Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 57

Gary Renard
Notable enough for a WP:FRINGEBLP? WP:AUTHOR? WP:GNG? Do we yet know who in the vast WP:Walled Garden of A Course in Miracles community is notable and who isn't? How do we decide? (At least Wayne Dyer did a huge number of PBS specials). jps (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

jps (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (3rd nomination). jps (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Related: Articles for deletion/3 Magic Words]. jps (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dealing with some tedious arguments at Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (3rd nomination). In particular, there is a weird claim right now that the section to which WP:FRINGEBLP links doesn't apply to people is too tiresome to deal with. That and categories. Categories mean that the biography is notable. Looking at the editing history of, I am curious as to whether there is some sort of vested interest in New Age self-helpdom. Perhaps Oprah-inspired. jps (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good grief, that's not what I said at all, as anyone can see. I have repeatedly said that the two topics that Gary Renard has written four books on, A Course in Miracles and New Thought, both have wide coverage on Wikipedia, including their own navboxes (Template:A Course in Miracles, Template:NewThought) and Categories (Category:A Course in Miracles, Category:New Thought). I have only said those things because you keep bringing up WP:NFRINGE, when the relevant guidelines are WP:NAUTHOR (which he easily meets, as detailed in the AfD) and WP:FRINGEBLP. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you not see where WP:FRINGEBLP links to WP:NFRINGE? I've tried to explain this to you, but you seem to ignore this. jps (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Haven't paid much attention to this but BLPFRINGE says "notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person" (mirroring WP:GNG). Independence would be the issue: has this person received decent coverage in RS outside the fringe spiritual milieu? There are plenty of examples of "walled gardens" where clusters of participants write about each other (in Theosophy, ufology, altmed, etc.) Alexbrn (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly this. When the ace in the hole is, "Oh, Wayne Dyer mentioned this person, so a biography is perfectly encyclopedic", you begin to think that there may not be a lot out there which is beyond the "do you believe in magic?" community patting each other on the back. jps (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes of course it is linked from that, but even the topics he (the author that easily meets WP:NAUTHOR) writes on greatly surpass that and are massively notable by Wikipedia standards, as I've said numerous times, so that's moot in itself. Softlavender (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The topics one writes on are not what makes one notable. If I write a book on ACIM or New Thought that rises to #12 on a sub-subsection of Amazon lists, that does not automatically make me notable. However, that is basically your argument and when I point out what Alexbrn is trying to say you reply with a repetition of the same strawman point. jps (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said the topics he writes on makes him notable. I've said he meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This is of course (this is a general reply, so not indented as a reply to one user) one of the peculiarities of our concept of notability, a book can be more notable then the author (and yes I have even created just such a page). It seems a bit counter intuitive, but it is how Wikipedia functions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree on that point, and have dealt with self-generated author pages that had to go whereas their self-generated article on their book turned out to be notable once we got the author's hands off the article (he got blocked a few times) and re-wrote it. However, in this case, Renard's notability is independent of his first book. That's not to say the book would not meet notability as well; I'm pretty sure there used to be a wiki article on it at one point but somewhere along the line it got deleted (I vaguely recall the article being very crappily written). Softlavender (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have said what I have to say on his notability on the AFD page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Closed as No Consensus. Sigh. jps (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hah, and I didn't bother to !vote because I thought this was obvious for deletion. Dontcha love Wikipedia!? Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at the bright side: We got a nice MP reference out of it.
 * Give it a month or two and try again. It's fairly obvious there's no real consensus to keep this, but I don't blame Ritchie for a second, given the way the discussion went off the reservation and never really came back. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What is an MP reference? Roxy the dog. bark 18:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Old school comedy gold. (MP stands for Monty Python.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen a deletion discussion that lopsided in favor of delete be ruled "no consensus" before. I guess I could ask for a WP:DRV. If the closer would just look at the arguments in the AfD it would be clear that they ran along the lines of A:Here's a lot of sources. B: None of them are usable according to WP:FRIND, WP:RS, etc. A: Yes they are! B: Explain. A: (silence). Isn't that a fair summary of the discussion? jps (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a good summary up until the end. Replace "(silence)" with "(makes accusations of bad behavior and everyone starts discussing that, instead, including that handsome hammer fellow.)" and it would be perfect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A delete close would have been possible as well but Ritchie's analysis that the discussion has deteriorated into a shouting match due to accusations of canvassing along the lines of MjolnirPants' comment above is accurate and thus it's reasonable to close this as no consensus at this point simply because despite the relist further discussion about the subject did not happen. As MjolnirPants notes above, give it 1-2 months and nominate it again. I don't see a DRV as helpful here. Regards  So Why  06:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much my closing rationale in a nutshell. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  07:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this represents a breakdown of analytical capabilities. The WP:ONUS is on those who believe that compliant sources for article exist. That simple standard was not met. jps (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see Deletion review/Log/2017 July 28. jps (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually what WP:ONUS says is "just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean you should put it in an article". It's for things like this. I think we've heard your views loud and clear now jps, time for somebody else to put their 2c in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem like all the people "heard" my voice as self-published and vanity-published books are still being touted as "sources" at the DRV. It would be nice if Wikipedia powers-that-be would deal substantively with the actionable policy/guideline points made by the discussants (and note that the reason to exclude the content from the article is because the sources are problematic -- exclusion of all content from an article implies deletion). jps (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we please leave it now, the AFD is over the decision was keep.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not true. The decision was "no consensus" and there is currently a DRV. jps (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

THIS IS A TOTALLY NEUTRAL NOTICE ABOUT A 4TH AFD. Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (4th nomination). Please share this with anyone and everyone who may be able to shed light on the subject. Do not construe this message in any way as a canvassing. Much Love. jps (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Now also appearing at WP:ANI. Isn't Wikipedia fun, y'all? jps (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Morphogenetic resonance
The AfD discussion for morphogenetic resonance seems pertinent to this Noticeboard. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That AfD needs an admin. Rhinomind seems to be on a PA rampage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Flat Earther at Mount Meru
See their comments when reverted at User talk:120.144.146.136. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE
Eyes and input welcome at WP:FRINGE and Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 00:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on how to deal with fringe sources in the "Further reading" section
I typically removed dubious or fringe external links by citing WP:ELNO #2; however, I am wondering if this is typically done with similar sources that appear in the the "Further reading" section of articles. For example, the article on Allen Dulles includes David Talbot's biography of Dulles which states that Dulles arranged to have Lee Harvey Oswald framed as the sole assassin of JFK, then JFK's assassins killed RFK, too. My own view is that sources that mix reliable and unreliable material shouldn't be included (perhaps via Further reading) but I'm wondering what others think. Thanks! -Location (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Fringe Theory of the month: Dinosaurs helped build the pyramids
"I understand our present view of human history is completely different from what we are proposing, but based on these ancient papyri we must consider the possibility that dinosaurs may have lived amongst ancient Egyptians and were possibly tamed to carry the huge blocks that compose the pyramids." – Professor Nabir Al-Sammud, Egyptologist

Bonus: Fringe theories that have books on them on Amazon:

A Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory

Olympic & Titanic

Enjoy! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yabba Dabba Doooo! Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * For an added bonus, that article has a link in the sidebar to The CIA killed Elvis in an effort to cover up the Lockheed bribery scandals. &#8209; Iridescent 15:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WHAT!? Elvis is DEAD? Kleuske (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's just what they want you to think—his appearance in Home Alone is conclusive proof he's still alive. &#8209; Iridescent 15:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that anyone here needs this necessarily, but this is from a known click-bait fake news site. "Nabir Al-Sammud" at this time has 1640 Ghits which is a neat trick for somebody who apparently does not exist. I shudder to think how many Facebook shares they've already accumulated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am just glad that the current efforts to tear down monuments to long-dead slave owners are confined to the USA and not Egypt... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If dinosaurs hadn't helped construct monuments to confederate soldiers in the US, there would be nothing to tear down.Dialectric (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the first link is a fake story. I cannot read Arabic, but a Gsearch of "Nabir Al-Sammud", "Nabir Ibn Al-Sammud", or "Helmut Ferrlug" only hit on this. -Location (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Pffffffttt. This is old hat for anyone who grew up going to church. Hell, I knew by the time I was five that Jesus himself rode around on a Tyrannosaur. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * At first I was doubtful, but that photograph you linked to is solid evidence. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Arhatic yoga, from the minds that brought you Pranic healing
This appears to be a way to bring back content from Pranic healing which was stubbed out after a drawn-out battle with fringe-theory promoters a few years back. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Crisis actor
A mess and at the moment a WP:BLP violation I think. Might get more unhelpful attention after claims of crisis actors at the Unite the Right rally. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support a redirect to False flag. It fits there and there are other eyes to watch that article. -Location (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that a redirect to false flag is a good idea. — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If kept it would need to be rewritten since it currently claims that crisis actors have been confirmed to have been used in multiple attacks (6 specifically) with noting to indicate that it is a a cohspricy theory,--76.65.42.75 (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That has been fixed. -Location (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've made a few minor changes. I honestly think this would really look better as a new section to False flag. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Crisis actors aka "simulated victims" employed to take part in federal and state disaster training drills are a real thing and have been for many years. Unfortunately conspiracy theorists have co-opted this term in the last decade to promote their nutty claims. Any article on the topic should first give the legitimate context, and then explain the conspiracy term. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See Talk:False flag. Not sure how much Simulated patient and Medical simulation might be relevant here. -Location (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So we keep "Crisis actors" as the real thing User:LuckyLouie mentions - I forgot I've had experience with them but not under that name), make Doug Weller  talk 16:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Was heading to the discussion to change my !vote now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Might also be a pointer at simulated patient. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesus
See Talk:Jesus. The content requires a source to verify the claim. QuackGuru ( talk ) 11:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The content in question is "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity." QuackGuru is the only user there who has a problem with that statement (do some atheists think Jesus was God or something?).  See also the ANI thread.  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole "Jesus wasn't divine, but was a great moral teacher" shtick is easily traced back into the Enlightenment; it would not want for sourcing if anyone bothered, and anyone aware of the material is familiar with it. Mangoe (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Ian.thomson said "QuackGuru is the only user there who has a problem with that statement". I don't have a problem with the statement itself. The issue is that the current content fails verification, but the tag was removed. The source I added was removed. I discussed it on the talk page. Then I requested a single source on the talk page. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

St. Gallen Group
"Reformist" cardinals in a cabal against Benedict XVI? The article seems possibly OK now but I'm a bit unfamiliar with the material; there's a category discussion about the membership of this group. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The issue has also spread to the various cardinals' articles. Mangoe (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "the issue". I think the text that I added to those bios was straightforward and factual. The Category, on the other hand, tries to make more of this than it should. For easy reference, here's what I added in one stance: "Kasper was one of a dozen or more like-minded cardinals and bishops who met annually from 1995 to 2006 in St. Gallen, Switzerland, to discuss reforms with respect to the appointment of bishops, collegiality, bishops' conferences, and the primacy of the papacy as well as the Church's approach to sexual morality. They differed among themselves in varying degrees, but shared the view that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was not the candidate they hoped to see elected at the next conclave." As a contribution to his bio, it speaks to his views and activism. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article states: "Cardinal Godfried Danneels; who candidly described the network as a "mafia-club."". I haven't read his autobiography, but I Googled those words and ended up at this page and in that video he says:


 * "De groep van Sankt Gallen, dat is een soort naam die deftig is. Maar eigenlijk zeiden wij van onszelf en van die groep: "de maffia"."


 * Rough translation:


 * The group of Sankt Gallen; that type of name is prestigious. But in fact we said about ourselves and that group: "the mafia".


 * You can hear the audience laughing.


 * He wasn't candidly admitting something, he was joking by comparing this group to the mafia (because of the secrecy). Funnily enough this page, which was used as a source, contains the text: "Tired of Fake News?". They aren't aware that they are spreading it (probably because they do not understand Dutch). &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Similarly, when the Diocese of St. Gallen issued a press release about the media fuss they headlined it "Sensationsmeldung?" Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that they are often quoted on Wikipedia. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk)  20:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Even weirder, ncregister has reported on the fact that the biographers have tried to explain things by saying that this was "not a lobby group that prepared for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to be elected Pope", but they are still trying to create a narrative where there was some evil lobby against someone. In fact it seems to be a tempest in a teacup, and probably not even notable. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Um. My response to this is that I once went naked swimming in St. Gallen town reservoir. Aages ago. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've followed this entry since its creation. Since there's been an edit war, the version you see varies greatly from day to day. It's largely nonsense and Wikipedia would be better without it. The existence of a discussion group -- the host called it a "circle of friends -- is real, and i've added a bit to the bio of each of the participants that makes that point. What is to be done? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibly the worst thing about the entry is the "Team Bergoglio" section, which tries to elevate a journalist's tag name for (once again) a group of like-minded individuals into a cabal, whose purported activities seem to be nothing of note and certainly nothing as serious as what is alleged. I added the disclaimer by the four named cardinals, without which this was very much in violation of WP:BLP, and even with that disclaimer I imagine. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think the group itself is notable, but if we must have an article about this then we need to get rid of all the conspiracy nonsense and describe factually and neutrally what happened. The story is quite boring, a group of like-minded religious individuals were having meetings and discussed church-related stuff. The idea that this was an evil mafia-like conspiracy is laughable. I am an atheist btw, so I have no dog in this fight, other than my strong dislike of the bullshit conspiracy theorists come up with. If you want me to I can have a look at some more reliable sources, and I can probably translate some stuff from Dutch to English if necessary but it is 2AM here. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have pinged Drmies. He is Dutch and he has a brain. Drmies, would you please be so kind to help us deal with this stuff. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the problem is a lack of sources so much as a failure to evaluate the sources we have. The creator of the article will have to weigh in. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Holy moly. Well, I deleted the category as a BLP violation; that's a start. Yes, I believe we have a conspiracy-type article here based on a joking remark blown out of proportion by some decidedly partial sources--this being perhaps the most egregious one. I don't know if I have much of a brain, but I can smell a BLP violation when I see one, and this article comes pretty close. Oh, one of you please remove the category from those articles? You're protected by the BLP, Edit_warring #7. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the category from the articles. Here's a tidbit. This article is in the category "Secret societies". But apparently people in the know knew. At one point the Vatican even sent one of its own guys, "le sinistre cardinal" Camillo Ruini, to check it out. Some secret! source And all through these years the people involved were trying to have an impact on church policy. They weren't lurking in the shadows waiting for the pope to die. Three of them are quoted, for example, in this account of a 2001 synod. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the cat "secret societies" from the article. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've tried to tidy up this article once or twice to keep it to the bare facts but the general sense of it concerns me greatly. By having such a detailed article on wikipedia in seems to be giving public credence that here is a group of "plotting" cardinals determined to undermine the papacy and push some sinister "modernist" agenda. I think the few facts we do have are being whipped into a hysterical witch-hunt. I'd rather see the whole article go. Not helped by the fact that the editor that created the article has systematically gone to the article for each bishop alleged to have been involved and then tagged them in the category - which seems designed (in my mind) to point to the "faithful" about who is their "enemy". Dangerous and unpleasant stuff. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've sent this article to AfD as a conspiracy theory about BLPs. See: Articles for deletion/St. Gallen Group. Unfortunately we get crap like this all the time in papal conclave articles: most of them are based on self-published sources or borderline polemics. This one just happens to have found some press in the partisan Catholic media and is relatively recent rather than a few hundred years old. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, should anyone be interested, here is my analysis at the AfD of the sourcing and the article. It's long, so I didn't want to cross post, but thought it worth putting here in case any more conversation comes about. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sensible analysis. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Neurologic_music_therapy
Could use some eyes. An editor working for the two... "inventors" of this method just got brought to COIN. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: also see WT:MEDICINE where a related thread exists. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Global warming paper concludes warming is mostly natural variation
An article was recently published online from the journal GeoResJ that is peer reviewed and concludes most of global warming is natural and not man-made. It has attracted attention from the conservative media and criticism from scientists. I have written a section on it at Jennifer Marohasy as Marohasy was the lead author. I am reporting my addition here for several reasons: This is likely to continue to develop. The graph produced by Gavin Schmidt and posted on twitter is only 3 days old and would be good for the article, if it is available. I have also seen little coverage of the scientific community's response, except from the Guardian article by Graham Readfearn, but it seems inevitable to me that there will be more.
 * 1) So others can check my addition for accuracy, UNDUE, BLP, etc, etc.
 * 2) So others can use any of my text / sources in other articles on wiki. Perhaps on the article on the Institute of Public Affairs?  Do we have an article on peer-reviewed denier materials?  I would add something to the journal's article, but there isn't one and I'm not sure it is notable – though it may become so if the paper gets further attention and / or is withdrawn.  (, any thoughts?)
 * 3) So others are aware of the paper and criticisms of it if deniers attempt to use it as strong evidence against the IPCC, etc.

