wells did not say. It does not matter who is in error, Haight or Wikipedia, the statement is false either way. The question is, what is the correct protocol to remove the sentence as demonstrably false? Tesldact Smih (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
OK. See my comments on Talk page [57] and [58] - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Haight, Gordon (1958). "Nineteenth-Century Fiction, vol. 12, no. 4". Nineteenth-Century Fiction. 12 (4). JSTOR: University of California Press: 324. JSTOR 3044429.
  2. ^ Wells, H. G. (1893) The Man of the Year Million. Tuapeka Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 4079, 28 February 1894, Page 5. Retrieved from https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TT18940228.2.30, 07 Mar 2021.
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_alien

PragerU and climate change denialism

There are open recent threads at the article's talk page about properly covering the topic and various proposed sources to assess. Since it's a perennial issue I thought a notification would be a good idea, —PaleoNeonate – 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

    • Is there an indication that the coverage is too sparse to be reasonable? I see sixthree instances of criticism of PragerU's coverage of climate change already in the article. Is there something more needed? The discussion is too roundabout for me to follow completely. jps (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
      I can see only three instances with three sources: in "History[20][21]", "Content[32]" and "Reception[32]". Actually, I would delete the History one: "In August 2018, PragerU criticized YouTube for adding fact-checks to its videos which present misinformation about climate change.[20][21]", firstly because "criticize" is bad writing, and secondly because of WP:MANDY: of course PU will complain when people make it public that PU is spreading misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
      • You're absolutely right. Only three. The thing about this outfit is that they spread misinformation on a lot of topics, so it's hard to know which ones deserve the most attention. Practically every video they've made has criticism. jps (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
        I think the WP:MANDY passage could be rephrased to be interesting. PragerU has been complaining that their YouTube reach has been ratcheted down, but they don't have access to the private algorithms to prove this. Instead, they focus on the things they can identify the platform has done. The complaints about the platform they rely upon are of some interest to the reader. jps (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
        • That particular sentence, at least when I commented about it on the talk page a few weeks ago, was formulated to suggest unwarranted censorship, rather than being a result of misinformation and violating the site's policies. Some other editors also tried to improve the coverage recently since and may need guidance or support at the talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 07:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Sources [[59]], [[60]], [[61]], [[62]]. There are more.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, those should probably be included on the talk page if not already, —PaleoNeonate – 07:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Lyme disease bioweapon conspiracy theory

Review of recent changes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 16:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The section in Lyme disease about Chris Smith's conspiracy theory should not be there. Instead, it should be in the Smith article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
You're right, thanks (removed with diff posted at the BLP article's talk page), —PaleoNeonate – 07:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Help cleaning Human overpopulation full of fringe/POV or original research

Hi all! So, an editor who was POV pushing rather extreme interpretations of population dynamics was recently blocked. The worst offending content on most pages they edited, tends to get cleaned up during the course of normal editing. However, @Nsae Comp: and I were having a really hard time cleaning up/reviewing the content on Human overpopulation and we could use some help. The topic is well discussed in the scholarly literature, but the way the page has been maintained for the last few years -- it has become a confusing mix of legitimate opinions about the topic, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It would be helpful -- if anyone is interested-- to get some additional attention on the page, Sadads (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Frances Cress Welsing and Afrocentrism

User:Africologist has raised issues at Talk:Afrocentrism and has made major changes in Welsing's article that I think should be discussed first. At Talk:Frances Cress Welsing they argue that she is not an Afrocentrist. I'm on a semi-break right now until I get my study back in order so no time for this discussion. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:Doug Weller for raising this issue. However, to be clear, I have not made any major changes on the Welsing page. I simply removed the mislabeling as an Afrocentrist and moved one sentence (unedited) to its proper section. Africologist (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This[63] sure looks like a major change. And you are edit warring over it.[64][65][66] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, instead of just distguishing Afrocentrism and Afrocentricity by external properties such as "unacademic social movement" and "theoretical paradigm", you could tell us the differences regarding content, if any. Reading your contributions, it sounds as if Afrocentricity is just a word for Afrocentrism at a university, unless if it has been criticized - then it is Afrocentrism.
Do both see African influence in China and Mesoamerica? It not, which of them does? Can Asante be used as a source for such a distinguation? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

