Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 69

WP:PROFRINGE wikiproject spam at Talk:Ogopogo
Current we've got two users adding a variety of Wikiproject spam to the user talk page promoting WP:PROFRINGE views (Cryptozoology, as usual) of what is a typical folklore motif (diff from a rather telling revert form ). None of these topics, including cryptozoology, receive any mention in the article. Note that one of these Wikiprojects is Wikiproject Skepticism—cryptozoologists commonly employ a tactic wherein their 'theories' are framed in line with 'cryptozoology explanation' vs. 'skeptics', painting experts as simple killjoys or pointless doubting Thomases, rather than, well, experts. In folklore studies and other fields of anthropology (and biology), cryptozoology is of course just flatly considered a pseudoscience—no 'skepticism' framing necessary. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d give rp2006 the benefit of the doubt on this one; Wikiproject Skepticism helps curate a wide range of articles and monitor for fringe stuff that tends to show up in articles like this one. I suspect their revert that included the templates for other projects wasn’t an endorsement of those projects. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly—I know that misunderstandings can occur, and I've had some initially negative encounters turn around to be for the better, leading to fruitful collaboration thereafter. I'd be happy for this to turn out to be the case with (and if that's the case, let me go ahead and apologize in advance, Rp, and thank you for your efforts on other aticles). Whatever the situation, I think we'd benefit from getting a handle on these pseudoscientific wikiprojects that get placarded all over the site. Since its inception, for example, it appears that Wikiproject Cryptozoology has been there to promote the pseudoscience and its theories, and for a while it was quite successful across the site. Now the project appears to be essentially dead, particularly since these articles have been receiving much more scrutiny. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My intention is to keep this page tagged to WP:Skepticism. This lake "monster" has been discussed on the Skeptical podcast Squaring the Strange by investigator Benjamin Radford several times, which is how I learned of it and came to this page. So as long as that is kept, I am happy. HOWEVER, I must say I was unaware people who are not involved with WikiProjects were allowed to remove article from those projects. So what is the actual WP rule regarding THIS issue? And BTW, your comment above makes it sound like this was a new edit and I just started an edit war. I think I added WP:Skep in the early fall, so your repeated removal of it a half year later was the recent change, not mine. Frankly it did not look like you knew what you were doing as you also removed the Pageviews template without reason or explanation. RobP (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you keep adding the cryptozoology templates? I have much less concern for the 'skeptic' tag, although really unnecessary, than the pro-pseudoscience stuff. It'd obviously not be OK to add a WikiProject Young Earth Creationism template to all of our geology articles, so I'm wondering what the rationale is here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While, yes, the site would be better off if anyone who believed in cryptozoology didn't edit articles relating to it, the Cryptozoology WikiProject isn't necessarily composed of cryptid-believers, just as the Judaism WikiProject in no way requires its members to be Jewish, and I'm a member of the Occult WikiProject despite my skepticism. Unless the Cryptozoology WikiProject has some guideline saying that articles can only be added if they explicitly mention notable cryptozoologists, the "Alleged sightings" section of the article would seem to justify inclusion in the Cryptozoology WikiProject.
 * I may be misremembering, but you seem (to me) to be focused on cryptozoology related articles (I mean that in the good sense of holding them to site standards regarding reliable sourcing, NPOV, etc) -- you could be a valuable member of the Cryptozoology WikiProject. Joining would give you an additional counter to any true believer claiming that you're doing this because you hate cryptozoology, or else make the WikiProject put their money where their mouth is when they say "This project (like all others) is not a fringe view platform."  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sooner or later, I suspect that we'll probably end up with maybe a dozen or a couple dozen articles that mention the tiny subculture/pseudoscience, which makes WikiProject_Cryptozoology ultimately pointless outside of its historical function of promoting the pseudoscience. Cryptozoology's outsized representation on this site is a direct result of WikiProject Cryptozoology's efforts, and "sighting" does not in any way equate to "cryptozoology"—experts, such as academics, study this stuff without resorting to pseudoscience.


 * I created WikiProject Folklore to build an infrastructure for folklore studies-related articles on Wikipedia. So far we've not only built a variety of core articles we were missing on the topic (like folk belief) but we've also improved coverage across the board (with articles where cryptozoologists and Young Earth creationists have hijacked being priorities).


 * Really, I think it might be wise to simply disband WikiProject Cryptozoology, but in the mean time I can put some effort into making it clear that it doesn't exist to promote the pseudoscience but rather keep an eye on related articles. That, unfortunately, may not be enough to keep aggressive users like from inserting it into talk pages for articles that don't mention it, implicitly promoting an association between the subculture and a topic. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a bit shady, although WP:PROJSCOPE gives a general guideline. I know some editors sometimes were criticized for overzealous "spamming" templates.  As for potential fringe-promoting WikiProjects, it did happen at times but WikiProjects should serve for organization, their participants are still subject to all Wikipedia policies including about reliable sourcing and fringe content.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for the pointer to WP:PROJSCOPE which says: "if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, do not edit-war to remove the banner." Get it ? So please stop removing the WikiProject Skepticism template. I don't have a dog in the fight for the  others, but that rule may also apply.  Also: "In general, one should not attempt to police which projects are sufficiently relevant to place their banners on a given talk page." RobP (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An unfortunate and ill-considered response—that's some creative reading! From the article:


 * Be judicious in making such placements by carefully reviewing the scope of the project. Information about the project's scope is often available on the WikiProject's main page, and sometimes also on documentation associated with the template. All editors should avoid tagging an article with a disruptive number of WikiProject banners. If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of a WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article. For example, washing toys for babies reduces transmission of some diseases, but the banners for WP:WikiProject Health, WP:WikiProject Biology, WP:WikiProject Virus and/or WP:WikiProject Medicine do not need to be added to Talk:Toy. If you are uncertain that the placement will be welcomed, leave a note on the project's talk page instead of placing the banner yourself.


 * If you place a banner for a WikiProject in which you do not participate, and one of its regular participants removes it, do not re-add the banner without discussion.


 * Might want to reread that one. Go ahead and self revert, please.&#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What?? Mine was "An unfortunate and ill-considered response" AND "creative reading?" Regarding the project template you keep removing and I added in September, WikiProject Skepticism... Again... "if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, do not edit-war to remove the banner." and "In general, one should not attempt to police which projects are sufficiently relevant to place their banners on a given talk page." You are violating both tenets. I AM a member, and have been for years, and you are not. YET you removed it - repeatedly. You do not get to decide unilaterally that it is only tangentially related. Plus, talk about creative reading... the example about Toys - assuming you mean that as analogous - is ludicrous in the extreme here. As I said, Ogopogo has been repeatedly discussed on a Skeptic podcast by skeptical researcher Ben Radford bacause of claims it is a cryptid. I'm sorry you do not like that fact. But's its a fact. It is frankly unbelievable that you cannot seem to understand this. RobP (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * —You seem to be misunderstanding. I don't have a problem with WikiProject Skepticism here, the issue is your insertion of the WikiProject Cryptozoology template. The article says nothing about cryptozoology, and people claiming they saw a dinosuar does not make them a cryptozoologist—this happens all the time well beyond the realm of this particular subculture. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to let you know, WikiProject banners are pretty innocuous things. I think it is reasonable to remove them and discuss, but it's not worth a large argument. For example, WP:WikiProject Alternative Views inclusion on certain talkpages was mildly annoying to me, but in the end its application to certain pages where it did not belong did not really do that much for the content which is what matters, ultimately. jps (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Racism in pseudoarchaeology
I've suggested the addition of a section on this to our article and have provided some sources. See Talk:Pseudoarchaeology. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , against aliens? Guy (help!) 14:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Isnt that Xenophopbia? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Amy Lansky
Amy Lansky promotes the fraudulent CEASE therapy and other quack cures for autism, and is an ardent antivaxer, but this is not in the article despite being her primary claim to fame. If anyone is aware of sources that would help me fix that, please pitch in. Guy (help!) 10:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Claim to fame? Her book was published in a trade press for alternative medicine and all the citations are self-citations or passing notion. This article looks like it was written as a favor to a friend by User:Dicklyon, albeit back in the day when such backscratching was less frowned upon. jps (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm Integrative Psychiatry and Brain Health seems in-universe (integrative medicine) and uncritically echoes the claims, citing Impossible Cure: The Promise of Homeopathy directly. Maybe that mention in Psychology Today is an indication of notability but I'm unsure and can't access the article.  According to the current BLP she's computer science professor, but the only cited independent source for the CS part of the bio is Fundamental Research in Artificial Intelligence at NASA.  In both independent books, there are only mentions, no significant coverage about the subject.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, what are your sources for her being mostly known as an ardent antivaxer, or for CEASE therapy? Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , This is a talk page so doesn't need sources, but that is the only source of reality-based commentary (most of which is on science blogs of one kind or another, e.g., , ). And a great deal of the non-reality-based coverage (e.g. by homeopaths and other loons) also focuses on CEASE, which is anti-vaccinationist autism quackery. Oh, and she spoke at Autism One, which is pretty conclusive for involvement in autism quackery. Guy (help!) 15:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see anything there associating CEASE therapy with Lansky. What are you finding? Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , can I just check: are you aware that homeopathy is fraudulent? Just checking here. Guy (help!) 20:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how representing only that point of view can be considered consistent with WP:NPOV. But anyway, you were claiming that Lansky is associated with CEASE, and I'm not finding evidence of that in the links you pointed out, or elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "point of view"? So no, you are not aware that homeopathy is fraudulent. --Calton &#124; Talk 08:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but doesn't fraud imply intent? I have no doubt there are homeopaths who intend to deceive, but I think some might be victims of self-deception as well. It's hard to know which is which. OTOH, maybe we're using "fraudulent" as a stand-in for "without basis", in which case, carry on! jps (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * https://xkcd.com/303/ — Paleo Neonate  – 20:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Race & Intelligence RFC
Danger, Will Robinson!