Any and all comments, advice, criticisms, etc, welcome. EdChem (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The use of an exclamation mark and the last uncited sentence It is clear that the correlation is poor need rectification. The section is perhaps giving too much weight to news media and too little on scientists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have addressed those, thanks . The comment on the correlation was OR on my part, in that looking at the graphs tweeted by Gavin Schmidt, it's obvious that the correlation is awful once the time-axis correction is made, but he didn't actually say so. It'd be good to get that illustration and include it, and let it speak for itself, but for now I just removed the sentence. EdChem (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Looks like the journal meets WP:NJournals as it is indexed in Scopus (haven't looked for other databases, but Scopus is generally considered enough to confer notability). Did you see, though, that the journal if folding? It will be discontinued as of January 2018.. As an aside, I always find it amusing how climate change deniers (or "alternative medicine" pushers - perhaps in the spirit of the times, we should start calling this "fake medicine") deny the validity of tons of peer-reviewed research that goes against their convictions, disparaging experts and academic journals alike, but then, as soon as there is just a single article that seems to go in their direction suddenly treat that as the ultimate truth and proudly proclaim that expert Prof. SoAndSo from Tiny Rural University agrees with them and that the important and respected journal SciRag published this groundbreaking research, so it must be The Truth... --Randykitty (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I did notice it is folding, and mentioned it in the article. GeoResJ will have publications in 2014 to 2017 (inclusive), so its significance as a journal is not impressive in history terms.  On your aside, the two authors work with the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing think tank with a history of climate change denial.  Marohasy is a biologist who hasn't published in the field for about a decade, I think, and Abbot is claiming association with James Cook University in submitting the article months after his adjunct position ended.  The issue here is not claiming either has great expertise, and to me the big question is how two peer reviewers passed this.  I'm guessing there will be pressure for the article to be withdrawn, though I don't know how that works once the journal closes.  EdChem (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I commented here before even reading the article (it's not directly in my sphere of interest). I don't think that the fact that the journal closes will affect any retraction, if needed. The editor-in-chief (and anybody else who handled this article) should still be available to give their views and, of course, the publisher is not going to go away anytime soon. --Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The author's article appears to make it clear that her credentials are in biology, that the view used outdated data (1965) and that it has been critized as being fringe in the field. To me this is already nice work and helps to put it in perspective.  The important is probably to keep monitoring related articles so that unreliably sourced POV doesn't creep in too much over time...  Thank you very much for the notification.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I added some content to the article on the Institute of Public Affairs – hopefully not UNDUE.  I have also further expanded the Marohasy article as scientists have been taking to the work on Twitter and she has given some responses, which I thought addressed Jo-Jo's concerns too.  I suspect more will come from scientists in other places.  EdChem (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You've done a good job of balancing Marohasy's research against the actual science, but the text could be trimmed down a bit for readability. I might go over there and mess around on the edges a bit. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Japanese-Jewish common ancestry theory
Another fringe article. Someone keeps trying to add a Christian Pastor and Bible teacher named Kubo to the lead. I see we use him as a source and he's pushed in "Further reading". I'm not sure who the Mcleod is in the source and further reading unless it's a Scottish 19th century author who supported this idea and is mentioned in the source, but he wasn't writing books in the late 20th century. One of the publishers, Tokuma Shoten, is an entertainment publisher. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The author is Nicholas McLeod, a 19th century fringe writer, who is sometimes credited as "Norman". Dimadick (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Flying ointment
Michael Pollan wrote stuff like:

Their potion recipes called for such things as datura, opium poppies, belladona, hashish, fly-agaric mushrooms (Amanita muscaria), and the skin of toads (which can contain DMT, a powerful hallucinogen). These ingredients would be combined in a hempseed-oil-based "flying ointment" that the witches would then administer vaginally using a special dildo. This was the "broomstick" by which these women were said to travel.

In the article Flying ointment claims like these are described as if they are true.

The article also contains stuff that appears to be WP:OR:

Juxtaposing the Italian and Scandinavian accounts with the ecclesiastical condemnation of Regino of Prüm, a picture emerges of a 'journey' not literal, but of the drugged mind, involving the actual mounting of an animal, smeared with flying ointment - the contact of the naked witch's genitalia with the animal's back allowing the absorption of drugs, through the vaginal mucosa, and the physical sensation of riding on the back of an animal suggesting powerfully to the drugged mind of the witch a ride to the Sabbath through hallucinatory realms conjured up by the drug.

&#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

One of these things is not like the others. Datura causes delirium, but is much more famous as a deadly poison. Datura-related murders and suicides are relatively commonplace. Voluntarily consuming datura is a very bad idea. Dimadick (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

List of reported UFO sightings
I came to this as the target of these redirect discussions. Once again it is a cesspool of credulously described incidents, not to mention that a lot of the articles linked to have similar issues. Not sure what to do as there is simply too much to keep track of. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What a mess. Usually for such lists elements which are not notable enough to have a standing article would not be listed, meaning that article links become more important than references.  This however includes every type of claim including revisionism of mythology and ancient reports claimed to be "UFO sightings".  I've not checked enough to see if some of it is also here, but aura depictions in paintings seen by ufologists as ships are similar.  Most appear to be referenced however; I'm not sure how strict we should be in assessing the reliability of those sources, or if the lead should be clear to mention that most are unsubstanciated extraordinary claims, supported by a critical source discussing such ancient astronaut/alien claims...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a big fan of WP:REDFLAG, but Wikipedia might not have much information on UFOs if that were enforced strictly. -Location (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

On my list of things to do is to remove all the items in that list which are sourced only to UFOlogical true believers. A compendium of news reports that use the "UFO" term may be okay (though suffering from FAKENEWS), but the vast majority of the pre-Kenneth Arnold events need to be excised, IMHO. jps (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Given it is a list of things that have been misidentified why? I want to know what they think are UFO's, so I can judge if it is a cesspool of credulously described incidents.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)]
 * In the main Unidentified flying object article, it is probably worthwhile to discuss how reinterpretations of certain historical and mythological accounts have been crowbarred into the "UFO explanation" by ufologists. Indeed, there are plenty of independent sources which can attest and describe this situation. But including such events in a "list" as such is a stretch of reliable reporting as to what was claimed to be a UFO sighting (at the time). Jumping into anachronisms is not Wikipedia's place. jps (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, lists are not main articles. As such it is just a list of what people claim are UFOs, not a list of actual UFO's. In fact it would be very odd to include the "lumberer flitting hamster scare of 1527" in the UFO page, but not in the list of UFO'd. What we should do is not imply these are real.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * E.g. Ezekiel's Wheel should not be listed as a UFO sighting. It might be mentionable on the UFO page when discussing what other ufologists think are UFO sightings. jps (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What if RS refer to this belief?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is, Ezekiel's Wheel was not a reported UFO sighting. A list of "purported" UFO sightings? Okay, then. jps (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you determine that? surely we go with what RS say? So if RS say it is a claimed UFO sighting what give you the right to reject that?Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What reliable source says Ezekiel reported a UFO? -Location (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see so the argument is that we should only include objects referred to by those seeing them as UFO's...correct? By the way what does UFO mean, and did Ezekiel know what he saw?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe Ezekiel reported seeing God or "visions of God". It was not "unidentified" to him. It was those after who said, "No. What Ezekiel saw was a UFO (meaning alien spaceship)." -Location (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did he, was this an eye witness testimony written down at the time?Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert in the Book of Ezekiel, but it certainly wasn't after 1947. -Location (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So if it was after 1947 it's a UFO (irrespective of what the witness called it) but before 1947 it was not?. It does not matter if RS say it has been called a UFO...because 1947?, why 1047 and not (say) 1901?Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Unidentified flying object, the term "UFO" wasn't in our lexicon until sometime after Kenneth Arnold's report. If we are going to use a reliable source that says, "Ufologist X says Prophet E saw a UFO", then I guess that would fall under "purported" and not "reported". -Location (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So then it is about just the term UFO? Ohh by the way, it says 1953 is the date of coinage.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That article states that the term was officially created by the USAF in 1953, which implies unofficial usage prior to that. The content of the list would certainly change depending upon whether "UFO" or "flying saucer" is used. -Location (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Or it implies it was not in use before the USAF need a cover term for the phenomena. We can also change it to purported and solve this issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And that brings us full circle to jps's point. -Location (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

So we have an agreement to move the page to List of purported UFO sightings.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we? I'm not sure such a list is worthy of invention. A list of reported UFO sightings I can get behind if for no other reason than it allows for the bookkeeping of nonsense news stories. But, then again Wikipedia is WP:NOT supposed to be the bookkeeper of nonsense news stories, right? jps (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, if I go out an self-publish a book about how the September 11 attacks were actually caused by four UFOs, that would be a purported UFO sighting. Since much of the Ufological Literature is of a similar caliber, Wikipedia would be chock-a-block full of nonsense with no end in sight. At least if we go with "reported" we can whittle down to those "sightings" for which third-party independent sources have attested that a report was made. jps (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So lets see, your suggestion of a re-name was not serious?Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Quick question... reported to whom? Blueboar (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say, "the general public". But really the question is better asked, in my opinion, reported by whom? The answer, I would say, should be third party independent sources. jps (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was in answer to your justifications. You like the suggestion, but you did not think of the consequences. I tried to elucidate them after you ran with the ball. jps (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with Location: Ezekiel's description is generally considered a religious inspired vision and we can find RS calling it as such, it is generally considered spiritual, symbolic and invisible, except in prophetic visions, not physical objects (except for some of the recent UFO culture). — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And if RS also call it a sighting/report or whatever.?Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Erich von Daniken is not a reliable source, and interpreting biblical visions as alien visitations is quintessentially fringey. I'm inclined to go with jps's approach and junk all the old "lights in the sky means UFO" fringe interpretations of pre-modern tales and religion. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to be centered on the question: "what is the scope of the list"... is it a) a list of reported UFO sightings... or b) a list of claimed UFO sightings?
 * If the former, then we have to define to whom the sightings were reported (does it need to be a governmental agency?) ... if the later then we need to define by whom the sighting is claimed (do we include any claim by any enthusiast?). Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it could be challenging to find an appropriate title that covers both. I believe there are legitimate cases, for example, where a military pilot calls in something and there is a governmental paper trail that makes it way into reliable secondary sources. Similar to what is noted in WP:CLAIM, my preference is not to call these "claims". On the other hand, there are stories from other people that have made their way into reliable secondary sources that either weren't officially mentioned to or discussed by governmental sources. The trouble is that some of these people actually saw something and other people are likely just making it up. We have articles like UFO sightings in the United States in which the lede qualifies the material as "This is a list of alleged UFO sightings in the United States." One option is to call this List of UFO sightings (which redirects to the article under discussion) and have the lede state, "This is a list of alleged UFO sightings". -Location (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK... But we still have to ask: "alleged by whom?" What I am getting at is the issue of attribution.  Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article cites a single paper by a single scholar for a couple of "ancient UFO sightings". Is his a notable opinion? The other entries for ancient sightings cite generic historical accounts that don't mention the word "UFO". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anyone can truly be an expert in UFOs, but his obituary in The New York Times provides a bit of background with NASA and astrophysics, and described him as "a world expert on the structure of stars, as well as their origin and evolution" so I guess it would be a notable opinion. Perhaps something along the lines of UFOs in Classical Antiquity and/or other named time period might discuss modern interpretations of these things by academics and scholars (to the extent they are reliable sources) and even ufologists or others (to the extent their views are discussed in reliable sources). I would think his opinion would be notable -Location (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think the claims of ufologists, enthusiasts, or others could be mentioned to the extent they are discussed in reliable secondary sources as long as it meets WP:WEIGHT, WP:REDFLAG, and the other sub-guidelines of WP:FRINGE. I guess I might need an example or two to see where you are going with this. -Location (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Electrophonic hearing
A festival of WP:OR that wrongly conflates urban legends about people hearing radio stations via their tooth fillings, sounds created by meteors, Eskimo folklore about sounds made by the aurora, and speculation cited to "the hum" proponent John Dawes. An article on direct conversion of electromagnetic radiation into audible sound already exists at microwave auditory effect, so there really isn't any reason for this mess. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there anything there that could be merged to Microwave auditory effect? For reference: Microwave auditory effect was discussed in WP:FTN here in January 2014 (which led to Articles for deletion/Voice to skull) and here in August 2015. Issues related to that article have also been discussed at ANI a few times. -Location (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is the fringe theory problem: Electrophonic_hearing says that electrophonic hearing can explain sounds capable of being heard by humans created by meteors, while Meteoroid says that meteors emitting sounds capable of being heard by humans is an unproven theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

template discussion of interest
See Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 29, where the proposal is to merge it into ordinary medical infoboxes. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Mute Button
Editors here might be interested in this discussion - Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/User Mute features -Roxy the dog. bark 09:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wish there was a "section mute" option - useful for muting the pemathreads about US politics at every noticeboard, e.g. Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and wrestling. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how useful it is, but if people want it, it seems harmless enough. Messages on a user's own talk page still go through.
 * If a user decides they don't want to know when user-B reverts or pings them, they're just disengaging and letting user-B "win" any conflict.
 * Heck, I wish I could force people to ignore me.
 * ApLundell (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This will now be the standard response to all noticeboard complaints: Why should we block them, if you haven't muted them? Oh, I guess you're complaining about nothing, then. Thanks for posting about that discussion, glad I got my chance to post my comments and have them be ignored. Geogene (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this only blocks notifications, and have sought some clarity. if I understand this issue correctly now, and I couldn't care less if I get muted, as only notifications are affected, not anything I might actually "say". Seems to be a HUUGE waste of resource. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think people are worried that it's the thin edge of a wedge, but as described there it seems harmless. It doesn't seem super-useful, but if people want it maybe it'd be useful to them. ApLundell (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Having investigated a little, I'm not so worried any more. I can't see this will have much of a detrimental affect. Anyway, now that i more or less understand, I'm going to mute Jimbo and Mr. MPants for gits and shiggles. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ellis (sigil)
This is up for deletion and I have to say I've never heard of such a thing. Anyone else have any ideas about this fringe of the fringe? Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the topic but fail to see how it could be notable enough to have an article. On the other hand, in the beliefs of that magic(k) system, replicating or having an image viewed by as many people as possible could increase the "power" of using the sigil (i.e. a deeper collective imprint, etc).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess that explains why my [censored] got bigger when I started making those movies... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is from a World of Darkness book or somesuch, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Chaos magic and Sigil (magic) are related, but I think that the notability is likely enough for those more general articles to exist, versus individual sigil-specific articles... — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Mandrake of Oxford
Publisher of occult books. It may be notable, but editors keep adding lists of notable books and periodicals that aren't. Note that although you wouldn't know it from the article, the Journal for the Academic Study of Magic no longer exists. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have amended the sub-headers, so they no longer claim that the various publications are "notable". Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

NLP POV-forks
I have started a discussion here after I added multiple issues banners to two articles on the subject of NLP that I consider Trojan Horses of Fringiness, and they were shortly after removed by another user. I'd appreciate input. Famous dog   (c) 11:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Simply tagging with a "multiple issues" tag means that others need to guess where the problems are, and so the issues may not get resolved. I would suggest being more specific... break the issues up and discuss them one at a time.  Give examples of the issue, and suggest ways to resolve it. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Genesis flood narrative
Probably could be improved, subject of edit warring by a new editor. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