How would reading my contributions make it sound like "Afrocentricity is just a word for Afrocentrism at universities"? I fail to see how writing "they are not the same" reads as "they are the same in this context". They are simply not the same. Afrocentricity is a very specific idea in the field of Africana Studies (and it's various nomenclature: Black Studies, Pan-African Studies, African American Studies, Africology, etc.) Afrocentrism is a word that is used as a sort of catch-all term used by non-academics as well as academics who are not in Black studies fields and understand the difference. Therefore, among some academics who don't specialize (and non-academic alike) they will lump Afrocentricity in with Afrocentrism. For further clarity, I need to know what do you mean by difference in content. Do you mean the difference in the texts written on Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism? Africologist (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Asante may be used as a source to distinguish. However, to your earlier comment about understanding the properties of the two. I think that is the issue. One must understand the inherent difference between the two. I believe you still view them as similar things. Afrocentrism could/has encompass views on history, but there's no methodological framework in which it exists. It's just a collection of scholarly and (largely) unscholarly ideas mangled together by circumstance of confusion. However, Afrocentricity is not at all a set of ideas about history. So Afrocentricity wouldn't "see African influence in China and Mesoamerica". Afrocentricity is simply a theoretical paradigm "based on the idea that African people should re-assert a sense of agency" (Asante, Afrocentric Idea). It is also a paradigm that seeks the establishment of cultural plurality and not cultural hierarchy; so it does not adhere to supremacism. It is simply meant for the academic to write and describe the world while keeping centered the perspective of African people (in acknowledgement of the reality that there are a plurality of cultural perspectives and all are not the same). Blaut ("Eight Eurocentric Historians"), De Sousa Santos ("Epistemologies of the South"), and other European scholars, as well as some Asian scholars (Said, "Orientalism") have written about the way the European world has asserted their view of world-phenomena as universal and other cultural perspectives as "fringe" or marginal. Afrocentricity is simply the same critique that wishes to establish the African perspective in a non-hierarchical way. That is much different from some of the ideas espoused by people who have been placed under the label of Afrocentrism. Afrocentrists (those who are trained in the academy under the paradigm of Afrocentricity) are flexible scholars who utilize a range of scientific information from interests in other academic fields in order to create scholarship that both center African perspectives and provides unbiased scientific evidence. Would you like a list of articles/books? Africologist (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not helpful. If I ask an ornithologist how to tell a common gull and a ring-billed gull apart, I will hear about the color and size of the bill and other external properties, and I will be shown example pictures. I will not just hear that "they are different", "one is specific, the other is a catch-all term", "one must understand the difference", or other empty phrases that will not help me find out which of those two I am looking at when I see one. I guess this is just another case of natural scientists and social scientists talking different languages, so forget I said anything. EOD for me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, terms are what they are when the relevant epistemic community says what they are. I think the point is pretty straightforward that there may be a more dominant term "afrocentricity" that represents a coherent and non-fringe school of thought and that there may be some who have confused its usage. Whether this is true or not is well beyond the research I've done into these areas, thus my request below. jps (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I would definitely like a list of articles/books. jps (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I respect that User:Hob Gadling. The specific language between (and within) the social and natural sciences do tend to cause miscommunication. It is not my intention to confuse. But I did state and describe the difference. You did not just read "they are different", I described how. Simply, Afrocentrism is an amalgam of tropes about people who either claim or are perceived to be African-centered or Afrocentric while Afrocentricity is a theoretical paradigm that in its simplest forms states that it centers the agency of African people. But it is not really as simple as comparing a common gull and a ring billed gull. These are abstract and theoretical things. They aren't even like listing the difference between Communism and Socialism because both communism and socialism are based on two theoretical paradigms that one can describe the differences between the two based on their tenets: no such thing as private property (communism), individuals can own property but the production of primary wealth is communally owned (socialism). Afrocentrism is not an intellectual theory, it has no tenets. It is, again, an amalgam of tropes. Think of Afrocentrism like the Japanese term Otaku, or Nerd, or Geek. These are terms used by academics and non-academics alike but there's no strict or acknowledged theoretical foundation for these that lists specifically what it means to be considered one of those terms. Whereas Afrocentricity has a theoretical foundation. There are tenets: all things may be questioned except the standpoint of African agency, pluralism without hierarchy, emancipatory scholarship, lexical refinement, etc. Another thing to note is that the two terms have been so confused with each other that both academics who praise Afrocentricity and those who critique it have used the term Afrocentrism out of either their own confusion, politics in creating straw-man arguments, or because of the greater popularity of the term Afrocentrism in public imagination. Africologist (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
jps Thank you for your wit in framing the issue simplistically. I'm a bit of a verbose individual. A list of books: "The Afrocentric Manifesto" by Molefi Kete Asante; "Demise of the Inhuman: Afrocentricity, Modernism, and Postmodernism" by Ana Monteiro-Ferreira; "The Afrocentric Paradigm" by Ama Mazama. These three would assist anyone greatly in understanding this topic. Africologist (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance... but what is “African agency”? Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Just a way of positing that Africans and members of the African diaspora should have a say in relevant scholarship. jps (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Afrocentricity