But also, check out a WP:Local consensus abrewing on the talkpage about adding "F*A*C*T*S" to the lede about how IQs differ among the races.

Sockpuppets may be around.

Yuck.

jps (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am surprised there is not a WP:BLUELOCK on that article. Alexbrn (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "I know, let's add text to the lead that says there are racial differences in intelligence, even though the rest of the article says this is facile, meaningless and probably wrong". Guy (help!) 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Alien01.svg There definitely are differences (if you look like me at left)... — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * In the hope of getting more editors involved and getting a non-local consensus, I started an RfC about the first paragraph of the lede at Talk:Race and intelligence. More eyes welcome. NightHeron (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * IT CONTINUES:


 * More and new voices would definitely be appreciated, even if just to offer a small point as some users seem to be interested in simply counting the number of users who agree with (a) or (b). jps (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Which would be ridiculous, allowing forum shopping and canvassing to generate a fake consensus (I'm not contesting that it's a possibility)... — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to explain that on the talkpage. Maybe people will listen to you. jps (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, if an uninvolved experienced admin closes the RFC, they should be able to take into consideration aspects like SPAs (or resurected inactive accounts indicating offline canvassing if any), sources, if the arguments of participants are policy-based etc... Rather than considering it a ballot (WP:VOTE).  But we already know this is the ideal, I wonder if posting a message at WP:AN when it nears completion would be a good idea to call for such uninvolved admin closure and hopefully avoid the mess of contested closures... — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that WP:AE might work too. I am thinking about proposing a topic ban for a few accounts active there. Haven't decided yet. jps (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been one of my fears that it could go up to a lengthy arbcom case like WP:ARBPS... Although that case did ultimately clarify the scope of Wikipedia in relation to pseudoscience.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the discussion about it being a WP:POVFORK and it may very well be true (I'll try to check and comment). I'd also like to point at a very related article, history of the race and intelligence controversy which has been on my personal TODO and watchlist for a while.  When I read it months ago, I found it a good read and interesting; notes that I kept to eventually revise it (and anyone is welcome to): portrayal of left-right debates (was it this simple in every case?), part(s) in relation to heteditarian Jensenism (from notes I took, claims: left-wing harassment, censorship, accusations of Marxism)...  Then there was an important part about pseudoscience used to justify racism, complaints of chilling effect and attacks against unpopular racist scientists.  Then a Jewish conspiracy theory, followed by more Jensen apologetics...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding for context: it's also historical with views that may have been valid inquiry at some point but be considered protoscience today (early psychology and psychiatry not being without controversies, this reminds me of Freud, influential enough to deserve coverage), so the context is also relevant... — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many articles which have these problems. As one example, Nations and intelligence grossly over-represents the same group of fringe academics, based on flimsy sources. As I said on that article's talk page months ago, the article says "nations" but means "race", and it ain't subtle about it. As an example, the article uses a single primary source to suggest a selective pressure that reduces g based on genetic markers. Grudging, minimal lip-service is paid to the mainstream view, but the article treats Jensen, Rushton, etc. as credible for this, which wasn't even accurate when they were alive. My take is that this content only sticks around because of filibustering on the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like a hot mess all around, we certainly should't be framing any of this as an ongoing "debate" or "controversy" in wiki voice. The whole thing relies heavily on journal articles that are essentially a big basket of opinions but don't tell us what the consensus actually is. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Related: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus. jps (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it would make sense to propose adding to WP:FRINGE the example of Scientific racism, and include a statement there such as "Beliefs in inherent differences in intelligence between groups based on race, ethnicity, or gender contradict scientific consensus and must be treated as fringe." The purpose of adding that would be to have a reference to policy guidelines that would make it easier for editors to revert attempts to use Wikipedia articles to give credence to white supremacist or male supremacist views on intelligence, without having to seek consensus each time on the fringe nature of white supremacy and male supremacy. NightHeron (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The examples part of the guideline was meant to clarify how fringe theories can be covered on Wikipedia. I think we haven't decided yet how this particular subject should be discussed on Wikipedia (as AfDs may still be in the offing). One option might be to write something like a meta-page. We did something similar at Talk:White pride and while it did not discourage the rabble from rousing, it did put an end to certain endless discussions. jps (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The actual scientific consensus is that (1) there are inherent brain differences between men and women, but their effects on intelligence or IQ are not clear at the moment; and (2) inherent intelligence differences between other groups is a hypothesis that is neither proved nor disproved. There is no consensus whatsoever that the weight of present evidence is strongly against the idea of inherent differents, or that the genetic evidence as it develops will necessarily point one way or the other.  It is an open question but the evidence to date is mostly statistical rather than detailed understanding of the brain, genetics, and cognition. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The actual scientific consensus is that race is a social construct with some limited, but inconsistent, ties to biology. The definitions of these "groups" you are talking about are poor and frequently challenged by biologists, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. Somehow these experts are not accepted as experts in the field of "racial psychometrics" or whatever the latest euphemism is, so they get ignored. This is classic pseudoscience. These racial categories are constructed based on convenience. The scientific method is applied to unscientific premises, and the results are misrepresented as meaningful. Afterwords, anyone who points out these errors can be dismissed as ignoring the "evidence". Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The scientific consensus is that race is often a social construct, but not necessarily only a social construct. It is debated whether "race" should be used as a term for the biological constructs or structure observed between human groups or populations. The correlations between race-based social constructs and actual human biological sub-populations is only in some cases 'limited', and can often be quite significant, although you are correct that the amount of correlation is inconsistent. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This "partial social construct" nonsense wasn't accurate when you said it at Talk:Racialism, and it's not accurate anywhere else, either. This comment is, however, a good example of the quantity of sock puppets and disruptive editors these topics attract. Grayfell (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I don't know what or who you are speaking on or about. Biological constructs or structure in humans is real, and 'race' has been a term to be used for that. This is fact from the foremost experts, and is accurate. You mention one there. Race takes on social identity and colloquially is imprecise, but the biological constructs which they often have correlations with are real. No one says that real, occurring human biological populations are 'social constructs'. The group differences you see are biological constructs, not social. The Fst between a Native American and an East Asian is far lower than between a Native American and a black African. That is a real biological construct, not a social one. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Academic consensus is clear that "race" is not a term that is used to distinguish biological constructs/structures in humans. It is either the mark of an inveterate racist or an ignorant person who claims otherwise. I would consider it a disqualifying position for working at this website at all per WP:CIR. Or my personal favorite policy of ban all nazis. You choose. jps (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus on that, and the term is used in many studies. There is ongoing academic discussion on the use of 'race as population' or 'race as subspecies'. I can point you to such experts and publications if you wish. Knowledge of this should be a qualifying position according to your 'CIR' policy. The rest of your comments are distasteful insults. Is that permitted? 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * race as subspecies is a talking point straight out of the Third Reich. jps (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the personal attack against me (insulting labels of other users is a personal attack, so stop that). As for 'race as subspecies' in humans, that is a terminology used by the top genetic experts themselves in the most recent literature on the debate, as is 'race as population' or other levels. I can refer you to the sources if you want. 2605:8D80:669:29A9:D46A:4209:C977:4A0C (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's highly likely that there are people contributing to this conversation from "races" some here regard as being of lower intelligence. Can anyone see the problem with not allowing direct personal attacks, but allowing comments that say some people here are dumber than others? HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion of Race and intelligence
A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see. NightHeron (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