AFD - Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History?
Giving notice. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Genesis History?
Fringe documentary, editors pushing the qualifications of the "scientists and scholars". Doug Weller talk 20:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added it to my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on it. Looks like I'm not the first, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One thing that I notice ... the only reviews mentioned in the article are positive ones ... Are there negative reviews that highlight the flaws? If so, they should be mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's distinctly possible that there aren't. Creationism hasn't been as much of a hot button issue since the early 2000's, except for the occasional flareup, like the Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate. Eventually, there will be, of that I have no doubt. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are no negative reviews that point out the flaws, then there is a decent case to be made for deletion. If the only way we can write an article that both covers the topic and accords with NPOV is by engaging in OR by criticizing the film ourselves because there simply aren't enough sources, then the subject fails GNG. Ironically, that's the exact situation we had with Articles for deletion/Banned from the Bible a few years back.
 * On an unrelated note, I find it pretty hilarious that, at least based on our summary of the film's contents, the title is a lie, in that it appears to be focused more on "science" (bad as the science might be) than "history" (good or bad).
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure it meets WP:NFILM. There's a Rotten Tomatoes link in the ELs but it gives no critics' reviews. No external reviews on the IMDB page except for a couple of bloggerish reviews like this one: . I didn't do any Googling. If the people interviewed in it are in any way notable (and per the wiki article five of them have their own wiki articles) there's a case to be made that the film has some notability. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I hate to bring up WP:NOTINHERITED in response to the second half of your comment (in which, to your credit, you appear to be playing devil's advocate), partly because I think you are technically right on the substance, but I think discussing the notability of the people interviewed for a documentary in relation to the notability of the documentary itself is problematic for a separate reason: creationists are notorious for presenting interviews with their opponents out of context, and those people that they interview with whom they don't disagree might have attained notability specifically for the reason that they espouse a fringe theory (I haven't seen the film so I won't name names, but pretty much every professional biologist who recognizes ID is notable for that reason alone). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

One of the people interviewed is archaeologist Douglas Petrovich. He does not have an article yet, but he made minor news with his theory that the Proto-Consonantal Script is written in Hebrew, and that its inscriptions mention Asenath, Ahisamach, and Moses. For a sample of his writing see: http://asorblog.org/2017/04/10/hebrew-language-behind-worlds-first-alphabet/

Petrovich seems to believe in the actual historicity of Moses. Dimadick (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Petrovich is a kook with a good PR agent. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory of the month
"Mark Taylor: Freemasons And Illuminati Are Using A Special Frequency To Change DNA And Make People Hate Trump" "The Illuminati, the Freemasons, all these people, their main goal is to change the DNA of man and they’re doing it through these frequencies.” "Taylor said that the media is broadcasting its audio at 440 Hz, which has been found to “damage your body organs” and “also changes your DNA, which is the goal of the Freemasons, the Illuminati; they want you part of that Illuminati bloodline.” Doug Weller  talk 16:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I...what? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 17:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I would even consider this a conspiracy theory. Nowadays people just make shit up to gain an audience. -Location (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI... 440 Hz is the standard "A above middle C" used in tuning musical instruments. It was also the tone used for "at the tone the time will be..." radio broadcasts, back before the days of the internet.
 * It turns out that people have been claiming sinister things about this note for years... There is actually an older conspiracy myth about how a 440 Hz tone influences people ... but that one credits the Nazis for the conspiracy, not the Freemasons or the Illuminati. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't telephones use this? Geogene (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In all the years I've known my father, he's never mentioned altering human DNA. hmmm. -Roxy the dog. bark 20:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Great Apostasy needs eyes
Would some uninvolved editors take a look at the recent changes on this article and the conversation at Talk:Great Apostasy. I intentionally stay out of articles where there is current theological controversy real or imagined, but from what I can tell the recent sources that have been added are fringe sourcing concerning Catholic practice published by non-Catholic groups. I saw someone post looking for more eyes at WT:CATHOLIC, so I thought I would also put the word out here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a touchy area to get right because the arguments used to justify praying to saints in general, but especially dulia and hyperdulia in particular, are so widely rejected in Protestantism. The Anglicans are more tolerant (though not necessarily accepting), but most Protestant groups do not see the distinction between dulia and adoration to be meaningful; and of course the use of images is going to be controversial. The problem is going to be between making clear what the hardcore Protestant views are, and especially keeping WP from speaking in their name, and suppressing mention entirely or siding with the Catholic justifications. These are not fringe views at all; but they are the widely held positions of one side of the conflict. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , yes, agreed. It is a very difficult balance, and everything you say above is true. The sourcing added, however, I would consider fringe within current Protestantism (see this example), which is why I came here to get more eyes on the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What Tony said. I would have no problem with the addition of content on "idol-worship" and "worship of Mary", provided (a) it was in context, (b) it cited authoritative works on Protestant and Catholic theology, and (c) it was presented in an NPOV way. The way it has been done, however, effectively makes it a fringe view of Protestant views of Catholicism. Scolaire (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Great Apostasy" is a Mormon buzzword and missionary talking point, as the original version makes fairly obvious . The current version may or may not be more neutral, but I'm not sure it's NPOV to have the page titled that at all. Geogene (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , it might be worth making that point on the article talk page. --Scolaire (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Nassim Haramein
I'm concerned about an article on Nassim Haramein that has popped up recently. He's presented as an 'autodidact theoretical physicist', but has no reputable work. His main claim to a peer-reviewed publication is this paper, which is published by these people. It's grade A bullshit (here's a brief analysis) but his fans understandably don't see it that way. Here's an analysis of his next physics paper, and here's the one before. There hasn't been any formal scientific refutation (because it isn't science), so there's little to cite beyond blogs to to counter the increasingly impressive promotional material in the article. He has a following of very committed followers who are convinced he's the next Einstein - I haven't attempted to edit the page because I know exactly what will happen.

The fate of his previous Wikipedia page is here. I'm not sure what's the best thing to do about it. I wouldn't necessarily argue that he shouldn't have a page at this point, just that it should reflect reality. I think it needs some scientifically literate people watching it, because he does a very good job at presenting himself as an eccentric-but-competent physicist and it's far from immediately obvious to a sympathetic eye that the problems with his work are substantial rather than superficial. I've posted on WP:PHYS as well. Bobathon71 (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * (Note, I moved the above comment here from the talk page --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC))


 * I'd say go ahead and renominate for deletion. I cut out his list of "patents" on OR/UNDUE grounds, but that was just the lowest hanging fruit.  He might be borderline notable, simply for his antics, but the current article as written seems like it's there merely to try to legitimize his work.  Apparently the page was salted for 10 years or so, and was only unprotected in April.  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As above, send it back to AFD. All sources are either unreliable, or primary - so no indication of notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This article is in desperate need of work. What hath Patrick Stewart wrought?
 * jps (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * jps (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * On second thought and after some review of the sources: Articles for deletion/The Connected Universe. jps (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that The Connected Universe is deleted, it might be worth looking at what you think about Articles for deletion/Nassim Haramein (3rd nomination). jps (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Fringe delsort?
Is it time for a "fringe theories" WP:DELSORT category? It may be that the label is too contentious for delsort, so some other wording may be preferable. Posting some, but not all, relevant AfDs here is sometimes seen as canvassing. If it were a normal thing like a delsort category it may be less controversial (though I'm not looking to get into whether or not it should be controversial to begin with, really). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that notifying public noticeboards or WikiProjects is canvassing and I also think it would be a good idea to have a corresponding FT deletion sorting list. Yet a third way to receive fringe notifications is to track changes to WikiProject Skepticism/Article alerts, although for this to be updated, an article's talk page must also have been tagged with the WikiProject Skepticism template.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm I wouldn't have thought to tag an article about a fringe theory with WikiProject Skepticism. More likely WikiProject Alternative Views. In either case, it's not so reliable as the main authors of such an article typically would not add either. I'll look into creating a delsort category later. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Gary Null
An editor has left a message on the Talk page, they are obviously incompetent. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx all. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * From WP:AllegingIncompetence: "Rather, the purpose of this essay is to inform discussion amongst other editors of how to deal with issues arising from incompetence. So, if WP:COMPETENCE seems to apply to an editor, it is usually not appropriate to tell them so.".
 * Rather than use a contentious term such as "incompetent" to describe another editor, it's almost always more appropriate (in this case, for example) to explain the proper use of talk pages in a WP:CIVIL and helpful manner. Actual editorial incompetence is different from "Being a new editor". as WP:CIR explains. loupgarous (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read what the editor had written? I think not. That editor is a twit. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Gokhale Method
An acupuncturist/yoga instructor claims to have found a method for postural awareness to treat back- and back-related pain, based upon her years of research across the world from which she concluded that ancient and some indigenous peoples knew how to move without pain. She's written a popular book and teaches her method in Silicon Valley. Her "research" is clearly fringe in my viewpoint, but the method and claims have gotten little notice from anyone that is actually familiar with the published research in the area. It's being promoted from the paleo- and chiropractic communities. Help would be appreciated getting this article up to NPOV/FRINGE/MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two things I would like about this article: First of all, I am not aware that the article discusses any scientific research, but it does state that the acupuncturist Gokhale who developed the method backs up her method "with medical literature and anatomical arguments". If this statement is somehow violating any policy, then it should be deleted or rephrased, which I am happy to do.
 * Secondly, if there is a policy stating that alternative medicine topics that have not been scientifically studied yet, are not notable, this should be more explicitly stated in policy pages and should also be mentioned in the Alternative Medicine Wikiproject. I have failed to find any such policy, and now we are sitting here discussing the topic here, which could have been prevented from the start. The topic has been discussed by reliable news outlets, such as the New York Times and the Guardian, which i thought was sufficient to write an article about it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is not with notability. This is about claims made in the article. Gokhale has made claims that her method can help with liver (Qi) stagnation. That is a medical claim, and Liver Qi Stagnation is not recognized as a condition by reliable medical sources but (mostly/only) by TCM, so it is of interest to this noticeboard.. Mduvekot (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The first question could be whether the topic is notable. Then, all medical claims must be supported with MEDRS compliant sources or not included. Seems simple enough?(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC))
 * I already removed the claim about liver stagnation yesterday. Please let me know what other claims still in the article are problematic.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My comments are general rather than dictating anything in an article I didn't write.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC))

Based on one of the external sources, I would be less concerned about medical claims and more concerned about historical claims.
 * "The human spine is shaped like an 'S'—that's just normal anatomy. But, Cooks says that despite that s-curve, for thousand of years humans held our bodies with a much straighter back. Modern, Western people have lost that 'primal posture," she says. Look at old photographs before 1920, she said. "Think of your ancestors from that time, you probably look at those photos and think: 'those people look so stiff.' But actually they were showing good posture, that's how they were," Cooks said. Today it seems our habit is to hunch and slouch through life. "Coco Chanel made it fashionable to slump," Cooks said. "Think of her with the cigarette and this sort of magnified s-curve."

Their idea about pre-industrialized people seems to be anything prior to Coco Chanel, without any reference to the Industrial Revolution (c. 1760-1840).


 * "Gokhale studied and modeled the movements of cultures around the globe where Cooks says people have better posture and have 'kept the old ways' including—Portugal, Brazil, and small communities in Southeast Asia and Africa." ... "To me, the idea that some non-Western people and 'laborers' don't have the same aches and pains as the rest of us--simply because of posture--seems farfetched. I don't trust the translation. The Gokhale Method's interpretation of other people's feelings and suffering seems prone to be tripped up by the barriers of language and privilege."

Non-Western people like the Portuguese? Where exactly do they think Portugal is? And laborers supposedly do not feel pain. Right.


 * "Bruce Latimer doesn't buy it. He's an anatomy professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and studies how humans evolved to walk the way we do. "If you look up the worldwide distribution of back pain—just Google it, there are several studies by the U.N., all sorts of different NGOs—what you will find out is that back pain is one of the most common if not the most common disabilities that humans suffer from," Latimer said. "It's a long-standing problem--not to make a pun there--and it can't be solved by simply saying: stand with a different posture, that isn't going to work," said Latimer. " ... "I've looked at lot of pre-contact Native American skeletons and arthritis of the spine is everywhere. It's not as if they had no back pain," Latimer said."

Actual criticism by an anatomist and wider distribution of back pain than the method claims, are not mentioned in our article. Also evidence of back pain preceding the 20th century. Dimadick (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Historical (and anthropological) context would help. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I followed up on one of the few experts, a paleoanthropologist, that's commented on the Gokhale Method Talk:Gokhale_Method, and found http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/priority_medicines/BP6_24LBP.pdf which states, "Low back pain occurs in similar proportions in all cultures, ". This looks to me to be a mainstream viewpoint that needs to be presented per FRINGE. How should this be done? --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Richard William Howard Vyse
See Talk:Richard William Howard Vyse, IP trying to keep a new fringe book in the article. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that this appears to be one person using more than one IP address (important for 3RR purposes). Although I see the use of "we" at one point on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Mike Sutton (criminologist)
Articles for deletion/Mike Sutton (criminologist) – a criminologist, but also known for fringe theory that Darwin was a plagiarist. The article itself could also use some eyes. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thelema
I've just wasted an hour of my time going further and further down a rabbit hole from new BLP David Shoemaker and ended up here. I need a rope. Could editors here please tell me, should I walk away, never to return to that universe within a universe. Is it like the Manifesto for wossname that keeps hurting my eyes? -Roxy the dog. bark 17:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * At a glance, I would say Thelema uses decent quality secondary sources to describe this religious belief. However David Shoemaker is largely cited to WP:SELFPUB sources, so he may not be notable enough for a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx. I've nommed shoemaker. Roxy the dog. bark 18:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been well-acquainted with Thelema for a while. Never had any trouble digging up critical secondary sources on it. I'm pretty sure it's due an article, though I'm not intimately familiar with our existing article and its sourcing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  13:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The main issue with Thelema is dealing with Aleister Crowley deliberately talking nonsense (he tended to turn into the Iolo Morganwg of alternative religion at times). Other than that it's straightforward. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Jason Brett Serle and Amado Crowley
The latter is mostly OK, the former very dubious (and questionably notable, perhaps). Their relationship centers around The Book of Desolation, which the second is supposed to have from his purported father, and the first is supposedly the only other to have seen it. I am dubious (yellow). Mangoe (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See Articles for deletion/Jason Brett Serle. Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ramesh Balsekar
Here is another, by the same editor, featuring zero secondary sources and huge WP:COPYVIOs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether our guidelines on fringe theories and pseudoscience apply to works about those theories
The arguments at an ongoing AfD about a creation science film suggest we may need an RfC to clarify whether WP:PSCI/WP:NFRINGE apply only to articles about fringe theories or also to works about those theories. Many, if not most, of the participants seem to indicate that a film about creation science need only satisfy WP:NFILM and is not obliged to meet these other requirements. To me this seems pretty obvious, as all fringe theories are primarily argued via books, films, lectures, and other media, and it doesn't stop being a fringe theory by that one step of removal. Thoughts? (Omitted the AfD since I would be sympathetic to canvassing claims in this context). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As to Notability (should the article exist), a subject must only be notable for A reason, not for every relevant reason. If it is notable per NFILM (and I am not saying the movie in question is, but if it is) it doesn't matter whether or not it is also notable per NFRINGE.  The separate question is content, the degree to which notable media about a fringe theory can be used as a Trojan horse for the presentation of that fringe without balance.  I think the situation with the movie page you are talking about would be helped tremendously by reducing the number of reviews presenting fawning in-world praise and including a more blunt critical scientific review, the only negative reviews included use such circumlocution that you have to read closely to tell they are condemning it, but I took a quick look the other day failed to turn up any that represented WP:RS. Agricolae (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not our problem. If RS are not reviewing the film critically then that is a problem with them. We cannot refuse inclusion because some RS refuse to look at it, only if no RS do.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Fringe guidance doesn't apply to articles as a whole, but to content within articles. So while some things about a film are uncontentious if any of its fringey "payload" is discussed this needs to be contextualized by the mainstream view. Also, there is a running tension in the WP:PAGs between the criteria for article existence, and the rules governing its content; so its possible to have an article topic agreed to be notable, yet not to be able to write anything because it cannot be dealt with an a WP:NPOV manner. In such cases we have to end up with small stub articles. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just here to agree with Alexbrn, above me. That's pretty much exactly how I feel. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also agree. We cannot present fringy contents as factual (say, by calling a film a documentary) without adequate mainstream sourcing to provide a WP:NPOV description of how fringy they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Rodrigo Silva
In the absence of a proper deletion-sorting noticeboard, I thought it might be appropriate to note here that an article on Brazilian creationist Rodrigo Silva is up for deletion. See Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Silva. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Racial hygiene
Hello, I wonder if more experienced editors than I could have a look at Racial hygiene. I appreciate this was a phrase that might have been used under some regimes notably nazi germany but there doesn't seem to be a common thread linking these instances together. It's not science though it might have been thought of as science. I'm submitting that by giving a wikipedia page to Racial hygiene we are taking it out of context and giving it undue weight. The article is not much more than a random collection of discredited ideas promoted down the ages by racists. We already have an article called Scientific racism which seems to more adequately account for the connections being drawn. I think that Racial hygiene should be deleted (or at the very least be renamed ). One cannot really put those two words together, in any context, and expect to be taken seriously. What do others think ? Hmcst1 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does rather look like a hodgepodge of unconnected activities.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to concur. Instructions on how to propose a merger of the two articles will be found at WP:MERGE. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My first thought was Eugenics rather than Scientific racism but it is all floating in the same cesspool. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

William Shao
This Tanzanian fellow seems to be a fringe idea promoter, and the article is at AfD here. Notability is dubious but very hard to search due to commonality of name. Could use a few eyes, especially if it survives. Mangoe (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Fringe Theory of The Month: Saved by the Bell
Fringe Theory of The Month:

The 90s TV show Saved by the Bell was actually Illuminati propaganda, and the theme song is a message directly from Satan. This is, of course, ridiculous. We all know that the film Saving Christmas is the real Illuminati/Satanism propaganda... :)

For those who are not familiar with this fine example of high-quality television, here is a review of a random episode: For the true masochist, here are some more: --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The comment section is hilarious!