I am becoming more and more convinced that a new page called Afrocentricity should be made which can probably effectively deal with some of these WP:FRINGE disambiguation issues. User:Africologist is rightly identifying that there are two strands here: the fringe strand which is currently (perhaps overly) developed at Afrocentrism and the academic strand (centered around three scholars at Temple University) which does not yet have a home at Wikipedia. I am a little worried that all the scholars are at one institution as walled gardens can exist in some departments, as we all know. But for right now I'm not seeing many sources that critique this particular group as a cohesive unit that is making the argument that they are part-and-parcel to the fringe ideologies under the afrocentrism umbrella. If anyone knows of such, feel free to identify it.

I note that an article on afrocentricity was deleted 15 years ago as a neologism: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrocentricity. That may have been the correct WP:TOOSOON argument at the time, but the sources may be steadily indicating that it may be time to create a separate article. Should we start a draft? jps (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with you and would be happy to assist in its creation. As you may know (but for the sake of clarity) there are people who critique them individually and apply Afrocentrism to them erroneously but even those arguments are over ten years old now. More people both outside and associated with the field are becoming more clear as to the difference. Africologist (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
We will be working a bit on Draft:Afrocentricity to see if we can't get a better article that focuses more on the Black Studies academic approach championed by Molefi K. Asante along with his colleagues and students and does not overly WP:WEIGHT the academic-adjacent WP:FRINGE claims of the likes of Louis Farrakhan and others. Note that there is a fairly good starting section at Molefi K. Asante#Afrocentricity. jps (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Antipsychotic

Hi, this is about [67]. Was my revert correct? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry POV-pushing loud and clear at [68]. WP:PRIMARY studies are WP:MEDRS violations. See also WP:MEDDATE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that for this edit a newer systematic review on the topic would be better. There is likely to be a reasonable quantity of secondary literature on this topic. Talpedia (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Jason Jorjani

Fringe author, a lot of self-sourcing of his ideas (which needs removal) and use of unreliable sources, eg parapsychologist Jeffrey Mishlove's YouTube channel. I found two reviews of his book Promethus and Atlas, one in Greg Johnson (white nationalist) Counter-Currents[69] by James O'Meara[70] and the other by Jason Colavito[71] in the Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture published by Equinox Publishing (Sheffield). We can definitely use Jason's article. I'm not sure about the article in Jacobin I found.[72] Doug Weller talk 19:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Plate theory (volcanism)