And now at deletion review here, — Paleo Neonate  – 05:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New watchlist section
No BLPs yet there, but various articles were added in a new subsection of the skeptic's watchlist. Help welcome to add important ones I missed. — Paleo Neonate  – 18:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptic watchlists
 * Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptic watchlists

Mises Institute


More eyes, please. I removed a lot of material that was self-sourced or drawn from unreliable sources (e.g. lewrockwell.com), but I am being reverted. This is analogous to the recent situation at where much of the article was self-sourced. Happily we're now past that on the KofC article, but it looks like the Mises article might be headed for the same months-long fight. Guy (help!) 08:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t mind most marine mammals. But sea lions? I could do without sea lions.
We have a problem at and With a POV-pushing Sea Lion. Help is needed.

Told you, dude. Sea lions. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Related: Reliable sources/Noticeboard --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't even know where to start with this bollocks. I get an itchy block finger reading his comments. Guy (help!) 17:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I gave up responding. I was hoping for some help from some of the regulars here. I did give everyone involved a pseudoscience DS notice so I suppose that I could go to AE, but where is the specific policy that I can show is being violated? WP:SEALIONING is just an essay. How much do you want to bet they he makes his living doing what the Wikipedia article calls quackery and is fighting us because we are costing him money? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And now he is at Talk:Unani medicine So, what to do? RfC? ANI? AE? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Bryan Caplan


Is the inclusion of the "ideological Turing test" in the infobox of article appropriate? RfC at talk:Bryan Caplan.

RfC at talk:Bryan Caplan. Guy (help!) 13:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously UNDUE and POV, but he's a George Mason economist, why is this here?&mdash;eric 16:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard deals in tosh like this. I still think you should fix your sig. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , he's also associated with a handful of extreme libertarian think-tanks. He advocates Ayn Rand as a great philosopher. That on its own would be fringe even without the bonkers opinions on education and everything else. Guy (help!) 17:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For logical consistency you should probably label the entire GMU faculty as FRINGE. Or why not the whole public choice school? or even the chicago school? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying they all adore Ayn Rand and they all think that money is the only yardstick for measuring the worth of anything? Libertarian think-tanks tend to be fringe because they usually deny climate change - its very existence refutes their view that free markets can do no wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell if you are serious or trolling... PackMecEng (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE/PS lists 'pseudoscience', 'questionable science', and 'alternative theoretical formulations' (within the scientific community) as fringe. Do political arguments/viewpoints fall under the WP:FRINGE guideline?&mdash;eric 15:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, looking at the history more, this shouldn't have required all those reverts, a talk page section and RFC for something so obvious. Shame you had to go through all that effort for something that should have been an easy change. Where is the WP:Reasonable Editor/Noticeboard?&mdash;eric 17:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sheldan Nidle
I thought about nominating for AfD but am requesting input first. I can't access the Skeptical Inquire article (subscription needed) so am not sure of the coverage extent there, although it would still be just a skeptical source about fringe, their main topic. There are a few news article where he's just mentioned among various other people. There are only two possible indicators of notability in the article: the Randi prize (that is more like a trout, and also just a skeptic having noticed him that year) and the only coverage that's more than a mention is in Guesses, Goofs & Prophetic Failures: What to Think When the World Doesn't End (about 3 pages). Online there's a lot of self-promotion using social media as well as in-universe fringe sites mentioning him. Disclosure: I'm now a contactee, an unknown editor called my attention to the article. — Paleo Neonate  – 21:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Telepathy brought me to this section. Or was it the watchlist? Can't be sure. He writes books but they seem to be self-published or using some fringe publishers with effectively the same result. Difficult to find much beyond that. --mfb (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now at AfD here. — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You saw Ground Crew Project? Sheldan Nidle/Ground Crew Project/Planetary Activation Organization, all the same topic with brief notability in the 90's. Maybe a worth a brief mention in UFO religion or List of UFO religions, but there is this Ground Crew Project article with excessive, well-referenced detail. The current Ground Crew Project is completely non-notable. If something has to be kept it may be better to merge to Sheldan Nidle?&mdash;eric 14:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I saw it mentioned in one of the sources but I didn't know of that article yet. — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh and your concerns are probably worth commenting in the AfD, — Paleo Neonate  – 19:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't say I've read the citations yet but that other article appears to have more and better sources, so I'm now wondering if merging the bio article in it would also be a valid approach... — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I have scans of Skeptical Inquirer through volume 29 courtesy of a DVD they (used to?) sell. I updated the SI reference in the article to properly cite it and quote all the text which is relevant. Probably going to get deleted anyway but at least the AFD respondents can see what that ref said. --Krelnik (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 19:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no need for two separate articles. Ground Crew Project has a fair number of references, seems the logical merge target. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Beast of Buchan
Looking over Beast of Buchan, I've stripped most of the obvious WP:RS fails/WP:FRINGE stuff out of it (including the usual link to pirated PDFs...), but the article likely needs further looking over. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Umm...

 * File:Analysis of energetic involved areas.jpg
 * File:Schema of chakras after the session of Lovefullness.jpg
 * File:Schema of chakras prior to the session of Lovefullness.jpg

Anybody tell me what the heck I'm looking at here? I can't brain it. G M G talk  16:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Made up shite. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Jakub Tencl provided no enlightenment?&mdash;eric 16:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah. I suppose then it's safe to say that is likely a sock of . To FFD we go.   G M G  talk  16:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But you're accumulating karma for censoring vital information that could lead to the self-realization of many beings.[Humor] — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

USS Nimitz UFO incident
Hello everyone. I'm seeking advice regarding this UFO incident.

Since it has been confirmed by several reputable sources (including the U.S. Navy) and multiple eyewitness am I correct in thinking that the SKEPTIC angle should be considered fringe in this case?

The article is not very clear and a substantial section is dedicated to reporting absurd skeptic views that even contradict the official navy reports.

I've cleaned it up a little trying to give the article a slightly more balanced tone (see edit history) but there is a lot that should be done.

Also the article conflates multiple events/video releases together in multiple points. The video of this incident was released together with 2 other videos (both from a subsequent event) that have also been confirmed by the U.S. Navy. A page for the other event don't exist or if it does I cannot find it for some reason.

Opinions? Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Article doesn't seem unbalanced to me in its current state and your edits looked ok at a glance. Skepticism being in its own section lower in the article makes sense. You could take the skepticism as meaning skepticism that UFO = aliens, which is certainly not FRINGE. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Right but questioning the accuracy of the report? No source supports the statement “it was aliens” beyond speculation by the witnesses (“nothing that we have behaves like that”. Alien? Adversary? Who knows). But no reputable source questions the fact that contact was made with an ufo. (There are multiple radar visual reports, more than once, from sea and air etc. after all). A lot of focus in the article is on the chance that this could have been “human error or a tech glitch” but also given the navy’s confirmation I would reduce them significantly As FRINGE. Is my interpretation correct? Thanks—Gtoffoletto (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The overwhelming mainstream consensus is not going to be overturned by an argumentum ad verecundiam relating to a single incident. Brunton (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok I understand people here are used to being in attack mode against armies of trolls and pseudo science guys. I will try to state better my question.