"Saved by the BELL-(Ba’al). Also if you reverse and flip the word BELL it looks like 1138(1111)…"

- Universe Sal


 * &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is patent nonsense—everyone knows that the actual Illuminati brainwashing video is Gangnam Style. &#8209; Iridescent 12:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm here for the links to Showgirls. -Location (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thread Winner.   ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Look at our article on The Brotherhood of the Bell. Coincidence? Or CONSPIRACY?!?... --Guy Macon (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Article starts, "One of the best ’90s shows was Saved by the Bell ..." and loses all credibility right out of the gate. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe that we have an article on that: Sarcasm. The actual reviews say things like


 * "I don’t think anyone but the most die hard fans would disagree with me that Saved by the Bell is a flawed show. And, when I say flawed, I mean stuck somewhere between Justin Bieber spewing gangsta wanna-be nonsense and Henry VIII murdering his wives nonsense. Reviewing every episode of the show, you really realize how horrible the writers, prop designers, costumers, and even boom mike operators were."


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This looks like it may be as bad as watching anything by Ant & Dec OBE, a truly mortifying experience. Could somebody with experience of both please confirm? -Roxy the dog. bark 16:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It was dreadful beyond words, but I can't compare it to Ant & Dec, having only limited exposure to them. You will discover the only reason this show continued if you google "Saved by the Bell shirtless". - Nunh-huh 17:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is really being far too harsh. Its a product of its time. Keep in mind it was aimed at young-mid US teens and had a relatively small budget. So complaints about technical issues aside, it handled things that would have been of interest to people of that age. Light entertainment, shenanigans etc. The US lighter version of Grange Hill or Byker Grove (which launched Ant n Dec's careers) without any of the gritty realism. I still remember where I was when Duncan was shot with a paint gun . Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Rfc notice in Talk:David Ferrie
If interested, see Talk:David Ferrie. - Location (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Also need to take a look at Victor Marchetti, which has a whitewashed/promotional cast. Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Marchetti is notable for the issues surround his book and a libel lawsuit, but conspiracy sources occasionally do make there way into the article. The article could use some work. I think a bigger issue occurs when he or his book is directly cited or cited through secondary conspiracy sources in other Wikipedia articles. -Location (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE being cited to push fringe edits on Hurricane Harvey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hurricane_Harvey#Should_the_article_include_mention_of_climate_connections.3F

Climate change and their relations to the increasing power of recent hurricanes has been being talk about at least as far back as Katrina, yet an editor is trying to say that it's a fringe theory.

2600:1017:B005:9E3B:A826:7531:6556:C27D (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's because it is a fringe theory. The most recent draft of the National Climate Assessment suggested that the science linking hurricanes to climate change was still emerging. Looking back through the history of storms, "the trend signal has not yet had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes" the report states. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The climate models do predict that, as the earth warms, hurricanes will get more frequent and more severe... but any climatologist will admit that there is a huge distinction between climate and weather. The models do not predict that any specific storm will be more severe than others.  Blueboar (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not more frequent, but larger in extent and more severe. While the signal has not yet emerged from the noise in a statistical sense calling this a "fringe theory" is silly; the underlying physics is pretty basic stuff.  Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fringe as in 'not currently mainstream proven science' - not fringe as in 'loonytunes'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a fringe theory. There aren't any serious mainstream arguments that have been made against the actual claim that global warming contributes to stronger storms. Direct attribution of individual storms to global warming is problematic not because it's a fringe theory but because extrapolating single incidences from a population is hard to do. jps (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not a case of anyone arguing against it, its more that there is not a significant body of science that has demonstrated that it is the case beyond predictive models - the 'background variability' issue as Guy quotes above. (FWIW I don't disagree at all that the severity of storms is directly linked to climate change) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The climate change coverage on Hurricane Harvey should not be about science, models, statistics, or noise. It should be about the political debate, the effect on and of Trump's denial policies (it is long established here on Wikipedia that climate denial is real and can be mentioned by name), and the coverage this is leading to in the US and international media. The coverage and the debate is huge. To ignore it in a Wikipedia article is clearly wrong. --Nigelj (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Harvey is simply being used as a hook in this. It's not a particularly strong storm (the surge was not an important effect), and while it powered back up relatively quickly upon hitting a warm patch in the Gulf, well, that happens. What's perhaps unprecedented about it is how it came up to the land and stopped, essentially turning into a conveyor belt to pick water up out of the sea and drop it back on land. But the only odd part of that is the stopping, which is weather, not climate. It's a lead-pipe cinch that for every major hurricane, there are going to be climate change tie-in stories, and the same will be true every time there's a particularly active season; but the odds say that 2005 is going to remain unmatched for a very long time. So I would file this stuff under "routine coverage" at this point. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If news sources are writing stories linking Harvey to climate change, then this is not a FRINGE issue at all, this is a WEIGHT issue. We can always put anything the sources say into their own voices to avoid reporting tenuous links between the specific power of this hurricane and climate change as fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not really a fringe issue, but hurricane articles don't need to be padded with "did global warming make Hurricane Everyman worse?" clickbait. Due to the quality and quantity of info, they already tend to be large. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you're saying here, but going against RS coverage (many of which do not understand the difference between a specific weather event and climate) is probably a losing battle. If the bulk of sourcing about hurricanes were coming from peer reviewed journals and not the media, this wouldn't be a problem. But it is, and the way Wikipedia is set up really doesn't allow it to be handled well. Geogene (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:DUE (just like almost every policy) is entirely up to editorial judgement. I'd bet there would be more agreement with the opinion that global warming material doesn't belong in hurricane articles than you might think. To be fair, I think the only editors who support this will be editors who want to push for more AGW material and those who actually believe there's a direct link between every individual hurricane and AGW. I hate on AGW deniers as much as anyone, but I tend to agree with you here, myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What I've seen is a lot of knowledgeable mainstream sources agreeing that that multiple factors have caused the hurricane and determined its intensity and duration over one area, that the contribution of global warming to this can't be quantified at present so it's incorrect to say that the hurricane was caused by AGW, but global warming had contributed through basic physics to aspects such as sea level rise and sea surface temperature which have affected the storm, and it would be equally wrong to exclude that factor. Thus, the instrumental record shows that temperatures in the region have been exceptional, and this is consistent with the exceptional severity of the problems caused by the hurricane. Coverage should give due weight to these issues, as well as noting factors unconnected with climate change. It's a misrepresentation of sources to say this aspect is trivial or fringe and try to exclude it from the article, and there are already sufficient sources to improve the section and briefly cover the above points. Finding time to rewrite the section is a problem! . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is whether that contribution is enough to merit coverage in the article. Global sea level rise over the last century is around seven inches; Harvey's storm surge was seven feet. That is a contributing factor, but actually a fairly trivial one. One that disappears when compared to other changes like population growth and development in the affected area over the same time period. This is not to say that there aren't lots of legitimate concerns about 1000 year flood events becoming, say, 600 year flood events over the next century. That's a completely differently issue from AGW contributions to a specific storm event today. (Because not only is the quantity of atmospheric CO2 increasing, the *rate* at which it is accumulating in the atmosphere is increasing.) Geogene (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Environmental factors and Tropical cyclone appear to be giving undue weight to a fringe theory. I have no problem with the fringe theory being mentioned, but the mainstream scientific view has been deleted and the fringe theory is being presented as being mainstream.

Here is the science:


 * "The most recent draft of a sweeping climate science report pulled together by 13 federal agencies as part of the National Climate Assessment suggested that the science linking hurricanes to climate change was still emerging. Looking back through the history of storms, 'the trend signal has not yet had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes,' the report states." --Source: The New York Times.


 * "According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, "The total number of hurricanes and the number reaching the United States do not indicate a clear overall trend since 1878" and "changes in observation methods over time make it difficult to know whether tropical storm activity has actually shown an increase over time." --Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency.


 * "Detection and attribution of past changes in tropical cyclone (TC) behavior remaim a challenge ... there is still low confidence that any reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) increases in TC are robust... This is not meant to imply that no such increases in TC activity have occurred, but rather that the data are not of a high enough quality to determine this with much confidence. Furthermore, it has been argued that within the period of highest data quality (since around 1980) the globally observed changes in the environment would not necessarily support a detectable trend of tropical cyclone intensity (Kossin et al. 2013). That is, the trend signal has not had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes." --Source: Draft National Climate Assessment (section 9.2).[the Draft National Climate Assessment


 * "Observed regional climate variability comprises a number of factors, both natural and anthropogenic, and the response of tropical cyclones to each factor is not yet well understood. Long-term trends in tropical climate due to increasing greenhouse gas can be regionally dominated by shorter-term decadal variability forced by both internal and external factors such as changes in natural and anthropogenic aerosol concentrations ... In concert with these natural and anthropogenic external forcings, internal variability can play a substantial, and possibly dominant, role in regional decadal variability. Thus, when interpreting the global and regional changes in tropical cyclone intensity shown in the present work, it is clear that framing the changes only in terms of linear trends forced by increasing well-mixed greenhouse gasses is most likely not adequate to provide a complete picture of the potential anthropogenic contributions to the observed changes." --Source: NOAA/National Climatic Data Center,   Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin–Madison.


 * "It is premature to conclude that human activities -- and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate)." --Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory


 * "The term climate change detection as used in this abstract refers to a change which is anthropogenic in origin and is sufficiently large that the signal clearly rises above the background “noise” of natural climate variability (with the “noise” produced by internal climate variability, volcanic forcing, solar variability, and other natural forcings). As noted in IPCC AR42, the rise of global mean temperatures over the past half century is an example of a detectable climate change; in that case IPCC concluded that most the change was very likely attributable to human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
 * In the case of tropical cyclones, the WMO team concluded that it was uncertain whether any changes in past tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the levels due to natural climate variability. While some long (century scale) records of both Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts show significant rising trends, further studies have pointed to potential problems (e.g., likely missing storms) in these data sets due to the limited density of ship traffic in the pre-satellite era.  After adjusting for such changes in observing capabilities for non-landfalling storms, one study found that the rising trend in tropical storm counts was no longer statistically significant.  Another study noted that almost the entire trend in tropical storm counts was due to a trend in short-duration (less than two days) storms, a feature of the data which those authors interpreted as likely due in large part to changes in observing capabilities.


 * A global analysis of tropical cyclone intensity trends over 1981-2006 found increases in the intensities of the strongest tropical cyclones, with the most significant changes in the Atlantic basin. However, the short time period of this dataset, together with the lack of 'Control run' estimates of internal climate variability of TC intensities, precludes a climate change detection at this point." --Source: Article in Nature Geoscience


 * "A satisfactory answer to the question of what sets the annual global rate of tropical cyclone formation, roughly 80 per year, has thus far evaded climate scientists. Several empirical relationships have been derived to relate tropical cyclone formation to large-scale climate variables, such as genesis potential indices, but there is to date no established theory relating tropical cyclone formation rate to climate." -Source: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging .   Geogene (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, wasn't aware of this talk here, basically same arguments are over here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hurricane_Harvey#National_Climate_Assessment and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Disruptive_editors_at_Hurricane_Harvey Have not really anything to add, everything has been said. prokaryotes (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Those of us with a canine IQ appreciate the BBC environment correspondents take [here] -Roxy the dog. bark 22:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Burning coal may not have caused Harvey. But if you liked Harvey, burn more coal. Geogene (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Have not really anything to add, everything has been said. Well, it has ended up at ANI, but has anyone been compared to Hitler yet? Because if we keep going, it's inevitable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait... Hurricanes... Harvey... Hitler... Hister.... ah ha! They all start with the letter H... proof that Nostradamus predicted that Hitler caused global warming! Blueboar (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Hister another term for the Danube, deriving from Greek "Istros" (Ἴστρος) and Latin "Ister"? What does it have to do Hitler or anything Nazi-related? The Hitler family name is simply a variant spelling of "Hiedler". Dimadick (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of Nostradamus’ verses mention “Hister” in an ominous context (see note C in his article), which has been ‘interpreted’ as a prediction of WWII.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  21:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The simple fact that there is insufficient data to empirically prove a theory doesn't make it a fringe theory per se. Being based on established physical/climatological principles is sufficient. Otherwise the science of astrophysics would be one big fringe theory, because we haven't been there to measure that other solar systems care much about Newton or Einstein. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Göbekli Tepe redux
First it was Kate Mulgrew narrating Robert Sungenis's geocentrism movie. Then Patrick Stewart narrated the pseudophysics claims of (now deleted) Nassim Haramein. This morning I wake up to find George Takei posting about the fringe theory that a swarm of comets caused the Younger Dryas quoting none other than Graham Hancock as saying we will have a comet strike in 20 years. 

Sigh.

Just keep a look out in case the masses come in hoping to expose THA TRUTH.

jps (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Stewart and Takei (Mulgrew can be a woo-maniac all she wants; I never liked Voyager), I'd narrate a YEC slash 9/11 truther slash birther documentary if they paid me enough. And I have a good voice, too. I've done pro voice work before (hint hint to any woo-documentary producers on WP). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Voynich Manuscript
A recent decipherment claim in the popular press is causing a debate at the article's talk page. The question seems to be what constitutes a notable decipherment claim? And does it matter that it's probably wrong?