There has been an extensive discussion about the Plate theory (volcanism) article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Plate_theory_(volcanism). "Plate Theory" appears to a minority view in academic geology that mantle plumes aren't real phenomenon and that all volcanism, even those away from plate boundaries can be entirely explained by plate tectonics. The main promoter of this theory appears to be Professor Gillian Foulger of Durham University, a respected academic. For something as complex as mantle geophysics its difficult to get a sense of how seriously this idea is taken by the wider academic community (her book on the topic "Plates vs plumes: a geological controversy" from 2011 has been cited over 200 times). As it stands the article seems like to me (and many other contributors at WikiProject Geology) to be a WP:POVFORK that should be selectively merged into another article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, the other major promoter of "plate theory", the now deceased Don L. Anderson has mostly been contributed to by the SPA Annehand, and includes large sections of uncited text and puffery, describing his textbooks as "regarded by colleagues as compelling syntheses of the origins of the Earth and its inner workings by one of the great geophysical authorities of our time." Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The creator of the Plate theory (volcanism) article SphericalSong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also extensively rewritten around around a dozen different Hotspot (geology) related articles, trying to cast doubt about the mantle plume theory and promoting the "plate theory", see diffs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, many of them cite "mantleplumes.org (the main website for the "plate theory" supporters, run by Foulger, which looks straight out of an early 2000's geocities page) and the "Plates vs plumes: a geological controversy" book by Foulger. I am unsure that this is in-line with our fringe and NPOV policies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kent G. Budge has indicated that Foulger herself is likely behind this effort, as she appeared to confront him when he created the Intraplate volcanism article from merging the Plate theory (volcanism) article, causing him to delete the new aritlce. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
As an evident WP:POV push, I have reverted their edits where they insert false balance for their pet theory (except for this, which looks complex; I'll let geology editors handle that). This certainly wouldn't be the first time that a researcher comes to Wikipedia to insert their minority view as truth. Crossroads -talk- 20:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that sure looks POV to me. Given that it is not the universally-accepted explanation for volcanism, its lack of any criticism, or even of the existence of other models, is glaring, as is the site-spam contained within the article - "Since 2003, discussion and development of the plate theory has been fostered by the Durham University(UK)-hosted website mantleplumes.org, a major international forum with contributions from geoscientists working in a wide variety of specialties." This has every appearance of a concerted effort to promote a pet theory. Agricolae (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The more I search on scholar, the more I think that WP:MEDRS like guidelines should apply to this topic. It's very easy to dredge up dozens of studies supporting "plate theory" by the same limited group of supporters, but there are easily thousands of papers supporting the existence of mantle plumes. This Earth Magazine article is an interesting summary of the history behind mantle plumes and the controversy surrounding them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
There is the WP:SCIRS page, but it's only an essay. Perhaps it should evolve into something more. Crossroads -talk- 20:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
When working on pages like quantum mechanics, I've definitely had hair-tearing moments: "Why would you cite a random website for that when actual books exist?!" XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There is also Gfoulger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which based on the name I think can be safely assumed to be Foulger. This account has only a handful of edits but was used to oppose the merge of Plate theory (volcanism) into Intraplate volcanism at Talk:Intraplate volcanism. If there is sufficiently strong evidence that SphericalSong is also Foulger, maybe a sockpuppet investigation is in order. Lennart97 (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

I have nominated Plate theory (volcanism) for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plate theory (volcanism). Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Marquesas hotspot

Recent updating of this and other pages to reflect current geological thinking, i.e., that there are two competing theories to explain the region ("Plate" and "Plume"), has been purged, with explanation given earlier on this page. This explanation is based on the perceived numbers of people supporting the two hypotheses and the identities of those involved, which are irrelevant arguments. "SphericalSong" is accused of being a sockpuppet of Gillian Foulger, which is not correct. If I post something, I sign my name.