I am NOT - REPEAT - NOT talking about the fact that the objects were “aliens”. No proof exists of this and no source states it other than speculation.

I’m talking of the fact that the encounter HAPPENED and was of an UNEXPLAINED aerial PHENOMENA(not hallucinations/fake/error/easily explainable as stated by “skeptics”). Since this fact seems incontrovertible given the overwhelming consensus based on the amount of proof from multiple witnesses on record/sources/technologies and official confirmation (occurring only recently). Previous marginal SKEPTICAL SPECULATION regarding the accuracy of the event should be proportionally treated. This is the point and in my understanding conforms with wp:fringe guidelines. I hope my request is more clear now(The article should separate the two topics in its treatment and I will do it if I have the time).—Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm wasn't Entropy on Beal's list? I just read the Popular Mechanics article including the text following "There are three obvious but uncanny possibilities ..." which shows how unclear it still is, although the article also says that it's unlikely to be a deliberate hoax.  This comment is related to  changes.  Probably that the skeptic impressions can remain but it would also be possible to put them in context.  Like for news reports, if new information surfaces after a skeptic's statement, they can be dated or chronological, etc.  Inline criticism is also favorable to concentrating it in a special section.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 11:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Hmm wasn't Entropy on Beal's list?" Not that I'm aware of.
 * Fun story: I've discovered that the Skeptical Inquirer's 2018 article on the incident is fundamentally flawed. Most of it's content and conclusions are invalid. Good times :-) I sent them a note (anyone have some direct contacts? Quite embarrassing for the magazine). More info here (end of thread) for those who want to join in on the fun Talk:USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident and deter me from independently researching too much O:‑) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * MDPI, who publishes Entropy, was listed on Beall's list for a while in part because of Entropy, but MDPI had a successful appeal. However, reviewing standards are lax at both Entropy and MDPI. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely not an immaculate record but seems a bit of a blanket statement given that they publish a lot of journals: List of MDPI academic journals. Entropy appears to be associated with one controversial paper from 2013. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, when they publish credulity about UFOs like this, it's not hard for us to request that a paper with zero citations published by them shouldn't be considered worthy of Wikipedia's attention. jps (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but this is a journal which is apparently interested in the fields of 'entropy' and 'information theory'. Ufology makes as much sense to cover in that journal as sperm whale reproductive methods. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Nota bene I have reverted for WP:POVPUSHing on this article. If this sort of thing keeps up, I suggest asking for sanctions at WP:AE. jps (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident&type=revision&diff=940940772&oldid=940920696 You have reverted 20 edits that have been sourced and thoroughly discussed/are being discussed. This diff is a disgrace and edit warring. Your edits are masking several revers of other previous edits (to avoid blatantly braking the 3 revert rule I am sure). This is unacceptable. I am the one that asked for a source check in the discussion of the article for that source. It's from a reputable peer reviewed journal as we are discussing here and in the talk page. I am reverting your edit and will gladly turn myself in WP:AE myself. What a disgrace. Behaviour like this is worst stain on the great project that wikipedia is. Can somebody else involved in the discussion chime in please? Any admins watching this?! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit was so indiscriminate that you even removed the entire section including the Skeptical Inquirer's 2018 article. What a sloppy and lazy edit. A totally unjustified personal attack. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't think you should be editing articles related to UFOs. You don't seem to understand the issues related to WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * However, I thank you for pointing out that a well-sourced paragraph that was inadvertently removed should have probably remained. I restored it! Hugs and kisses! jps (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored it myself actually as there was a lengthy discussion regarding it which you have ignorantly missed.Several other editors have reviewed (per my request) my edits as you can see above and have deemed them satisfactory. Then you arrive and decide for yourself? Ever heard of WP:CON and WP:CIVIL? Rather more basic concepts than FRINGE I agree but maybe you should refresh on them a little. What manners and self entitlement my gosh --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is in a great state right now! If you have anything you think needs to be changed, I am open to reading your carefully explained and well-sourced suggestions. See you at the talkpage. jps (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You destroy the careful work by me and all the other editors. Write trollish and childish edit summaries. And ignore several ongoing discussions. Yet I should be the one to explain your ignorance? Is this what makes you feel powerful? I will just ask for a other opinions on you revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident&type=revision&diff=940944267&oldid=940944190 (you even called the "skeptical views" section "mainstream". What the hell is that even supposed to mean...) cc PaleoNeonate DIYeditor Headbomb --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

you even called the "skeptical views" section "mainstream". What the hell is that even supposed to mean... I'm glad you asked. jps (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that the section in question isn't limited to the views of avowed skeptics; it contains many relevant technical experts and academics with no connection to organized skepticism, so labeling it as "skeptical views" was a misleading description. WRT what are considered "mainstream" views, Wikipedia doesn't shift that definition in response to sudden media flaps and hyperbolic publicity surrounding reported UFOs. In the case of ufology, we can only mirror the bulk of scholarly opinion on the subject, which hasn't changed in any significant way in the last 20 or 30 years. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm really sorry guys: white flag. I tried to engage and be reasonable but the behaviour of a small(?) "gang" within this group stifles all attempts at discussion and constructive editing. The result has been blind reverts eliminating all contributions indiscriminately. Wikipedia should be a positive environment. Yet I've never had a more exhausting and frustrating experience editing on Wikipedia in more than 10 years and was forced to file my first ever admin report for edit warring. I'm not sure if anything will come out of it but the approach you have with new contributors in the space is completely unhinged and not WP:CIVIL. You accused me of being a tin foil hatter (which I am absolutely not). Then you accused one contributor I was having a constructive discussion with of being one himself (User:Keldoo). It's deranged. I'm sure you come from the best of intentions (fighting hordes of lunatics probably forged those behaviours) but you have lost sight of the goal here and I really believe you are damaging Wikipedia as a result. I'm sorry about this and worry this is not the first time someone gives up on editing the pages you preside over. The discussions of the last week have been a waste for all of us. I really think simply reverting ONLY when ABSOLUTELY necessary would have saved us a lot of useless fighting and helped us reach consensus. But few of you seem to believe it should even be taken into account (one admin even pointedly asked me if I was aware that ROWN is "just" an essay). I hope you take this into account in the future when you come across the edits of other contributors. Maybe our discussion will not be for nothing after all. Cheers! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you expect when you come to the fringe theories noticeboard saying UFO skepticism is fringe? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Albert Ostman
The Albert Ostman appears to have quite a few fringe sources supporting it. While performing a sweep of fringe sources through Wikipedia today, I noticed that there appears to be a lot more there than I currently have time to dig through. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * some cleanup, looking for Napier 1973 or the like before removing the fringe refs.&mdash;eric 18:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly peer review and suppression of dissent
I was on a rs? tagging spree in relation to Journal of Scientific Exploration / Society for Scientific Exploration (not done yet) and voiced a concern at that talk page after tagging some sources. I didn't delete the material and there was at least one other supporting citation that I didn't tag, so possibly there's still merit for a mention in some form. Since it's relevant to this noticeboard I thought I'd ask other editors to evaluate and/or improve. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 10:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Past RSN discussions of the JSE: Maybe if the author is Alice Kehoe we could use it but only with attribution, I'm not sure.  Doug Weller  talk 16:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes agree that it is generally unreliable and that it then depends on the author and topic (it becomes usable for the author's opinion when due). I didn't specify it above, but the two sources I tagged at the "Scholarly peer review" article on dissent are from Martin.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: tagging over (including sometimes specifying that the journal caters to pseudoscience when an article mentioned that an author was publishing in it without criticism). I noticed that some of the sources were scientifically skeptical, some from Bauer and a few others. A number of others were to support ideas about reincarnation or UFOs, etc. In case anyone is interested, here are links to some articles I noticed that may be promotional: Satwant Pasricha, Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect, Reincarnation and Biology, Dirk Schulze-Makuch, Neurognosis (all sources by a single author). — Paleo Neonate  – 03:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And about the above article, considering the lack of response on its talk page or here, I boldly removed three questionable sources (also one from Independent Institute) and consider this solved unless it's reverted, — Paleo Neonate  – 05:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tagged Neurognosis with a stack of templates and will try to find the time to evaluate the others. It looks like Reincarnation and Biology is puffed up with references to book reviews in journals that aren't actually reliable. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I now noticed that Biogenetic structuralism was once at AfD (discussion) with consensus to merge/redirect to Charles Laughlin. This could also be a solution here, unless it gained more attention than Biogenetic structuralism.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

AATIP
Some work being done on. This combined fringe physics, UFOs, and government pork barrel projects. What fun. I also cannot believe it, but apparently I agree with Donald Trump about this whole thing.