Personally I don't think it matters much whether this particular claim winds up in the article or not, but the argument might set some kind of precedent for how the article should be handled going forward. ApLundell (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A five days' wonder news story. There's no need for specific mention, if WIkipedia were not the news. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm with Mangoe. If they're still writing about this in a week, or if some academics get behind it, then it's notable. Otherwise such stories are just another clickbait headline. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed, there are many such claims and we only care about the notable ones. — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Although I haven't read through it all, I see there is an informal Rfc on the talk page. Today's article in The Atlantic is probably enough to warrant a very brief mention, but I wouldn't bother to fight for it if others were opposed. (I assume others are more familiar with the topic to know which claims are notable and which are not.) The "Decipherment claims" section could due without all the sub-headings which might give undue weight to minor media mentions. -Location (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The Atlantic article is a classic "when the headline asks a question, the answer is 'no'" exploration of the doubt being cast on this claim. Mangoe (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems to me the answer is simple, do RS notice it.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the right answer. Sources need to be more than reliable; they also need to not be ephemeral to establish notability. This was a three days' wonder which some gullible news outlets passed along uncritically, and which others, a day or so later, talked to the experts, who were skeptical. We don't need to react to every news story. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See The Voynich Manuscript and Truth on the Internet. Alexbrn (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(Sir) Jason Winters

 * begins: "Jason Winters is known for his line of herbal teas and supplements which he credits with curing a cancerous growth on his neck. He has written at least four books on alternative healing and multiple versions of his memoirs have been published. Much of what is known about Jason (Raymond) Winters comes directly from Winters and is not verified through outside sources." He has questionable claims to being knighted, created an organization on Quackwatch's questionable organizations list, claims of having a Walk-in soul, etc. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If we took out everything that is self-published or from a non-independent source, how much would be left in there I wonder? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and by apparently not being based primarily upon independent sources, how does it begin to meet NOT and related policies, like NPOV and FRINGE? --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Attempting 's thought experiment left me with almost nothing, not even enough for a stub. At least half the article is refutation or doubt about his various claims and the "knighthood" is completely fantastic.  The one WP:RS is a Las Vegas Sun article larded with so many "he claims" and "somebody else says" and other qualifications as to render it useless.  Nominated for AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is hilarious and would be a fine addition to any magazine or to somebody's blog. I'd hate to see it vanish from the internet entirely but it looks like a lot of Original Research which is no good for us and we don't even have a category called "Egregious bullshitters" to put it in. I fear it should be pared back to just what the reliable sources support without OR, even if that only leaves a stub. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Mental Space Psychology
The AfD for "Mental Space Psychology" seems like it would be of interest to this community. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Exodus
See Talk:The Exodus where Ralph Ellis is being discussed and where I've been attacked for being racist or nationalist for asking how an Elsevier journal let through the article I mention above and Talk:The Exodus. I don't really want to carry on a discussion with the editor who still thinks I'm being nationalist and is pushing Ellis hard as a source (he's a fan) as that seems pointless, so it would be useful if others could chip in. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. -Location (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller, I too found your critisism of Chinese academia to be perjorative. My experience of their peer review was that it was quite thorough. And presumably to placate western criticism, two of the reviewers were American.  And might I remind you that most of the high-tech electrical goods you purchase, come from China. We are not talking about a review from Eritrea here. (Or is that observation pejorative?). Ralfellis (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong section and I didn't criticise Chinese academia, although I did quote some who have. It does occur to me that the Western reviewers might have been required in their contract with Elsevier. Doug Weller  talk 14:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC to amend guidelines to accord with PSCI/NFRINGE
Village_pump_(proposals) -- Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Tarot
Major Arcana very briefly presents the view that reading the tarot is mere mumbo jumbo, but counters this with the defence that it has had many adherents over the centuries and even now, adding that "the tarot is variously a tool for therapy, something that can facilitate the process of 'individuation', an instrument capable of 'heal[ing the] human psyche and lift[ing the] human spirit', even offering transcendence, transformation, and self-awareness." The latter claims are backed by references not to psychology but to what looks like more tarot-believer stuff. The thrust of this section looks like mere hogwash to me, but I imagine that the majority of those who care to contribute on tarot take tarot seriously (whereas I, who don't take it seriously, think about it for an average of perhaps one minute per year), and thus that an attempt to limit claims for efficacy to non-fringe sources would be overridden by a "consensus" of the energetic.

What to do? (Normally, when I see credulous material in a WP article about a silly subject, I think "Ugh" and pretend I haven't seen it.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove the whole section. The article is supposed to be about the Major Arcana only; such a general discussion of Tarot belongs in the main article.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That whole article is a mess of POV and personal reflection essay. It also seems like a bit of a content fork from Tarotology.  I also noticed that every card has its own article.  It kind of seems to me like all that stuff should be lumped into the article at Tarotology.  But that all seems like a sizable job, and I'm certainly not sure that my way would be best.  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're going a little too far here: The individual articles (e.g. Strength (Tarot card)) are, I think, of some historical/cultural interest (even to me, with no time for magical thinking). Which is more than I can say for Hoth, for example. -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix the thing, but there is a lot more work to be done. WP:YESPOV is the key here. There is a lot of unattributed opinion being pushed out in the voice of Wikipedia. Removing the unsourced bits and recasting the others as attribution will allow us to arrive at what is necessary, but the bigger issue is trying to figure out which sources are reliable and which are total nonsense. Not easy when the subject is tarot. jps (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good changes, but "Among the more sophisticated apologists for tarot, the claimed understandings are sometimes connected..." might be a bit much. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have difficulty editing this kind of thing. Putting aside the mystical/Jungian woo, even what at first looks straightforwardly historical turns out to be odd. Example (after markup-stripping, and with my own emphases):


 * In 1870 Jean-Baptiste Pitois (better known as Paul Christian) wrote a book entitled Historie de la magie, du monde surnaturel et de la fatalité à travers les temps et le peuples. [...] Christian's fabricated history of tarot initiation are [sic] quickly reinforced with the formation of an occult journal in 1989 entitled L'Initiation [...]


 * Although it's conceivable that in this area of human endeavor, 119 years is but a brief interlude. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a stab at it, like so many occult things the cultural/historical notability is absolutely there but the people who care enough to contribute to the articles tend to be true believers. That Dummett source in the lead looks intriguing, more information on the original courtly symbolism would be excellent to have in all of the tarot-related articles. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

whowhatwhy.org
If interested, see Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -Location (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For future reference, discussion archived here. -Location (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Peer reviewed journal with a climate change denier's article
Geoscience Frontiers, published by Elsevier, has published [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305#! Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks]] by Ralph Ellis and Michael Palmer, University of Waterloo, Department of Chemistry, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Palmer admits that he is not a climate scientist. Ellis does not. See The Climate Scandal] by him. What does this say about peer review? I see that peer review for this journal is entirely "under the responsibility of China University of Geosciences (Beijing)" and it seems to be their journal. Is there a better place to post this? Doug Weller talk 13:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe there was/is a page somewhere that describes how we treat Chinese journals. I cant find it currently. Guy/Jzg would probably be the person to ask. As I recall the summary is 'don't trust Chinese peer review'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Like a baby treats a diaper Ravensfire ( talk ) 13:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly Guy left in April, feeling burnt out. Doug Weller  talk 14:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is sad (I had noticed his absence, but not his intentional wikibreak). But yes, Chinese journals should always be given additional scrutiny. I'm not aware of any essays or PnGs regarding them, but they're categorically not trustworthy for anything in which the Chinese government has an interest, including climate change and acupuncture. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Beall's blog is down, but all the Frontiers journals are a joke. Talk to anyone at Elsevier and they will (if off the record) admit it. It's their skin in the game to make money off the predatory journal racket. jps (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I may be remembering a particularly in-depth discussion rather than a specific essay/guideline then MPants. Sadly due to ENWP's crappy search system for archived discussions I have no idea where it was. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly that WP:PUS could be updated. — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I found this article which is about fraud related to peer review, but I don't think that's the problem here. However, in the article a Chinese researcher mentions "academic journals that show insufficient diligence over peer review". China journal takes 300 articles offline after shutdown threat discusses interference by the Chinese Communist Party with peer review: "“The partnering Chinese institutions typically profess allegiance to the unchallengeable leadership of the Communist Party and to its Four Cardinal Principles of socialism, proletarian dictatorship, Marxism, and Mao Zedong Thought. That’s Chinese for censorship.” So while each of the journals claims to be refereed according to the norms of international peer review, many are also policed for compliance by the Communist Party secretary of the partner institution in China. Such institutions, he said, were duty bound to comply with party authorities over content and process, as a prior condition to their launching a journal in association with a respected foreign publishing house." Again I don't think that's the case for this specific issue but it is a general worry, more for social science journals than scientific ones probably. Doug Weller  talk 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , are you so sure that American universities are free from political pressure? I read this morning that Chelsea Manning has been purged from a Harvard position because of pressure from the CIA. 1 Also, FWIW, the Chinese government has been signing treaties to control carbon emissions. So if the Chinese Communist Party was attempting to influence peer review in this case, one might expect pressure in the opposite direction. 2 JerryRussell (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen the Chinese gov't go both ways on climate change. But in general, they tend to be more skeptical of it, because reducing carbon emissions is not something an economy that's growing at China's rate wants to do. Sure, they pay lip service to climate change, just like we do, here. That doesn't mean they're not going to support CC denialism when it suits them, which is pretty much any time it appears with a veneer of scientific respectability. The problem isn't so much their POV push, but the culture of dishonesty that has grown in Chinese science as a result of the government's heavy-handed approach to censorship.
 * Also, Manning didn't have a "position" with Harvard in the sense of having been hired, and she wasn't "purged" in the sense of having been fired; she was initially offered a visiting fellowship, then the offer was rescinded in the face of protests. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are saying that a visiting fellowship at Harvard is not politically prestigious or important or even a "position" because it isn't paid? And that Harvard yielded to unnamed "protests", which just randomly happened to include protests by past and present CIA directors?
 * I appreciate your understanding that the politics of climate change are rather subtle, with pressures pushing in both directions. What is often missed in these discussions, is that US universities get considerable pressure from "liberal" foundations whose agendas are not necessarily transparent.
 * The Palmer & Ellis paper makes the point that climate change has also occurred in the past without being driven by anthropogenic factors. I don't understand why this should be controversial at all, much less why it should be called "climate denial". JerryRussell (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "I read this morning that Chelsea Manning has been purged from a Harvard position because of pressure from the CIA." You might not want to confound your argument by citing World Socialist Web Site. -Location (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Useless source but sadly it's true. And irrelevant to a discussion about peer review. JerryRussell seems to be still pursing the argument elsewhere when he accused me of racism or nationalism, and isn't even reading my posts here carefully. I said clearly "I don't think that's the case for this specific issue" - so why is he arguing about an issue I said wasn't relevant? And so far as I know, most academic journals don't limit peer review to one university. If he wants to raise issues about pressure on US universities making US academic journals unreliable then he can take the evidence to WP:RSN, this is the fringe noticeboard. Doug Weller  talk 10:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's true that Harvard rescinded the fellowship, but the implication that there is a CIA plot to influence the academic output of Harvard is not. As you have alluded to, this is a very weak attempt to introduce doubt into what Wikipedians typically consider to be reliable sources thereby "leveling the playing field".-Location (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. The word "frontiers" in the name never even registered with me. I agree: the various "frontiers" journals are not respected, academic journals, but predatory clearinghouses for articles that wouldn't cut it in a real journal.
 * You may be interested to know that I'm actually (if very slowly) working on an off-site tool to do text-based searches of one's contributions. I'm aiming for a more library-type search than a google-type search too, so it should end up being very powerful for finding this sort of thing, assuming I ever finish. Feel free to occasionally pester me to get back to work on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * you're thinking of Frontiers Media, not directly related to this, but this April Fools post is interesting even if it's an April Fools post. Doug Weller  talk 16:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed I was. In fact, I was completely unaware of any journals with the word "frontier" in their name that weren't part of that group. So I guess my only remaining complaints about the publisher are that the article probably costs an arm and a leg and that Elsevier will likely send anyone who purchases it a cease and desist demand the instant they download it, quote it or admit to reading it. Still, the issue of government interference in Chinese science remains. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is Ralph Ellis, author of the paleoclimatology paper concerned, and I have been notified of this discussion by Jerry Russell.  I find the western elitism here odd.  So let's clear one thing up - Bejing University paid for the paper to be published, allowing the paper to be free to all readers.  (Check it out, on Science Direct:  Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305 .).  Many western institutions do the opposite, with Chryosphere Today charging thousands of euros to publish an article (or charging €35 per download).
 * Secondly, the term 'denier' here is deliberately perjorative, and I am surprised that Wiki would allow such a title. As Jerry said 'who denies climate?'.  I would appreciate the title being changed.  This is science, not politics, and the objective of science is to test a range of theories, to advance understanding.  More often than not, science is hindered by the consensus, not advanced by it.
 * Thirdly, the western peer review by the Royal Society was laughably incompetent. If you think western peer review is good, you are sadly mistaken.  One reviewer marked my paper down for having an incorrect description of the precession of the equinox.  This esteemed physicist (apparently) said the earth's rotational axis actually precesses around the  north pole.  I kid you not.   Another reviewer said that plants could not be starved at altitude, as the concentration of CO2 was the same at altitude as at sea level - and so my entire thesis was incorrect.  I kid you not.  I did ask in reply, whether he-she would be starved of oxygen at the top of Mt Everest.  Another reviewer said that Ganopolski had already proved that Arctic dust was Canadian glaciogenic, and so my paper was completely wrong. (Quote: 'for some reason the author (myself) does not like glaceogenic dust.).  But isotopic analysis has demonstrated that Arctic ice sheet dust came from the Gobi desert, and there were no glaciers in the Gobi during the ice age (too much dust - glaciers cannot live in a dusty environment). So again the criticism was baseless.  Another reviewer said the (log) dust reponse to CO2 would not be linear, and so the paper is wrong, without realising that mountain areas are not linear - the land area exposed is logarithmic as the treeline descends down the mountain.
 * And so it went on. The bottom line is that western peer review was determined to weed out a paper that went against the political consensus.  And the arguments used to achieve that goal were baseless and puerile, exposing a chasm in comprehension at the highest of levels.  If you think that western peer reviw is a reliable process, not subjected to political peer-pressure and personal bias, you are very much mistaken.  Ralfellis (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As for "climate denier", the phrase "climate denier" is in the Oxford Dictionary defined as "A person who rejects the proposition that climate change caused by human activity is occurring" so my usage was after all correct. For those those who say 'denier' is pejorative, the term is commonly used as a descriptor for those who reject, "doubt or deny, the scientific community’s consensus on the answers to the central questions of climate change" and according to the National Center for Science Education is "intended descriptively, not in any pejorative sense, and are used for the sake of brevity and consistency with a well-established usage in the scholarly and journalistic literature." We have an article called Climate change denial.  Doug Weller  talk 15:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see this as a big deal. Less-than-stellar papers get published all the time. Next... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'm with Boris here: small paper, few killed. I watch GW type stuff a lot, and haven't even seen this come up, so I don't think it has much play. Is anyone even trying to use it as a ref in wiki? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like this is a political play for a backdoor discussion of denialist talking points (see the author's arguments above). While the main climate content here is likely to be unaffected, we are wise to monitor the borderlands, in my opinion. jps (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any way to tell how many attempts to use it have been made, perhaps only this one. The problem here is that there are attempts to say that Ellis is a reliable source because he has a peer reviewed paper, albeit one that doesn't seem to have been cited much if at all. Of course that's not likely to gain traction on Wikipedia, but elsewhere? Doug Weller  talk 13:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, I didn't realise it had been used (did no-one say that before or did I just miss it?). I'd be inclined to discuss the details at Talk:100,000-year problem William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ralph Ellis also is a catastrophist, who promotess the fringy and imaginary Saginaw Bay impact crater and the creation of the Carolina Bays by iceberg size pieces of ice ejected from an impact on the ice sheet as written in The Carolina Bays and the Destruction of North America on the Ancient Origins web site. Paul H. (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Roger Leir Comment
Someone who may not be a native English speaker needs WP:FRINGE and WP:RS explained to them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Stochastic terrorism
AfD discussion on this is degenerating. A large part of the problem is that searching books/scholarly stuff generates mountains of false hits due to juxtaposition; the idea itself is something of a conspiracy theory/political talking point. From what I can see it was pushed by one blogger and never really caught on, but others should take a look at it. Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Nicholas Kollerstrom
Just found someone changing the description of this conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier to "academic scientists" which I've now changed to "author and researcher". Might be worth a few more people adding it to their watchlist. He has done some science, 'tis true, but some of that looks dubious, other bits look ok. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should make a distinction in time. He *was* an academic scientist who published proper research until about ten years ago. I doubt he's stil taken serious in scientific circles after promoting all kinds of very fringy theories. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Meg Patterson
Fringe theories in play since this person was an electo-acupuncturist and a credulous obituary is being used to air her notions. Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Velvet antler (TCM ingredient)
As an ingredient for use in traditional Chinese medicine, the article has had fring- and coi-related disputes for over five years. While the article could use help in other areas as well, the current dispute is over including the best MEDRS source we've been able to find, a 2012 systematic review, and if it is included, with what content: Talk:Velvet_antler. --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Ralph Ellis socking for over 8 years
See Sockpuppet investigations/Tatelyle. I'd forgotten this. See also the 2010] ANI discussion. I'm wondering if a community ban is worthwhile or if it would just be unnecessary drama. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * With this sort of problem, and given the arguments I've seen this individual using at talk, I'd support a community ban. I suspect quite a few others would, as well, just based on the socking. I'd open up an AN discussion, were I you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the old socks and their edits, I was obviously the bane of his Wikipedia existence, and it might be too much of a fulfillment of his complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and my being his nemesis. I might I guess but I don't know when I'll have the energy or time to start one. I'll think about it. Doug Weller  talk 19:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting the fact that you have the ability to block him and all of his socks any time you want. But instead, you've chosen to be as patient with him as a saint. I think that, at this point, were he to see a community discussion about banning him started by you as confirmation of his view that WP exists to shill for "dogmatic" science and suppress "real" scientists like himself, that would only really be confirmation that nothing we can do other than bow to his whims would appease him. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It doesn't look like we will have to worry about that now, though. Is there anyone's shitlist that you are not on?! -Location (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * He's not on my hit list. Oh wait, you mean shit list? Yeah, he's on that. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Fringe Theory of the Month: Alex Jones Is Actually Bill Hicks

 * The Conspiracy Theory That Alex Jones Is Actually Legendary, Long-Dead Texas Comedian Bill Hicks


 * The Atlantean Conspiracy: Alex Jones is Bill Hicks!?