The purging of the revisions violates the statement at the top of this "fringe theory" page, i.e. "The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained." In any case the "Plate" hypothesis has moved beyond a fringe theory, and to present otherwise is to lag behind current geological thinking. The editings of the pages purged specifically revised them to present the two hypotheses in a neutral and balanced way–the original pages presented only one theory. It is now generally accepted that the Plume hypothesis cannot explain many so-called "hotspots", on strong geological grounds. –G Foulger.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfoulger (talk • contribs) 02:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

For context, see the Plate theory (volcanism) topic above. Gfoulger is likely Gillian Foulger, a professor of geophysics at Durham Univeristy, and the operator of "mantleplumes.org" a website dedicated to arguing against the existence of mantle plumes, a controversial but widely accepted concept in geophysics. Professor Foulger, can you confirm or deny any relationship with the account SphericalSong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? SphericalSong's edits were reverted because they did not conform to the neutral point of view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and those edits all violated WP:WEIGHT: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. All those insertions basically stating 'One view is X, but due to problems with that Y explains it as...' are not acceptable on those grounds. Proposing new ideas is part of the scientific process, but they can't be argued for using Wikipedia. It is not for righting great wrongs. Conflict of interest (WP:COI) is also something that editors have to watch out for. Crossroads -talk- 06:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Fringe theories is broader than traditional ideas of fringe theories: in Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field which "Plate Theory" comes under. As the chief advocate of "plate theory" you are not a neutral arbiter when it comes to the support of the theory amongst the wider academic community. From what I have read, mantle plumes are widely accepted and opposition to them comes from a vocal minority. The edits by SphericalSong attempted to present non-mantle plume theories as more prominent than they were. I do agree that many hotspot articles need expansion, but SphericalSong's edit were a poor foundation to base them on. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There is some more editing along these points here. What concerns me is that from what I can see in the literature, the Society hotspot is not nearly as commonly contested as some other hotspots. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There are some more edits changing "dominant" or "prevailing" to "conventional". I am not sure that they are justified under WP:NPOV Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ghosts of the American Civil War

There is speculation over the existence of ghosts. Sources cited are ghostbusters and ghosthunters. Needs work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Zak Bagans

Paranormal investigator being discussed at WP:BLPN. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

[73], indeed. The question seems to be, is Skeptical Inquirer a reliable source for criticism of a promoter of paranormal claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Synchronicity

Who should be mentioned as influencing this occult idea of Jung's? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_19#COI_article-space_templates

This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Edward Dutton (anthropologist)

There is an on-going dispute with a user "Saxon Celt" who has been removing sourced content from Edward Dutton (anthropologist) and Mark Collett. The user says he is removing "defamation" which is not true. What he has removed is sourced content. The same user also tried to whitewash these articles for certain criticisms in the past. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Parental alienation

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Parental_Alienation For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If someone has the time, I suggest evaluating the text and sources here to see what could be covered or not in the encyclopedia... Something interesting there is that a country's police is called the "Parental Alienation Police". There were other WP disputes at other articles in relation to gov interventions in families, perhaps some other article is more suitable for some material. I expressed some concerns at the main article Parental Alienation's talk page but I could be wrong and more input is welcome. A possibility would also be covering what the actual DSM entry is about in another article, while being careful not to mix the topics, except if some independent reliable sources make the links... —PaleoNeonate – 23:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I was looking at User:Frobozz1/PA-design and the text seemed somewhat .. familiar. It is a word-for-word copy of Stockholm syndrome. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Frobozz1/PA-design. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Page deleted, discussion on ANI, user topic banned from parental alienation. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Creation Ministries International

[74] Neutral article or not? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  • The primary issue is that the article over-relies on primary sources. It needs to be based mostly secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Good removal, bad reason. The article badly needs improving, but drive-by tagging it and then spending the next five years doing nothing is the wrong way to improve it. If I had noticed the tags I would have removed them under WP:WTRMT #6 and #7. Tags are supposed to trigger efforts to fix the issue. They are not scarlet letters to be used to permanently label articles that have problems that you can't be bothered to fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_77&oldid=1017886153"