Wow.

jps (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Related ANI thread. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Shen Yun
Back in the states for a bit recently, I noticed absolutely relentless ads promoting Shen Yun. For those of you have not yet been pummeled by their ads or have yet to enounter an expose about the group: In short, like the ultra-right wing and relentlessly pro-Trump Epoch Times (cf. New York Times, New Republic, etc.), Shen Yun is essentially a propaganda arm of the Falun Gong. Shen Yun espouses the group's usual anti-evolution, anti-atheist, and anti-communism (and anti-socialist, more broadly) views, as well as presents a, well, creative interpretation of Chinese history and culture (Here's fairly recent and very high profile expose from the New Yorker).

I've just made some modifications to our Shen Yun article, but it needs far more eyes, particularly given the extreme lengths that the organization appears to be willing to go to promote itself and its fringe views. The article badly needs a solid vetting of its sources and its presentation, at the very least. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the WP:FRINGE aspect? They can dance anti-whatever the hell they want to off WP. I don't see any anti-evolution arguments, for instance, in the article.&mdash;eric 04:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, from the article:
 * Li has been open about his beliefs that evolution is fraudulent, that people of different races will be separated in Heaven, and that homosexuality and promiscuity are unnatural. He told Time that aliens were attempting to control humans by making us dependent on modern science.
 * Yep, aliens. Just search the article for "evolution", etc, and there are plenty more where that came from. Shen Yun promotes the fringe beliefs of the Falun Gong, along with the Epoch Times. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And claims he can walk through walls. A bit of equivocation tho to apply WP:Fringe theories to fringe belief and opinion. I see one edit from 2007 arb case claiming medical benefits that would be WP:FRINGE, if there was argument in the article claiming truth for any of those beliefs it would be WP:FRINGE. Arguing their creative interpretation of Chinese history and culture in the article seems the most likely problem that could apply, but I see none of that. Ensuring the opinions and beliefs of the group are accurately described with due weight looks like a matter for WP:NPOVN.&mdash;eric 15:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem as I see it is one of framing which does touch on fringe theory issues. Is Shen Yun most famous for its Falun Gong connection or is it more notable for the aggressive advertising they engage which intentionally and without shame downplays the Falun Gong/Falun Dafa connections? Our lede right now puts the company line as the first paragraph before descending into "the actual story" in the second paragraph which, intentionally or otherwise, ends up serving the same problem as WP:CRITS in articles where all the verifiable revelations are buried lower down in hopes that readers or content scrapers just get the PR version at the top. jps (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Manna
Hi fellows. Synce yesterday I am struggling with someone that compares Manna with Bread fruit. This sounds very fringe. The editor insists to put a blogpost that I suspect is published by the same person that edited the article, but now I'm afraid of WP:3RR. Some help is welcomed. Ixocactus (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not exactly WP:FRINGE but primarily a WP:COI issue, as the editor adding the cite has the same name as the author and even offers details of his writing methodology in his edit summary. I see it has been reverted, but if the problems continue, you might drop a note at WP:COIN. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Noticed that every edit made by this user has been to promote themselves, so dropped my own note at WP:COIN. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Scale relativity
The article Scale relativity is pretty amazingly bad. It is entirely an advertisement for a fringe theory that barely anyone has even paid attention to as such. The explanations of actual science are terrible, most of the references are to the inventor himself, the claims of what it explains are impossibly wide-ranging and grandiose, and the few criticisms aren't even reported properly. I'd suggest burning it to the ground, but it survived AfD in 2008 after what strikes me as a very superficial discussion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems that in that AfD, other than a keep by a SPA and another by a banned user (who complained about orthodoxy), John Z's keep was persuasive with various other regulars also voting keep yet without explaining in detail. I also noticed that Nottale is cited at fractal cosmology.  Is International Journal of Modern Physics peer reviewed (I've seen conflicting information on its publisher, World Scientific)?  Fractal Space-time and Microphysics is probably in-universe...  I couldn't find the source for it, but his article says that he is/was director of French National Centre for Scientific Research.  Likely notable if so (and especially so if professor, but I'm not sure for scale relativity yet).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ... And fractal cosmology is yet another article that needs work... — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, IJMP is peer-reviewed, but I haven't been able to find any indication of serious follow-up on Nottale's paper by anyone else. And throwing together the words "fractal" and "cosmology" could mean any one of many different things, with varying levels of respectability. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, a major 2015 rewrite was also published as an essay on academia.edu with "thanks to Laurent Nottale for many corrections and clarifications." –dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So many statements in that betray a lack of actual familiarity with science or mathematics. Searching for the most important paths relevant for quantum particles, Feynman noticed that such paths were very irregular on small scales, i.e. infinite and non-differentiable. No, the path integral isn't about finding the "most important paths", and the idea that typical paths are non-differentiable goes back to Brownian motion. This means that in between two points, a particle can have not one path, but an infinity of potential paths. This is trivially true for any two points in a plane. The principle of relativity says that physical laws should be valid in all coordinate systems. No, it doesn't. This principle has been applied to states of position (the origin and orientation of axes), as well as to the states of movement of coordinate systems (speed, acceleration). Acceleration is not inertial motion. And so on.
 * Then come the "applications" to biology, geography, the technological singularity... XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nottale was a director at CNRS, but "director" (as opposed to "director general") means the leader of a research unit, of which there are about a thousand. It's comparable to "principal investigator" in significance.
 * Because I hate myself, I read the paper where he claims to derive the Schrödinger equation. It was about what anyone familiar with fringe physics would expect: unclear writing covering up unclear thinking (deliberately or not). The closest approach to a substantial point was that, if you throw imaginary numbers into a diffusion equation, you'll get something that looks like the Schrödinger equation. This is well-known, and others have done a better and more careful job of the analogy. (To pick an example that springs to mind, Risken's textbook on the Fokker–Planck equation does a good job adapting techniques from quantum physics to solve diffusion problems.) It's almost too vacuous to criticize. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I tried to clean the thing up all those years ago. The rabble just wouldn't let me. Maybe the time is now to try again. jps (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely fringe and very self-congratulatory (some of the promotion has been removed since this discussion started, thanks for that)... — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My first impression is that the AfD got it right, and this is a notable subject (that is in need of a complete rewrite). Methinks stubbify and start over? VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see a very good case for wiki-notability. I mean, the physics literature contains over 2.4 million papers, so it does take a little work to stand out. All we've got here is self-promotion, some fannish interest, occasional brushes with nominal respectability in marginal journals, a negative book review, and a withering post on Physics Overflow. It's the sort of thing that there's almost no critique of, because there's virtually nothing substantial to critique, so only a very few even take the time to bother. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Per, I stubbified the page. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: the article's main creator has reverted the stubbification and been reverted in turn. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Interpersonal Neurobiology
New article; the topic may well be wiki-notable, but it's definitely written from an enthusiast's POV, and I'm concerned about the quality of the sourcing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It was written as part of some a WP:Education course. User:Picklewik is the author. Cross-posting this to Education_noticeboard may be advisable. jps (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm writing about interpersonal neurobiology for university. It's unfinished as I have many more references/sources I need to add, as well as sub topics on 'relationships' 'integration' 'Development/attachment' and 'applications for clinicians and patients'. All my sources (other than two websites) are respectable journal articles I'm trying to improve on the inclusion of many more to make this a verifiable topic. I apologise if it sounds enthusiastic as I'm trying to get used to a neutral point of view :) Picklewik (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of what you wrote was problematic. There is absolutely no consensus for the kind of dualism (or even Triangle!) that is being argued by Siegel. It is important, then, that we only write such articles as (a) the attributed opinions of the proponents, and (b) keeping in mind WP:FRIND when we include content. The journals you are using are of middling to fair quality in general. Part of the problem is that this idea is really developed by only a few people and does not seem to have received a lot of notice outside. To really establish that this is worth writing for Wikipedia, you would be advised to seek out more critical sources because there is a lot of what you wrote that may be the beliefs of those who are into IPNB, but the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of these things is quite different. jps (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips, I'll source more critical mainstream articles and hopefully make it more neutral + valid Picklewik (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The user has added quite a bit of content which may need to be checked for compliance with our WP:PAGs. . I began the process of neutralizing some of the more arguable points that were asserted in Wikipedia's voice: . jps (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Repressed memory