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Bonus from Alex Jones himself: NASA Denies That It’s Running a Child Slave Colony on Mars. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, of course NASA would deny it, because it's not true. The child slave colony is on the moon. Mars is where the alien base is.   ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Yet another person claiming to be a former CIA officer... Robert David Steele. -01:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ksharsutra
An Ayurvedic treatment that is apparently a complete cure, where allopathic treatments fail. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've boldly redirected it to Ayurveda. It didn't have anything worth saving. Alexbrn (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. what do you think of the mention in Anal fistula? (Both were created by the ). --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Similarly worthless. Excised. Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Phrenology articles
I stumbled on Cautiousness because Cautious redirects there, and am at a loss for words. There are other, similar phrenology articles such as Secretiveness (phrenology). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All these at Phrenology should probably not exist as articles... — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did anybody else attempt a search for a "Retro Phrenology" article? -Roxy the dog. bark 12:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll go and stand in the corner over there, shall I? -Roxy the dog. bark 12:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tried to delete the remaining nonsense, but another one keeps removing my deletion proposals. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks as though copyvio is going to take out the lot. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Extraterrestrials-humankind relations
Now up for discussion. Maybe there needs to be a category to roll up the contents, but I think this name is, how shall I put it, problematic. Mangoe (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete category, on the basis that it has to be empty, yes? -Roxy the dog. bark 20:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to !vote here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two pages and three subcategories. Not exactly empty.-- Auric    talk  21:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * About half of my sex life belongs in that cat. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , we now know far too much about your pants. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You'd change your mind if you knew about the other half... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still interested in the half about extra-testicular relations. -Location (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to kiss and tell, so let's just say that it was out of this world. A stellar experience. I could go all day... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

which other name do you suggest? Apokrif (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't reply for Mangoe, but I for one would -at a minimum- add the word "alleged" to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not, but do we usually do it for category and/or article names? Apokrif (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, I was against adding the word alleged to an article name the last time it came up, but this is a different case. That was politics, this is conspiracy theory stuff. I'd go for it, and I imagine most word, but I can't say for certain that consensus would favor it. What I can say for certain about site consensus is that it won't be to just leave this credulous category alone. Something should be done about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Proposed extraterrestrial-human relations - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Search for extraterrestrial intelligence is an attempt at, rather than a proposal, of relations. Also, are fictional relations proposed relations? Apokrif (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "this is conspiracy theory stuff" No. Apokrif (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Until someone comes up with some evidence for these claims: abso-fuckin'-super-duper-lutely yes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Unproven" of "false" is not synonymous with "conspiracy theory". Apokrif (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Aliens visit earth and forge relationships with humans that are unknown to the general public" is a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about Category:Extraterrestrials-humankind relations, not Category:Aliens visit earth and forge relationships with humans that are unknown to the general public (the latter could be a subcategory of the former). Apokrif (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Except I can see what pages are in this category. If you're trying to convince me that you are a true believer, trying to "defend" "the truth" on wikipedia, you are well on the right path. If, however, you are trying to convince me that there are no policy problems with this category, you are failing completely so far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't get your point. Do you see any policy problem? Apokrif (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, a category for something like "Conspiracy theories around supposed extraterrestrial contact" could be okay (if a bit of a mouthful) - would work for Roswell and the like too, as well as the anal probe stories. Alexbrn (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Conspiracy theories around supposed extraterrestrial contact would be a subcategory of Category:Extraterrestrials-humankind relations. Apokrif (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A sub-category of a non-existent category? We haven't yet found any confirmed extraterrestrials yet. This is "Categories" gone mad. David J Johnson (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are we labouring under the misapprehension that the Categories Police do things logically? Not at all, in my experience. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be a subcat of "conspiracy theories" for sure. Apparently this stuff is widespread. Alexbrn (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggest: "category:conspiracy theories about Extraterrestrials"... or something like that. The stuff is notable, and the article's need a category... but let's be honest about what it is. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A category with "conspiracy theories" in its name could be used only for articles about conspiracy theories, but not for Category:Search for extraterrestrial intelligence and perhaps not for Category:UFO religions. So a more general category is needed. Apokrif (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to ask the idiot who created this Cat in the first place what they were thinking? -Roxy the dog. bark 14:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, because there is no such idiot (btw, WP:NPA could be of interest to you). Apokrif (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Was it you? If it was, what were you thinking?-Roxy the dog. bark 15:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Was it you?" Help:Page history
 * "what were you thinking?" That this category should be used to categorize articles pertaining to extraterrestrials-humankind relations.
 * Apokrif (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What relations did you think we were having? Did you check the spelling of Extraterrestrial? -Roxy the dog. bark 16:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "What relations did you think we were having?" Wikipedia relations.
 * "Did you check the spelling of Extraterrestrial?" That's none of your business.
 * Apokrif (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Meg Patterson and Neuro-electric therapy
So this survived an AfD I launched, and what we're left with is a bit of a coat rack for her "Neuro-electric therapy" (NET) - which is a claimed way of curing addiction by administering electric shocks of different frequencies (different substances require different frequencies). Could probably use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And hopefully some references for how NET has been subject to scientific peer-review. Diego (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It was, and was found (unsurprisingly) to be ineffective. Patterson protested the magickes were being administered incorrectly (also unsurprisingly). Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

WT:V - Asserting that something is pseudoscience can get exceptions to Verifiability?
More perspectives would help. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Quality, hand-crafted wikilink to the discussion in question. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oooh... Artisinal wikilinks... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Theistic science
I must leave so cannot pursue this immediately, more eyes welcome. The issue is if it is appropriate to keep the pseudoscience label. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 06:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Medicinal plants
If this actually a topic (as distinct from herbalism?). The article does not define what a "medicinal plant" is meant to be, and much of it looks like OR to me. This article is a GA! (despite containing stuff like "the effects of taking a plant as medicine can be complex"). Alexbrn (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just from the first paragraph of the lead it's not a GA. It suggests that all plants contain chemicals which affect the human body to the same extent as pharmaceutical drugs, while few plants do. While the point is correct (it doesn't matter if a substance is natural of chemical of origin), it's not phrased well. Also the historic section suddenly stops before the application of science to medical use of herbs, which suggest an anti-scientific bias. It also has a broad definition of medicines. Any psychoactive substance will do, including caffeine, which is only a medicine for premature babies' lungs and perhaps - way off label - people with a CSF leak; but i doubt the author even knew all that; in general caffeine isn't considered a medicine any more than water - a medicine for dehydration which can be derived from plants... You get the point. And even including nicotine, which is only a medicine for detoxing from nicotine afaik. Also, the use of rhubarb as a laxative isn't well sourced (not even in the rhubarb article, the reference isn't a scientific article nor does that website refer to one). My point is: it's not nearly a GA imho and in it's current state i indeed see a lot of overlap with herbalism. I also don't like the way the two articles synergise. Just look at the only place where herbalism links to medicinal plants. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Much of the above appears doubtfully correct or definitely wrong. Every statement in the article is cited. The article certainly does not state, nor should it be taken to imply, that all plants are medicinal, nor that all are identical in effect to modern drugs. "Medicine" is a term with a wide scope, intentionally including both traditional and modern Western forms. Herbalism is the use of medicinal plants; medicinal plants are also used in ethnobotany; none of these terms are synonyms. This article is about the plants; the herbalism article is about their use, so it can be considered a subsidiary article, and some overlap is inevitable: there is a very brief summary of herbalism in the relevant part of the article. This is a normal main link + summary relationship and a necessary part of the structure of the encyclopedia. "Medicinal plant" is a term with a long history leading back to Ancient Greece. The article is equally definitely based on the established sciences of chemistry, history, botany, and pharmacology, so I have no idea why it should be at this forum (and I will not be discussing things here further). That said, if people have specific comments, they can be made on the article's talk page and we'll discuss, agree and carry out any work required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with 's analysis. I'm not seeing any reason why "Medicinal plants" is a distinct topic from Herbalism (or phytotherapy). Should probably be gutted of OR and any usable remnant merged into Herbalism. Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @PizzaMan, without getting into the meta-point of whether we need separate medicinal plants and herbalism articles, your above comments are way off the mark. Medicinal-grade caffeine is very regularly both prescribed and sold OTC, particularly in combination with acetaminophen/paracetamol as a painkiller, while the use of rhubarb as a laxative is probably one of the most widely-documented traditional remedies in history (after tea it was probably 19th-century China's biggest export crop). &#8209; Iridescent 17:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "whether we need separate medicinal plants and herbalism articles" isn't a meta-point; it's the main point (that I was trying to raise anyway) - esp. since the present article is so woolly. Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a viable topic—there are medications like codeine, guaifenesin and medicinal cocaine which are undoubtedly plant-based medicines but wouldn't fit into even the loosest definition of "herbalism". The existing article doesn't really go into this; the best thing to do would probably be to merge the existing medicinal plants with herbalism, and rebuild plant-based medicines from scratch. I do not propose to be the one to do this, as it would be a monster undertaking and a magnet for every crank on the planet trying to spam their particular snake-oil. &#8209; Iridescent 18:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * codeine, guaifenesin and medicinal cocaine which are undoubtedly plant-based medicines <- yes, but the article is not about "plant-based medicines" (though we have material on phytotherapy and Plant sources of anti-cancer agents), it is about "medicinal plants" - it doesn't define what this means, though in herbology AIUI the whole plant must be consumed according to the rules of the magicke. As it says "the effects of taking a plant as medicine can be complex" Alexbrn (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What a strange idea, conflating medicinal plants and fringe theories. Have you never used aspirin, a product of the willow tree? What's fringe about that? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've used aspirin. I haven't eaten a Willow tree. Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

So attempts to remove the OR or even tag the problems are getting pushed back. Perhaps the next step is a WP:GAR? Alexbrn (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * In response to Iridescents point about caffeine: caffeine may increase the uptake of paracetamol and ergotamine, it may increase the analgetic effects, but i personally find the evidence behind this less solid than the examples i mentioned. I care little that it's a more common usage, especially since it's afaik never used purely as an analgesic. Perhaps the most substantial analgetic effect of caffeine in practice is that it treats caffeine abstinence, which is probably the real reason it's added. Which brings us to nicotine. Why did you cherry pick from my examples? As for the rhubarb: I'm not saying it's not a laxative, I'm just saying the reference lack any trace of science, either physiological or historical. It's exactly the lack of awareness of such issues that plagues the article. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Haven't we had this conversation before? Possibly with half the same people involved, and with nobody ever admitting that his opinion was changed by the discussion(s) to date?
 * Pessimism aside, I think we're approaching this question from the wrong direction. The process is (and should always be):  First, identify what the page is supposed to be about.  Second, decide what to call it.  So if we start off with "Is Title X actually distinct from Title Y?", then we'll get bad results, such as merging Low-carb diet into Ketogenic diet.  Instead, we need to start off by identifying the (ideal) scope of the existing two pages.  If they match, then we merge.  If they don't, then we don't (but maybe add a hatnote to reduce confusion).
 * I think that there are a couple of rational possibilities that result in separate articles:
 * Herbalism is the discipline, and Medicinal plants is about the things used by the discipline. (Compare Pharmacology and Drugs).
 * Medicinal plants is the all-encompassing history-focused article, and Herbalism is the modern-ish altmed discipline.
 * Medicinal plants covers conventional and alternative medicine with some connection to plants, and Herbalism covers only altmed.
 * But step #1 is still step #1. Ignore the existing article title, ignore all the labels (on and off wiki), and figure out what the intended scope of the article is.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and things seemed kind of sensible when Medicinal plants was a disambiguation page. It seems back in 2014 a load of awkward content from Herbalism was dumped here instead, and the topics have never had the kind of clarity of division you advocate. Alexbrn (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have to come back here as I'm not a fringe person in any way. However, in the world outside (both Western medicine and other traditions), "medicinal plants" is a major topic in its own right. Several journals from major publishers (Elsevier, etc) are dedicated to it, and there is a voluminous literature of peer-reviewed papers and textbooks on the subject. From the viewpoint of Western medicine, it is seen as a source of useful pharmaceuticals explored by ethnobotany and phytochemistry. From the viewpoint of food companies, it's a source of "nutraceuticals". From the viewpoint of other traditions such as traditional Chinese medicine, herbalism, and the medicine of the classical era such as Ancient Greek medicine, it provides all the plant-based medicines which they use, often combined with other substances and practices, which are not at all based on Western ideas of chemistry or pharmacology. Since it is recognised as a major topic in the world, and seen in quite different ways by different traditions and types of organisation, it seems plain that it is a distinct topic in its own right. The article is quite unpartisan in its account of differing traditions, but describes each of them historically. I hope this is helpful to other editors. Feel free to ask me if you need my view on anything else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Chiswick Chap makes a valid point for separate articles. However, in the current article on medicinal plants, the history section cuts off before any science gets involved in any way and the relationship between herbalism and medicinal plants isn't clearly defined in either article. The article is also mostly vague on how medicinal plants are processed/applied/ingested. I still think it's far off from being a good article, but the best solution may be to improve it rather than to merge. PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for these useful suggestions, I'll work on both of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have I believe addressed all these concerns. The context section has been rewritten with fresh sources; the history has been extended; the connection with herbalism (these are plants, herbalism uses them in such and such ways, modern medicine and nutraceuticals in other ways, all cited) has been spelt out; the nature of a medicinal plant has been spelt out; the chemical basis is introduced from fresh sources to spell out its role in the article; one or two words that could have been misinterpreted as advocacy have been entirely removed; the whole article has been checked for neutrality. There is no fringe material in the article, which is fully cited from reliable sources, so I would respectfully suggest that this discussion be closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You've done an amazing job, thank you very much. What an improvement. I've removed the fringe and OR tags from the article.  PizzaMan  ♨♨♨  12:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Further issues (with other articles)
Looking more widely at the topic area, I see we also have: which also has problems (e.g. "Samoa has had a great influence on western medicine when it comes to finding a cure for HIV/AIDS"). Alexbrn (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * SPA in 2010, barely changed since. Now that's what a truly rough article can look like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Finding new chemical drugs from plants is getting increasingly unlikely, as are the chances that a chemical drug couldn't be synthesized. Modern, so called biological drugs are lab-made to target specific receptors. That's the kind of new drugs which I've seen put to use in actual medical practice in the past 15 years. So I'm not even sure this issue deserves it's own article any more than "preservation of VW Beatle cars". And that's not even going into the structure and sourcing.  PizzaMan  ♨♨♨  05:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Is your mobile number harming you
An interesting new BLP. — Paleo Neonate  – 22:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would love to get some input from editors familiar with the quality (or lack of quality) of the cited sources. I question notability.  Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Now at AfD (discussion). Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Fringe-related AfD
Please see Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly, about a German former museum curator who became a creationist, and leave your opinions there. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS
This needs input from a FT POV. Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

U.S. dollar as commodity currency?
I am concerned that the current version of United States dollar describes it, without qualification, as a commodity currency. This seems to me like a very questionable statement occupying a prominent spot in a fairly important article. Virtually everything I've ever read agrees that it's fiat money. As far as I can determine, this is the opinion of one editor,. This editor has been extremely active on the article and on its talk page, posting large walls of text in support of their position.

User Icewhiz has shown more patience than I would have in engaging the IP in discussion. Icewhiz has also quite properly opened up an RfC. There haven't been as many talk-page comments as I would have expected, though.