Recent edits by a new WP:SPA look distinctly fringe to me, but I am not an expert on this. Guy (help!) 08:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I replied to their concerns at the article talk page and it seems that they have moved on for now, — Paleo Neonate  – 06:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Raman Kapur
As this article appears to have been written by a believer, it's impossible to tell that acupuncture is bollocks. Guy (help!) 22:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The nation's 4th highest civilian award does not seem to be enough for notability. One of 71 to receive the award that year.&mdash;eric 23:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , someone creates articles for absolutely every recipient of that award at any level. There are thousands of these articles, usually with crappy sourcing. Guy (help!) 07:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

List of fringe websites
Was looking at Institute for Historical Review links and started playing around with quarry. Anyone got a list of fringe websites that should not be linked to except for maybe a few whitelist entries?&mdash;eric 18:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * personal greylist. fiveby (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of RfC on Indigenous Aryans
I am bringing attention to the Request for Comment going on in the Talk page of the Indigenous Aryans article. The topic of the RfC is:

Should the article say in the lede that the Indigenous Aryans / Out of India theory is a fringe theory as in the suggestion below?

(The suggested wording is available at the Request for Comment.) BirdValiant (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience-focused WikiProjects outside of WikiProject Cryptozoology?
Per the recommendations of users on this board, I've joined WikiProject Cryptozoology and started converting it from a pro-pseudoscience organizational platform into a means of covering the pseudoscience from an objective, academically-minded point of view. I am now wondering if there are any other pseudoscience-focused WikiProjects out there that I don't know of? I assume there has never been a WikiProject Young Earth Creationism or a WikiProject Flat Earth Theory, correct? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Alternative Views, WikiProject Paranormal were the most active. WikiProject Intelligent Design never was very active and was dominated by the WP:MAINSTREAM evaluators for the most part. jps (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And WikiProject Alternative medicine — Paleo Neonate  – 06:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought there was an osteo or such WP but I couldn't find it. — Paleo Neonate  – 06:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Astrology — Paleo Neonate  – 06:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! If ever there was an RfC to shut all these false-balance projects down, I would support it. Crossroads -talk- 07:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there was way back in the day (I don't really have the patience to go searching for it). The general consensus was that they weren't promoting particular points-of-view, instead they were just to handle content that was relevant to those points of view. Similar to the political WikiProjects, for example. They encouraged people who thought that there were false balance issues to join the projects. In practice, these projects (as most) are pretty moribund. jps (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes they are indeed supposed to serve for organization and editors are expected to follow policies. So the other one I was thinking of wasn't osteo, but WikiProject Chiropractic, finally.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of Astrology, is identifying many of the articles related to Hindu astrology, many of which have a completely in-world perspective. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't find old talk about deleting these type of projects....but most years ago noticed that the projects aren't a haven for fringe theorist but a place were neutrality an article organization was discussed. Many also though it would be a good idea to keep track of fringe editors... but as I mentioned above that wasn't the case.-- Moxy 🍁 01:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliability status of "skeptics"?
I'm encountering a huge emphasis on "skeptic" Benjamin Radford's opinions and commentary on the folklore topic Ogopogo, so much so that it entirely dominates the article. Radford appears to have no training whatsoever in folklore studies (eg. he is not a folklorist or any other kind of anthropologist), and Radford appears to be making a lot of ungrounded claims about "sightings" of what is otherwise a typical sea monster motif (eg. Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, etc.). What is the WP:RS status of the WP:RS status for so-called "skeptics" on fringe topics? It seems to me that swapping one non-expert opinion out for another results in more problems, and implies a false dichotomy of "believer" versus "skeptic", which is not at all how experts in anthropology handle these topics. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's largely a question of WP:PARITY. It sounds like you have a much better set of academic sources which would prove more reliable than all the skeptic (and cryptozoological) sources available. It is fine to excise all discussion or at least shunt it off to better environs per WP:WEIGHT. jps (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a mixed bag review of Lake Monster Mysteries in Western Folklore. That's not the only Radford source used in the article, but does speak to his methods. "no more than an old-fashioned monster hunt,...closer to Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark than to a scholarly treatment..." It does give a nod to an "an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon from historic and folkloric perspectives" for the Ogopogo chapter only, but not any of the skeptical theorizing. A pretty harsh review actually. I would cut that whole section. fiveby (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Radford is a professional investigator of paranormal and other bullshit claims. He's one of the most prominent in the field. Guy (help!) 19:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * : Odd that you put skeptic in quotes. I’m sensing an agenda. Radford is an expert on matters such as this. BTW, he literally wrote the book on the Chupacabra and so I’m wondering if next you are going to try to remove his citations from that article? RobP (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Bloodofox, certainly no friend of cryptozoology, is rightly pointing out that while Radford is an expert in debunking pseudoscientific and credulous claims of cryptozoology, we might be better suited (and I believe Radford himself would likely also be perfectly okay with an approach of) excising all or nearly all mention of cryptozoology from articles that really should be about the folklore. In many instances, the cryptozoologists have WP:SENSATIONALized these stories for their own agendas and TV shows, and while Radford does the patient work of showing how those cryptozoologists are problematic, there is an entire literature being obscured on the literary and cultural context of these folktales. As it is, there is a legitimate approach we can take here which is to completely downplay cryptozoological claims altogether. I tend to agree that making cryptozoology the feature of articles about folkloric monsters is skewing the most prominent aspects of the topics whether we spend most of the time on skeptical debunking or the credulous monster hunters. We could make small mention of them if we must, but to have Radford's skeptical musings and takedowns be the primary focus of an article such as the one metioned in the OP is not doing our reader the service of presenting the best scholarship on the folklore aspect of the stories rather than any claims that these stories are meant to be literally describing extant organisms at all. jps (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

What Darwin Got Wrong
May possibly give too much weight to Jerry Fodor philosopher & co arguments based on the book itself... — Paleo Neonate  – 06:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confused; what is your concern? Since the book is written by Jerry Fodor, our article about the book is obviously going to summarise his views; that we summarize the thesis of a book doesn't mean we endorse its arguments. (The spandrel theory may not have universal acceptance, but it's certainly not by any stretch a fringe view.) &#8209; Iridescent 07:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There were a number of critics who argued that the book preferenced fringe arguments in perhaps a crypto-creationist fashion. It makes it difficult to know exactly how to summarize the piece since a lot of these arguments are ones that may feature in certain philosophical circles while being ignored by the biological community. I don't know what the right way forward is necessarily in that. The article seems to delve a bit more into the content of the book in areas where it hasn't received a whole lot of notice in the relevant epistemic communities (if you believe that biology is the relevant epistemic community, for example). jps (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's a minority view, but minority doesn't necessarily equate to fringe; "not every trait is necessarily the product of selection for that trait" isn't up there with "animals were genetically engineered by Annunaki space lizards". (Even if the book were espousing the fringiest of fringe theories, it still doesn't violate WP:FRINGE to explain what the author believes and what their argument is, provided we're not saying in Wikipedia's voice that we actually their claim. We have articles on outright whackadoodle books like Where Troy Once Stood, The New Pearl Harbor and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail; it still doesn't violate WP:FRINGE to neutrally say "this is what this author believes, this is their supposed evidence, these are the reasons their theory doesn't have wider acceptance".) &#8209; Iridescent 13:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We are tasked to follow WP:NFRINGE inasmuch as an idea has received notice from a relevant community. A lovingly detailed summary can stray into WP:SOAP territory. I'm not saying, necessarily, that this is what is happening here, but in general if only certain aspects of a book have been noticed it may not be a good idea to summarize the book in as great detail as one might summarize some book like A Brief History of Time, for example. WP:NPOV sometimes means not discussing ideas which haven't been noticed. jps (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we include the criticisms. If the academic community have ignored it talk to them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It does include the criticisms? I'm really not seeing what the issue is here. &#8209; Iridescent 14:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not either thats my point.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible that I was wrong, thanks for looking at it. It's true that if not considered blatantly fringe, primary sources are often left more space, even if generally, independent sources are preferred.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC
 * It's possible that I was wrong, thanks for looking at it. It's true that if not considered blatantly fringe, primary sources are often left more space, even if generally, independent sources are preferred.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC

Tired light

 * Someone thinks is "not psuedoscience". --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I skimmed the talk page and it seems that banned user has been responsible for disruption there for years, including under various IPs. This IP is almost certainly him; see this SPI. Also, given the history of this banned user coming back as shifting IPs, might be worthwhile to try to get it semiprotected indefinitely. I see the user has been messing around at Taj Mahal too. Crossroads -talk- 00:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads -talk- 00:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reported the IP to SPI. It is amazing that this has been going on for more than a decade. jps (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IP is now blocked for 3 months, and article semiprotected for 3 years. Crossroads -talk- 06:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Bob Lazar, Whistleblower?


I always assumed the term whistleblower applied to someone who brought forth information that is based in reality, rather than claims of government conspiracy to cover up involvement with aliens. Maybe I'm wrong? Lazar has been lately promoted as a whistleblower in conjunction with recent media appearances. And some media outlets covering the PR campaign have used the word as a hook, albeit in scare quotes. So now (perhaps in a spate of WP:RECENTISM), it has been inserted into the lead sentence of our article, replacing a much more encyclopedic lead sentence. This has triggered an ongoing edit war with people retaliating by adding the word "criminal" to the first sentence, ostensibly to describe Lazar's various legal troubles. And, there are other recent WP:FRINGE problems: Maybe someone with WP:BLP experience can help sort it out. In any case, more eyes needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Rebuttals to criticism
 * Removal of criticism
 * Addition of fringe POV
 * I agree more eyes are needed. The article is in pitiful conditions. There have been several reverts on this page in the last couple of days. If someone new arrives decides to contribute could we please ask that you read the discussion and WP:ROWN. Thanks! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You’re the problem. Note diffs above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the WP:PA. We have discussed every single edit to the page and have already sorted them out in the discussion. When you have (legitimately) attacked my sources I have looked for alternative ones and when none are available I have removed the content. You are engaging in a revert war against my good faith edits and attacking me personally. You state "This has triggered an ongoing edit war with people retaliating by adding the word "criminal" to the first sentence" yet you are the one that keeps reverting and reintroducing this term in the first sentence. I am wasting my time with this useless discussion and the work that has been done on the page is being lost. So as I said before: I Agree more eyes are needed and would invite people with more experience to join the discussion in the talk page and to DISCUSS instead of just REVERT. cc User:Bishonen --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. You started out simply making edits and reverts without any Talk page discussion at all:, , , . When you finally posted on the Talk page, it was in an old section . And your edits since then have pretty clearly been in support of a pro-Lazar POV. And I don't see any support for them from other editors, only disagreement. So I suggest you try to get WP:CONSENSUS for any changes you want to make. Since you ask, I don't think it's useful to say "(he) is a criminal" in the article lead (there are much better and WP:BLP-appropriate ways to summarize such article content, such as "Lazar was convicted of X in 19XX, and Y in 19XX", for example). Neither do I think "whistleblower" is appropriate or useful. The first only attracts Lazar fanboys come to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The second is only a term recently introduced as part of a publicity campaign for Lazar's videos and podcasts, and smacks of WP:RECENTISM. I would prefer a much more encyclopedic lead as previously existed. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I started out simply editing the page as I thought it was appropriate to do so. It was a casual edit and you identified it as problematic (which I agree it was as it was an unreliable mirror of a reputable primary source). I don't agree with your handling (you reverted it while we could have found together a better source) but I accepted it and improved the sourcing thanking you for the help. The same happened with subsequent edits by another editor which we discussed and we reached consensus on how to treat it. After this process all of this work has been wasted by sloppy reverts which definitely do not assume WP:GOODFAITH such as your attacks on my personal opinions which are irrelevant. Don't attack me personally but help me improve my contributions please. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * p.s. Please continue the discussion in the article talk page on the specific edits indicated in the diff of your revert so we can reach some kind of consensus. Attacking each other here is useless. Thanks! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The word "whistleblower" has floated in and out of Lazar's article. I, perhaps ill-advisedly, added "supposed whistleblower" and "convicted criminal" to the lede for the sake of having descriptors (he was previously described only as an "American"). I'm not particularity passionate about retaining my additions. Keldoo (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a hard one. I rather think of all the alternatives I can wrap my head around, "supposed whistleblower and convicted criminal" is pretty good. conspiracy theorist might also work, but he is less of a conspiracy theorist and more of a con-man. Anyway, we would need a source for this, but I imagine we could probably pretty easily find one. I think fabulist might also be appropriate, but I'm not sure we could find a source for that. It also seems pretty clear to me that reliable sources identify Lazar as a charlatan as he uses his fame to enrich himself, but that's going to be even harder to source. We might be able to say something WP:NPOV such as "ufology personality famous for promoting conspiracy theories" or something. jps (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think UFO conspiracy theorist is the best holding category. I've implemented the change: . Enjoy! jps (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theorist seems closest. You can't blow the whistle on shit that didn't happen. Guy (help!) 23:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Da Vinci Globe
Thought to be the moon, now said to be the world. Probably not fringe, but then why publish through Cambridge Scholars Press/Publishing and a SCIRP open access journal? Side question, I thought we didn't allow copyright tags on images such as the one at Early world maps? And although File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png says ©  Stefaan Missinne it also says own work by the editor adding it,  who created the article on the globe. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * lots of work needed WP:SELFPUB by Missinne, shouldn't be the only source, especially since there were a lot of questions back in 2013. fiveby (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * this The ostrich egg globe is since 2018 internationally accepted as the Da Vinci Globe from Hunt–Lenox Globe added by is telling. I cannot find a copy of the The Portolan Journal article, and it's not very comforting how the Washington Map Society is pushing this on their site. Everything in that article should be "according to Missinne..." Reliability and POV issues, possible copyright and COI, WP:TNT is probably the best option.fiveby (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No response to my question as to whether they have a COI. Doug Weller  talk 10:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there was such an article in the Portolan Journal. Here's his 2019 Advances in Historical Studies paper.. He's frequently referred to as Professor, eg and his Cambridge Scholars' page which also says "He is Laureate of the Prince Albert Foundation and Managing Director of the Ginkgo GmbH." But not on his Researchgate page= Note that this must be his Linkin site as it also mentions {Ginkgo Projektentwicklungs- und real.} which is here. - seems to be a real estate and project development company of some sort.  His Laureate of the Prince Albert Foundation comes through this process where he had to "manage a one-year business project for a Belgian company outside Europe".  Doug Weller  talk 11:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No doubt there was an Portolan Journal article, it kicked off a wave of news stories, but also skepticism. From the WaPo article: Chet van Duzer "Where this thing comes from needs to be clarified", “It is an exciting discovery, no question, but I also think that more testing should be done.”, link to Da Vinci "tenuous in the extreme". John W Hessler "a couple red flags that popped up", "the Leonardo connection is pure nonsense." scholar doesn't show much independent review, for what that is worth. Since 2013 all we have is the self published book by Missinne, and the mostly negative review in Maps in History linked above, yet WP is making a bunch of unqualified claims about the globe. fiveby (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see a copyvio issue raised at Talk:Da Vinci Globe where I've also posted. I've cleaned up the other articles. I need to go to COIN also. The CT scan at File:Counterweight Da Vinci Globe.jpg is the scanner's property, isn't it? And that's copyright to Missinne but uploaded by DavidGuam. And how can the photo at File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png be copyright to Missinne but Guam's own work? Or File:Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg? Doug Weller  talk 14:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now reported at WP:COIN. Doug Weller  talk 14:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But if it's ignored by the academic community? And most of the article is from the book, User:Davidguam, who has twice removed the maintenance templates, tells me on my talk page "Hi Doug, I have an academic relationship with Stefaan Missinne and and I asked for his copyright for this wikipedia article and he accepted. how can i solve the many problems i seem to have ?" I haven't had time to reply. The basic issue is that this has not been even discussed by the academic community and is published in unreliable sources. Doug Weller  talk 17:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It is discussed by the academic world @ Doug Weller: On May 31st at the Faculty of Geography at the University of Barcelona: On August 28th at the International Conference organised by the Royal Geographical Society in London On October 31th at the International Conference organised by the University Library of Straßburg in France. On October 31st at the international academic and cultural center Spui25 in Amsterdam: on November 20th at the Academy Petrarca in Arezzo,Tuscany. on November 21st, at the University of Florence On December 5h 2019, Rome, at the International Conference on Travels and Modernity at the University ROMA III. On February 18th 2020, Vienna. Austrian Academy of Sciences, organised by the Friends of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
 * None of those meets Wikipedia's sourcing standards. Blogs, personal web pages, predatory publishers and the like. Guy (help!) 20:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