In my opinion, the IP's contributions qualify as both tendentious and fringe-y. Would anyone else like to comment? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've already removed it. To be honest, I didn't even look at the talk page.  The statement was incorrect on its surface, confusing commodity currency and commodity money; I also didn't see it as sufficiently important to warrant mention in the lede paragraphs that the U.S. dollar had a 1792 value of such-and-so-many grains of silver.  I'm not surprised that there is a wall-o-text silver-standard crank behind the addition, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Giving credit where due - BirdValiant and Khajidha (and others)were involved in the article, and discussion. BirdValiant opened the RFC - I came along after the RFC was opened (but engaged in more than just a comment). Given the "arcane law history" this is not as open and shut as you might think on the surface - however it is fair to say that in real modern day life (defacto) it is clear this is fiat money and has been for several decades.Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * First I would like to thank NewEnglandYankee for designating me as a promoter of "fringe theories". I never new simply restating what Congress has designated would ever be considered a "theory" let alone "fringe".  Might I enquire what exactly is considered fringe about providing the legal definition of a US dollar in the Wikipedia entry for a "US dollar"?  Is it considered bad encyclopedic form to make a small attempt at defining the very thing the article is about before moving on to the colloquialisms?  The "arcane law history" is unfortunately still the "law" much like the first amendment, second amendment, third amendment... you get the picture.  186.71.169.87 (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, shucks, it was nothing. You did all the hard work. The IP-hopping, the walls of text, the refusal to accept consensus . . . I just thought it should be recognized, that's all. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a heads-up; I requested temporary semi-protection for the article. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Curious...protection from what? 186.71.169.87 (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * From random editors changing fiat currency (a factual statement) to commodity currency (a counterfactual statement), one would presume. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected for a week. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, the claim that the US Dollar is still, legally, a commodity currency is a hallmark of the Sovereign citizen movement. It's not the most common one (most claim the US Dollar isn't currency at all), but nonetheless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. It certainly sounded familiar. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Scott Creighton pushing his book and editing Richard William Howard Vyse using IP addresses
It looks to me as though the article is being edited by Scott Creighton using 4 IP addresses that geolocate in Glasgow where he lives. See the comments by these IPs on the article's talk page. There's a 5th IP, 72* who is in Virginia and I don't think that's Creighton. See Talk:Richard William Howard Vyse where he is promoting his new book and acting as though he is different people. Doug Weller talk 07:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the new book self-published or on-demand? The 'pyramid hoax' is notable fringe (purely for the amount of time that has been spent debunking it) but I cant see Creighton has gained any third party comment that would make his opinion on it relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Inner Traditions – Bear & Company, a fringe publisher. I've been trying to explain that the book needs reliable sources discussing it, but getting no where as I'm arguing against Creighton himself and another IP who is a fan but also new and doesn't know how we work. Doug Weller  talk 08:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it passes the first hurdle (actually being published by a publisher - albeit one specializing in fringe/pseudoscience). I would want to see some independent coverage of the book by before I would think about including it as commentary (from the fringe POV) of what the fringe are actually thinking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The COI editing is also a problem, maybe I should go to COIN or ask for more protection. Doug Weller  talk 11:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ayurveda
There is a statement in the lead and more in the article about it being 5000 years old. It's possible the Springer source is an RS, I haven't checked it, but the others don't seem sufficient for such claims. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see two millenia but not 5000 years in the lead. Not going to plough through the rest though. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We have details on (ancient) Egyptian medical practices going back that far. The lead mentions the Indus Valley Civilisation - so I don't see it as completely unfeasible. Someone would need to look at the source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry, it says some people see its origins as prehistoric. The body of the article syptstes as fact that “The origins of Ayurveda have been traced back to around 5,000 BCE,”. Doug Weller  talk 20:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Llywelyn, Prince of Cymru
I saw this on my watchlist as a result of an un-related PROD. I'm unsure if there's a reason to delete Llywelyn, Prince of Cymru, but some claims are presented in Wikipedia's voice that should not be. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Defensive gun use WP: Hoax page?
Please someone fix Defensive gun use, or delete the page altogether. This is a hoax page run by fringe gun nuts claiming that there are 4 million defensive gun uses per year, despite actual statistics showing there are only 230 jusifitiable homicides with a firearm in the US annually. Editors at this page will not listen to reason or logic that it is impossible for there to be 4 million defensive gun uses per year, since that figure cannot logically exceed the number of total violent crimes prevented. HOAX ALERT!!!!!Logic Freebaser (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Evidence also indicates that the current figure of 4.7 million was simply made up in the comments section, after the editors were called out on inventing a prior "33 million" figure. This page is so bad and worthless it should simply be deleted, and nothing would be lost. Logic Freebaser (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that DGU does not mean just shooting people to death.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Fine. But can the figures exceed 100 percent of the 1.2 million violent crimes attempted per year? No. Reasonable sources agree that 200 is a reasonable lower bound of verifiable justifiable defensive gun uses. Logic Freebaser (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say, now one explanation maybe that if a crime is prevented it is also not prosecuted (and thus is not record as a crime). We need RS to discus this discrepancy.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That talk page is disturbing. A user complained about the 33 million figure, and the locals circled the wagons to try to talk them out of it. Then after the fact, one of them finally admits that the figure was unsourced! That article needs outside attention, I don't trust the current group of editors to handle it competently. Geogene (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) The second reference to the sentence with the 4 million claim does include a summary of a George Will column that stated there were 2 million a year, and the reference is specifically addressing DGUs, by name, in a scholarly format, published by a respectable source - it is a WP:RS (the cited reference, not necessarily the Will column). We don't use logic in evaluating reliable sources, and a claim doesn't need to be reasonable to be included, it just has to be noteworthy (not WP:UNDUE). While 4 million may have been made up, it is not off the mark by much. Whether this topic is notable enough is something that can be debated, as can specific content, but it certainly isn't a hoax, and you do yourself no favors using loaded language like this. Agricolae (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Pro-gun advocates – from individual gun owners to organizations like the National Ri e Association – frequently claim that guns are used up to 2.5 million times each year in self-defense in the United States.8 According to the 2004 book Private Guns, Public Health by Dr. David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center:Much discussion about the protective bene ts of guns has focused on the incidence of self-defense gun use. Proponents of such putative bene ts often claim that 2.5 million Americans use guns in self-defense against criminal attackers each year. This estimate is not plausible and has been nominated as the most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected o cial.

In his book, Hemenway dissects the 2.5 million gure from a variety of angles and, by extension, the NRA’s own non-lethal self-defense claims for  rearms. He concludes, “It is clear that the claim of 2.5 million annual self-defense gun uses is a vast overestimate” and asks, “But what can account for it?” As he details in his book, the main culprit is the “telescoping and...false positive problem” that derives from the very limited number of respondents claiming a self-defense gun use, “a matter of misclassi cation that is well known to medical epidemiologists.” http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

It is well known that figures in the millions are a hoax. It is not possible for there to be millions of legitimate defensive gun uses per year in the US when the FBI claims only 1.2 million crimes attempted annually, 63 percent of which are simple assault. It is not unreasonable to demand that our claims be logically possible. Logic Freebaser (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you can include thus criticism  in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Not logically possible" is a bit of a stretch for something that I have seen twice in my lifetime. Twice I have seen a criminal intent on an assault or robbery decide to spend his time elsewhere when the victim pulled out a gun. Neither was ever reported as a crime and thus would not be included in any FBI statistics. (One of the non-victims was an off-duty Sheriff, so maybe that one shouldn't count). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   14:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment on content, not contributors, friend. Logic Freebaser (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not your friend, buddy.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   14:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The article has been protected, the socks blocked (without a checkuser that I can see), and at least a few more editors are more aware of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's funny that this comes up today when I was just researching this topic today. How often are guns used in self-defense?  1.2 million a year is at the high end and almost certainly an overestimate. But that number is certainly not a hoax.  It comes from a study conducted by a Florida State University criminologist.  The real answer is that we don't really know because a lot of DGUs go unreported.  Here's a good article on the topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't really know the exact amount it is true. However anyone with a cluepon knows it is nowhere near the number the NRA like to trot out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Overall the article discuses the data both low and high end.11:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it just isn’t true that the “article discuses the data both low and high end.” A few posts up, this link was posted http://theweek.com/articles/585837/truth-about-guns-selfdefense] by A Quest For Knowledge stating as follows: “Another study by the nonpartisan Gun Violence Archive, based on FBI and Justice Department data, found that of nearly 52,000 recorded shootings in 2014, there were fewer than 1,600 verified cases where firearms were used for self-defense.” Thus, low end estimates actially suggest there are approximately 1500 defensive gun uses annually annually.” (The original data is here: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls.) Moreover, there is no citation for the alleged 4.7 million figure. While there are some citations for 2.5 million, these figures are several decades old, disproven, and we should not include these estimates in the article without a disclaimer that these estimates are mentioned out of historical interest only (overall, the range appearing in reliable sources estimates between 1500-100,000 defensive gun uses per year (see more recent work here: http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf). Does anyone have a recent source backing the figures in the millions? If not, these figures should be moved to a “History” section, as they are out-of-date. Employing hopelessly old data to support a pet hypothesis rather than the most recent reliable sources is not jsut unscientific, its unencylopedic as well, and the tolerance for such misconduct from our editors is why fringe theories thrive around here. Articles need to be periodically reviewed, and old references purged, and this article is Exhibit A. 75.99.95.250 (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a source for 4.7 million. By all means add your new information.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have any objections to collapsing this thread and the similar thread at Editing Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard so that the discussion can be centralized at Talk:Defensive gun use? Both were started by a now-blocked sockpuppet. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

My Favorite Pseudoscience
I found the following to be well worth reading:

https://ncse.com/library-resource/my-favorite-pseudoscience

Key quote:

"Those of us concerned about pseudoscience and its attractiveness to the public would be well advised to consider the emotional needs that are met by beliefs in ESP, alien abduction, astrology, psychic powers, and the like, and address them as well as criticizing the poor science invoked by supporters to support the pseudoscience. We skeptics sometimes feel that the people we are trying to reach are impenetrable — and some of them are! The public is divided into 3 parts: confirmed believers, confirmed skeptics, and a much larger middle group that does not know much science, but does not have the emotional commitments that might lead it to embrace a pseudoscientific view... I have found that I am most effective with that large middle group, and hardly ever effective with the true believers; I suspect most skeptics have had similar experiences. But after all, reaching that large middle group is also the goal of the proponents of pseudoscience. If, like most skeptics, you feel that we would all be better off with more science and less pseudoscience, then that is where we should be focusing our energies, rather than fruitlessly arguing with people who will never agree with us. But to reach that group that is potentially reachable, we must also be aware that a scientific explanation is necessary but not sufficient to change someone’s mind; if I have learned anything from over 25 years in the skeptic business, it is that it is necessary to deal with the emotional reasons that make our species susceptible to these beliefs, as well as the scientific."

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

"emotional needs that are met by beliefs in ESP, alien abduction, astrology, psychic powers"

While astrology has been with us for several millennia now and probably reflects our beliefs about destiny, I have trouble figuring out what emotional need is fulfilled by the alien abduction tales of the 20th century. Being abducted, restrained, and abused by powerful strangers does not sound like much of a wish fulfillment narrative. Dimadick (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Functionalism (philosophy of mind)
Need more eyes on Functionalism (philosophy of mind). Looks like an editor is trying to insert some serious woo about computers, plus NPOV comments like changing "as an alternative to the identity theory of mind and behaviorism." to "as an alternative to the increasingly unpopular theories of behaviorism and identity theory of mind."

The same editor has been trying to do something similar at Talk:Theistic science. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Shady indeed. Got any ideas on how to counteract her? —Approaching (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please note that —Approaching is the editor who added the unsourced material about computers and about behaviorism being "increasingly unpopular". A look at Talk:Theistic science will clearly show what happens when you debate him/her/it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Got it. Wait, whoa. The scheming user has managed to add sources for both the point about computers and behaviorism. Grr, foiled again! Worse, the user has managed to infiltrate the esteemed Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind (2008), where their nefarious talents have managed to insert the fringe theory of the demise of behaviorism into the very text! No doubt, she will have done so for the other claims. Please advise on the next step, master! —Approaching (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Approaching is still inserting patent nonsense about computers into the article. I have asked him to discuss his proposed changes on the article talk page. I still need more eyes on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ( ...Sound of Crickets... ) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Help!
The sealioning has started at Talk:Functionalism (philosophy of mind), just as happened at Talk:Theistic science. Can I get a little help, please? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe when I have finished my breakfast. (More seriously, you posted this on a weekend. I have generally found most experienced editors tend to be busy elsewhere on the weekends. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am saving and reusing that comic link.  F'ing brilliant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

William M. Branham
William M. Branham was a Pentecostal evangelist and faith healer in the 1940s and 1950s. The article was previously something of a hagiography, and there has been a lot of back-and-forth addition and removal of text over the last few years, with faithful adherents to the beliefs Branham preached frequently disagreeing with editors who are more focused on WP:NPOV and related policies. Recently, the article went through a GA review and it is currently a pretty neutral piece. (There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page, but it's mostly held in a civil tone.)

However, I have a couple of questions for the good regulars of this board.


 * Recently, after the GA review, a paragraph has been added with details about alleged healings performed by Branham. This is sourced mainly to uncritical newspaper reports about these "miracles", with titles such as "Cripples rise from wheelchairs and walk", and I wonder whether those are actually sufficient sources for this kind of information. The writing in the Branham article is as I say pretty neutral, but I can't help feeling that WP:UNDUE applies here. (BTW, am I wrong if I assume that anything related to faith healing falls under WP:MEDRS? These are events that happened 50-60 years ago, but it's still a health related topic...)
 * This book has been introduced (also after the GA review) as a source for claims regarding Branham's miraculous powers. I have removed one instance of it being used to source a fringe claim, but I seriously question whether it is at all useful as a source, in particular in an article about an alleged miracle worker.

That Branham claimed to be able to perform miracles is sourced, and that info needs to be in the article, of course. And despite having been accused of not assuming good faith, I certainly believe that even the editors who would prefer it if the article said that the miracles were real genuinely feel that they are acting in the encyclopedia's best interests; it might just be difficult to reconcile that particular religious belief with Wikipedia's notions of neutrality. Some more eyes on the article from uninvolved editors would be a nice thing, because as I say this has been an ongoing issue for a number of years (I have not been involved at all until very recently, and had no part in the huge cleanup that led to the successful GA review). --bonadea contributions talk 20:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

We should attribute such claims, other then that they are sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't use the book. See it's "about" page. And a statement on another page, "As a Christian publishing house, we are driven by the very clear mandate set before us by founder and prophet, Don Nori Sr. – “publish the prophets.” Even though not every author would be considered a prophet (in terms of his or her office in the body of Christ) we are specifically looking for messages with a prophetic edge to them that calls readers into their ultimate destiny—being conformed into the image of Jesus and walking in signs, wonders, and miracles." Doug Weller  talk 13:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not sure I understand how the policies would exclude this. The publishing house does have a quality control process for evaluating and selecting works that meet their criteria. Yes, they're biased, but does WP:RS exclude all publishing houses with a religious bias, or all authors with a religious bias? I tend to agree with that the information should be included in the article, with an attribution that clearly states the religious bias of the source.
 * But, I'm not meaning to be argumentative or take a strong position about this particular case one way or the other. I want to understand the policies and apply them correctly, so that I don't waste other editors' time proposing to use sources that clearly don't meet the policies. JerryRussell (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, WP:MEDRS does apply to faith healing, inasmuch as it's included in our list of alternative medicine practices. MEDRS specifies that reliable sources for medical claims must be found in scientific journals. So I must amend my statement to say that the book can't be used in support of the faith healing claim. But if this were some other topic, such as history or religion, would the book be excluded? JerryRussell (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Further down you'll see a section on types of sources. We generally prefer academic sources, particularly for subjects such as history. The author himself has no qualification that would make hima reliable source for history and and in fact not for religion. And if you search for his name you'll see that he isn't exactly non-controversial, but I won't put any links here. Doug Weller  talk 18:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * To be clear, that Branham claimed miraculous powers is sourced from actual scholarly books by non-evangelists, as far as I understand, but the details (all the different healing meetings etc) are not. The Crowder book is thus not needed for the claim that B believed he had supernatural powers. I'm uncomfortable about using it, or newspaper articles, for the claims regarding individual healings, and I'm finding it difficult to convince one or two other editors that we actually have a policy stating that every point of view should not be equally represented.


 * I'm glad to hear that MEDRS applies, because I was sure that it did but then I was told that it doesn't :-) How about statements such as "It was reported that the blind could see and the deaf hear in X-town when Branham preached there ", though? Is the hedge "It was reported that" sufficient? (My gut says no, but maybe it's just heartburn.) --bonadea contributions talk 19:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reported by whom? We may have a "teach the controversy" matter when The New York Times reports something like that, but when some local newspaper that probably doesn't exist any more did so, that's dubious.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Swami Nithyananda
Swami Nithyananda could use some additional watchlisters. It is subject to vandalism by haters of the subject (and attempts to inject dubious scandal material), yet both whitewashing and promotional FRINGE claims by Nithyananda's followers (who also inject a lot of PoV wording). Almost all of it from both sides is by anon IP editors. I think longterm auto-confirmed protection is probably in order, as well as regular examination for non-encyclopedic material. I've done a minor editing pass on it today to clean up some of the wording, and flagged primary and self-published sources (one is okay for one claim, two are not). There's another source, some "Indian Book of World Records" site that is probably unreliable and is being used as a source for a claim that something paranormal actually happened. It's almost certain that the source is being misrepresented or is itself a bunch of WP:UGC. I also know someone among his adherents, and through her have reached out to more of them with a "mini-tutorial" on how to do Wikipedia properly. I have no idea if this will have any effect. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: The "It was reported that ..." matter in the thread above this one also strongly applies to this case. I generally avoid topics like this, so I'm not sure what the consensus is on how to treat press reports that appear to support claims of the paranormal, especially when they come from communities of people largely in the same religion, i.e. apt to believe and repeat the claims on a faith basis. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

PPS: One of his people did get back to me, and the short version of their side of the story is that they know that some followers have posted non-neutral stuff and don't mind its removal, but are concerned about defamatory claims being inserted based on "news" that is tabloid or fake news that's actually paid for. India has a lot of papers that print what people pay them to, he says. Thus there's little news coverage of Nithyananda's organization, other than what monied detractors are willing to pay for. Said that they have several ongoing defamation lawsuits against some of these outfits. I said they should mention that in questioning reliability of "sources" that they are suing; bring it up at the talk page or at WP:RSN if necessary. The court stuff should be public record both as to filings as as to results. For my part, I remain concerned about the FRINGE stuff that followers keep inserting ("news" reports about miraculous stuff, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Comment'--Will be looking at the issue. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ann Louise Gittleman
Hi all, there's a new user trying to change the content of as they believe it's a BLP issue. Could someone take a look at it please. Putting this here as the article is about Alternative medicine. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The changes proposed certainly violate WP:NPOV and can themselves be considered BLP violations for that reason. It appears they are trying to "balance" the article with flattering information from her own web sites. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 11:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the tone of the article is more like a debunking website than an encyclopedic article. While we are supposed to explain that her views are not supported by science or scientists, it is polemical to hammer it out over and over again.  It says for example, "She has been criticized for promoting incorrect notions about medicine, diet, and electromagnetic radiation."  First, it is weasel wording.  A good article would explain what her claims were and why experts find them wrong.  Also, when criticism is made against people we are supposed to provide their responses.
 * It is said that one can lead a horse to water, but cannot make it drink. We must tell readers that her views are not supported by science, but some people will follow her advice regardless.  Not much we can or should do about that.
 * TFD (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When we deal with articles on quacks, we have to keep with WP:FRINGE/PS, which allows such articles to refute her claims outright: "Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification." If she has published a rebuttal to the critics that are cited in her article, we can cross that bridge and figure out how to integrate such commentary to the text. Delta13C (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * not necessarily. It however depends on the subject matter: policies deal differently with pseudoscience and sexual orientation for instance (or gender identification).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You cannot refute her claims without explaining what they are. Anyway you have nine sentences that say  her theories are bunk or her credentials are bogus out of a total of fourteen sentences in the article.  Do you think that readers are so clueless that they need that much repetition?  TFD (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The difficulty here is that we are conflating the subject herself and the quackery she is a proponent of. While her support for quackery needs to be mentioned in the bio article, the bio article is not the place go into details about that quackery (and a bio article is definitely the wrong venue in which to debunk quackery... debunking quackery should be done at the article about that quackery).  Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A problem previously discussed at AfD of the article was that there is actually very little known about her but her quackery. That's really all she got attention for in her career. So there are sources that are either neutral about her ideas or articles that criticize them. The stronger RSes tend to be the ones that criticize her. Delta13C (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Shag Harbour UFO incident
Someone has added a section called Pre Crash Aerial Phenomenon. Only ufologists believe something actually "crashed" in Shag Harbor (such as this non-notable ufo book, however, its POV of primary sources (various unrelated reports of people who say they saw lights in the sky) is being pushed at the article . - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You would be wrong LuckyLouis, the People of Shag Harbour figured it was airplane that crashed into the channel. It was the "Ottawa Air Desk" RCAF that labeled it a UFO event. Plus three RCMP officers watch the craft sink into the channel and filed reports. The "Pre Crash Aerial Phenomenon" outlines the events leading up to the Shag Harbour Incident, with reference to books, newspaper articles, and RCMP reports from witnesses. UFOlogists were not a thing in Nova Scotia in 1967 when the event took place and only the government believed it was a UFO, that is why the incident is know as the "world's only government documented UFO crash" Snowy Badger (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just insert 'incident' instead of 'crash'. Same meaning in context and satisfies the ambiguity over if anything did/did not actually crash. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Pre crash aerial phenomenon" sounds like you're trying to make something simple sound 'scientific'. A header that says "Reports" is much less misleading. - LuckyLouie (talk)


 * "Aerial Phenomenon" is a term that has been used since the Blue Book days of UFO research by the US government. Today it has been adopted by most people that are studying UFOs that don't want to automatically label it an outer-space craft. Removing "Crash" and replacing it with "incident" makes more sense. Snowy Badger (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I just did a quick proofreading and preliminary copyedit of that one section (elimination of random capitalization, MOS:SECTIONCAPS and MOS:SURNAME corrections, hyphenating "Pre-incident" given that "pre" isn't a word by itself, trimming out inconsequential prosaic details, etc.). I take no position on the content. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident
I'm wondering if we have a resident UFO debunker who might want to check the sourcing for this. I was watching "UFOs: The Lost Evidence" on AHC earlier and there was a brief discussion of Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident which in typical fashion of UFO programs featured snippets of all sorts of credentialed peopled (e.g. people who worked for the FAA and former military personnel with secret clearances, etc.) confirming that there was a UFO. If this skeptical website is to be believed, the pilot had a history of reporting UFOs and told things to the press that he didn't tell the FAA or are not confirmed by the flight recordings, and the two other members of the flight crew did not see anything remarkable. The article reiterates the claims and allegations of various players as fact (e.g. meeting in which individuals were instructed not to talk to anyone, etc.).-Location (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I found this blog post which has some useful links to skeptical analysis (beyond its own). It occurs to me, reading these, that really almost all UFO incident articles could be deleted as being based on the one hand on credulous and unreliable sources, but more so on a lot of primary sourcing, directed by the credulous behind the scenes. Mangoe (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like we cited the same link. Regarding the deletion of all UFO incident articles, I was thinking the same thing while posting this inquiry. I've never really paid much attention to the UFO articles, but I cannot image that many of them have reliable sourcing. -Location (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As a skeptic who thinks UFOs are the most ridiculous of widely held (that qualifier is important) conspiracy theories, I would oppose any such move. Mostly because, as a cultural phenomenon, UFO sightings are widespread and oft-discussed, with an overwhelming amount of coverage in reliable sources, well-defined tropes and a history of being mined by creators of fiction precisely because it's a subject that commands so much interest.
 * So while I think they're all bullshit (ain't no aliens gonna spend quadrillions of dollar's worth of alien currency to come to some backwater planet with a barely-sentient species just taking their first tentative steps into space and stick probes up the ass of some redneck named Cletus), they're the precise sort of bullshit that demands encyclopedic coverage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

<span style="position:relative;left:180px;top:190px;float:right;color:white;text-shadow:2px 2px 4px black, -2px -2px 4px black, -2px 2px 4px black, 2px -2px 4px black;">'''Wikipedia covers it up, therefore aliens.'''
 * I don't think any move to mass delete all similarly categorized article would succeed, but many of these articles appear to lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and are instead built upon a combination of primary sources and fringe sources. If we trimmed these articles to reliable sources, there may not be much left of them! We all need to pick and choose our battles and this is one category of fringe that I don't plan to soak much time in fixing. -Location (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that many of these articles are shot through with OR and bad sourcing is something I could absolutely get behind. And the suggestion that many of the articles we have would be worth deleting is, as well. I think we're on the same page here, the problem is that I have a lot of other things on my plate. However, if you want to do the work of tracking down UFO articles that need work or deleting, feel free to mention them at my talk page and I'll hop on over to them and help out as best I can whenever I get the chance. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is huge WP:UNDUE weight given to details from FAA reports, obviously cherry picked to support the UFOlogy POV. If you pull out all the material cited to credulous sources such as Timothy Good, Bruce Maccabee, MUFON, disclosureproject, ufocasebook, ufoevidence, and The History Channel's UFO Files, you will find only a couple of news items from independent sources that may or may not justify a stand alone article. Not an easy fix. A good case for WP:BLOWITUP and start over from scratch. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've cleared some time in my schedule. I'll be looking into some of these articles now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The conclusion by the FAA after its investigation may help with this one: . - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Especially this part of the UPI report: "Controllers directed a United Airlines plane to intersect the aircraft path, but Terauchi said, 'When the United plane came by our side, the spaceship disappeared suddenly and there was nothing but the light of the moon.'" Moonshine, in every sense of the word. A YUGE UFO that suddenly disappears when independent observers approach... is a UFO by definition because the requisite data to identify it as even existing are missing. loupgarous (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was referring to the FAA statements, e.g. "The FAA does not have enough material to say something was there". Terauchi's claims are just...well, claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Kali (demon)
Apparent fringe and/or COI promotion of Kedar Joshi, as pointed out by LordQwert at the Joshi article AfD nomination. More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate  – 17:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * My eyes are having a great deal of trouble with the 'Rick Moranis talking about the battles of Gozer the Gozerian' writing style. Mangoe (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Radiohaloes
I'm not exactly sure whether my edits on this have solved all the problems with this article. Robert V. Gentry might also deserve a perusal. jps (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

— Paleo Neonate  – 05:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Knights of the Secret Circle
Hoax? — Paleo Neonate  – 01:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's actually an obscure conspiracy theory confined to a few Illuminati/David Icke type message boards, so Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Knights_of_the_Secret_Circle. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — Paleo Neonate  – 02:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential Suggestion
Looks like some original research has made it into this article and using unreliable sources or at the least giving undue weight. Anyone feel like taking a look. MrBill3 (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Excited delirium
Excited delirium is a controversial diagnosis that is not recognized by either of the two official bodies that recognize somatic and psychiatric diagnoses. A small group has been changing the wording to be weaselly as if it has a secret alternative name, that is not revealed. I believe all fringe medical diagnoses should mention that they are unrecognized in the first paragraph with the non-weasel wording. Once it is recognized, we can add the code it has been assigned in the infobox. Currently the article looks just like an official diagnosis article. What do you think? You can see other alternative medicine diagnoses here: Category:Alternative diagnoses. --RAN (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have written: "A diagnosis of excited delirium is not recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the International Classification of Diseases as of 2016." and it is in the first paragraph of the article.


 * They have changed it to: "The diagnosis does not go by this specific name in either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the International Classification of Diseases as of 2016." and it has been moved lower in the article. This implies it is recognized, but under some other name that is not revealed. --RAN (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A couple of things
 * 1) The ICD 10 is from 1992. Yes things have changed some in medicine in the last 25 years. The ICD 11 should be out in 2018 (it is already three years late so who knows)
 * 2) The DSM is for psychiatric diagnosis and is published by the American Psychiatric Association. No one is claiming this is a psych condition.
 * 3) There are more than just two organizations that define diseases. It is recognized by the American College of Emergency Physicians which is the main association of ER docs in the United States.

Anyway have clarified the wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * de·lir·i·um (dəˈlirēəm) an acutely disturbed state of mind that occurs in fever, intoxication, and other disorders and is characterized by restlessness, illusions, and incoherence of thought and speech. Clearly a delirium is a disorder of the mind. If it does get assigned a diagnostic code in 2018, then the wording can be changed. --RAN (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The draft ICD-11, due to be adopted next year, does not contain a specific code for this diagnosis at this time (it would probably be coded 6E10.3 Delirium due to unknown or unspecified aetiological factors). Under ICD-10-CM it would likely be coded as R41.0 Disorientation, unspecified. The important thing is that the presence or absence of a specific ICD code does not indicate that a diagnosis is unrecognized.  Every version of the ICD has, in fact, had a plethora of "Unknown Etiology" or "Otherwise Unspecified" codes specifically to cover diagnoses that the drafters didn't include.  All an ICD code means is that a medical provider can bill under that code and that statistics can be gathered and analyzed under that code.  So the "some other name not revealed" for this would be one of those semi-generic codes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Eggishorn agree. Sepsis also results in delirium as does hepatic encephalopathy. The DSM5 has 293.0 (F05) "Delirium due to another medical condition" into which these things that are not psych fall.
 * This is another condition neither in the DSM nor the ICD Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. That does not make it an alternative diagnosis. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We already have an article called Delirium. I am satisfied with the compromised wording. --RAN (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Studies in the Psychology of Sex Vol. 1
I wonder if the lead should more clearly explain that this sexual inversion hypothesis is not mainstream or the like. Also, when reading the reception section, it appears to suggests that it is. Possibly that someone more familiar with the humanities and sexuality, LGBT studies, etc, should look at it. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 11:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What hypothesis? Sexual Inversion was simply the term used in the day (late 19th-earth 20th century) for homosexuality. The book itself was a serious scientific attempt to cover homosexuality (and was quite progressive for its time in the west).Icewhiz (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * After your comment I have just reread the article now and it makes sense, the article seems fine. Being mostly ignorant about the historical literature on this subject, my first impression was the possible POV pushing of a particular older hypothesis that is no longer considered valid.  That impression was wrong.  Thank you very much,  — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Singing bowl
This is up for deletion (see here) but may well survive. It is a focus of woo, as indicated by the very first edit; the talk page (once you get past the mess someone made of it at some point) is a study. There is apparently at least one source claiming that the whole thing is something of a scam on gullible westerners. I'm surprised it hasn't shown up here earlier but it could use our ministrations. Mangoe (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Environmental history of the Mediterranean Sea
Since this section was re-written several years ago, it contains some surprisingly counter-intuitive statements, like this one: "The wide ecological diversity typical of Mediterranean Europe is predominantly based on human behavior, as it is and has been closely related human usage patterns." I'm not sure if this is a mainstream theory or a fringe theory, but it needs some additional fact-checking. Is it true that human settlements in the Mediterranean region have actually increased the region's biodiversity (instead of decreasing it?) Jarble (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone feel like helping us merge a medium and his TV-show?
In this discussion Talk:Tyler_Henry we´ve talked ourselves into merging Hollywood Medium with Tyler Henry into Tyler Henry, medium of Kardashians. Anyone feel up to it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

RSN discussion on using Richard Lynn's The Global Bell Curve as a source for history and economics
See WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected Cuban sonic attack
More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate  – 04:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I bet they were beaming Myley Cyrus music at them, certain to cause all those symptoms. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"unusual health-related incidents" ...temporary or permanent hearing loss, memory loss, and nausea."

I don't get why is this unusual.
 * Having had a rather large number of relatives with hearing problems, I always considered it a normal part of aging. Our article on hearing loss estimates that in 2013 there were 1.1 billion people that have suffered the loss of their hearing to some degree.
 * "Memory loss" (Amnesia), could be a result of the use of sedatives and hypnotics. Alcohol has similar effects.
 * Nausea. This could be caused by a number of common conditions. Among them motion sickness, dizziness, migraine, fainting, low blood sugar, gastroenteritis (stomach infection) or food poisoning.

My first question would not be of what advanced weapon was used hear. It would be what were these people eating and drinking. Dimadick (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not for us to speculate, only to report others speculation. may well be relevant, but no one has made the link up.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)