ThetaHealing
The usual. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels, fossil fuel industry funding, and climate change "skepticism"
A New York Times article on Youtube's systemic promotion of fringe theories is making the rounds today (Nicas, Jack. 2020. "Can YouTube Quiet Its Conspiracy Theorists?" March 2, 2020. The New York Times.). One of the figures it mentions is Patrick Michaels, a fossil-industry funded climate "skeptic", which Youtube's algorithms promote to users. Michaels's page does not make the fact that he is a fringe proponent explicit, which further serves Google's promotion of his views on YouTube. Michaels's article could use a lot more eyes from users from this board. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Section "Michaels and Balling complaint against Star Tribune upheld" should probably go as undue, only reference a primary source, unless more can be found. Same in Robert Balling. fiveby (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When someone writes an opinion piece for say The Washington Times, I do not think it is appropriate to quote from in a WP article unless there are other reliable sources which discuss that opinion and include similar quotations. Even if they are clearly the views of the article's subject, it gives their views undue importance. In this case the source of the opinion is a marginal source and considered partisan in WP:RSP and fringe material. Should also go if no other sources than Cato and the original opinion piece cannot be found. fiveby (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I found three good sources for his fossil industry funding. Guy (help!) 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed, did he start off publishing the fringe theory and then get fossil industry funding, or did he get the fossil industry funding and then publish the fringe theory? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know if the sources say. It's pretty clear that he's been receiving oil money since before the last IPCC report, so it's not easy to pick apart whether he's the last of the unconvinced or whether this is a case of Upton Sinclair's famous aphorism. Probably a bit of both.
 * Update: I just thought to look in merchants of Doubt. He's been working with Fred Singer since 1991, originally denying the scientific consensus on ozone depletion, then morphing into climate change denial. He called cap and trade "Obamunism" - he's obviously a hard libertarian and he appears, from what I can findm, to be taking the money mainly because he's unemployable in his original job by now due to science denial. Ironic really: climate change denial is vastly more lucrative than what he did before. Guy (help!) 23:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Protect the Harvest
This appears to be an agribusiness front group, and the article is not great. It could do with some help from anyone who is familiar with its areas of public debate, notably wild horse slaughter. I cut out some stuff that basically looked like both sides lobbing bricks at each other - a neutral description of its actual position would be appreciated. Guy (help!) 13:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence. Levivich&thinsp;[ dubious – discuss] 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Bioscience Resource Project


There's some evidence of COI editing at this article on an anti-science science group. The Controversies section seems designed to frame them as valued experts in their chosen fields, and I suspect cherry-picking. Is anyone familiar with this group? Guy (help!) 12:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I just cut that section out. It is indeed clearly meant to promote this group's biology denial and anti-GMO nonsense. Maybe AfD for the article? Crossroads -talk- 14:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I could easily be persuaded. Like so many of these faux-watchdog groups, they appear to be bankrolled by Big Organic. But since I can't find RS for that it may indicate that the entire thing is, as you say, not notable. Guy (help!) 10:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Georges Lakhovsky


Quack bio. No sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Worth looking for reliable sources, he's in The Secret Life of Plants for instance, and healing machine results all over in google. Would be nice to have something debunking but i'm finding nothing so far. Best fr:Georges Lakhovsky has is this with one brief mention. fiveby (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that around 2010 the article was shorter too and denounced quackery (Special:Permalink/360046071). — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Ball lightning
Much of the obvious insanity was removed from this article years ago, but recently some questions were asked on the talk page as to whether it's still too credulous.

Is ball lightning a "Unexplained" phenomena? A "supposed" phenomena? Or perhaps just category of potentially related observations?

This thread might be of interest to people here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ball_lightning#Not_science

ApLundell (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Observed but not explained. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC).
 * Funny how the article lists 12 scientific explanations for something that is "unexplained". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is that funny? Just several competing theories, none yet accepted. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC).
 * Because "unexplained" means there are 0 explanations, not that there are 12 possible explanations. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Addition: When people say "there is no scientific explanation", most of the time, they mean "there is a scientific explanation, but I don't like it". Or, as in this case, "there are many scientific explanations, but I don't like any of them". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, an encyclopedia shouldn't indulge creepypasta fans looking for entertainment . - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A theory, even if it may later turn out to be correct, isn't the same as an explanation accepted by the scientific community. ApLundell (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody said it was. Instead, people said other things, and you can actually read what they said, if you want. "Unexplained" ist just the wrong word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I must add that ”Unexplained” is a poor synonym for “no single hypothesis agreed upon by a majority of experts in the relevant scientific community”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It literally means that. That's kind of a basic truth of Fringe. ApLundell (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is even clear that ball lightning really is a coherent single phenomenon. It is often invoked in discussions of UFOs, but unlike explanations such as Saint Elmo's Fire and Fata Morgana, there is no one agreed upon description of the supposed phenomenon. Is lightning sometimes in different shapes? Can balls of plasma form in our atmosphere? I don't think there are clear binary answers to these questions that cover everything our article is currently discussing. That typically indicates an area that is "unexplained" if perhaps not altogether "mysterious". jps (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine hesitancy
Is this oddly named article covered by the Fringe and alternative medicine sanctions? I haven't found any anti-vac talk pages with notices. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * would have thought so.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is not "oddly named"; it is the name used for this phenomenon by the World Health Organization (see, e.g., "Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy - A systematic review (October 2014)") and by professionals in the field (see, e.g., "Journal of Vaccine Special Issue on Vaccine Hesitancy". The term addresses that fact that the largest body of non-vaccinating parents are not those who are actively opposed to vaccination, but those who hesitate because they are confused by the competing claims for or against vaccines. BD2412  T 17:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ... and yes, it falls squarely into "fringe" -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well hesitancy is real, but based on fringe/quack ideas. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would say that yes it is covered. The title the result of a move from "vaccine controversies" a year ago (by me). That was motivated by the ambiguity between scientific controversy (which basically doesn't exist around vaccines) and a ginned-up manufactroversy motivated by a priori rejection of immunisation.
 * It's not necessarily the best title, but it has the advantage of being the one the WHO use. Guy (help!) 10:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's covered by those sanctions. Vaccine hesitancy is based on debunked pseudoscientific and anti-science views. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of this thread: where while there indeed is pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and harmful media influence (so I agree that WP:FRINGE applies and that it's a sensitive article), there also are other interesting reasons some people may fear vaccination.  Of course, epidemiology established that vaccines have a positive effect on populations against disease.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Naomi Seibt - RfC on synonyms for climate change denial


RfC at Talk:Naomi Seibt proposing to use her self-identification as a "climate change skeptic" or "climate change realist" rather than "climate change denier". Guy (help!) 11:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely unneutral invite. Sources call her climate change skeptic, she identify as climate change realist.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did not say anything about what sources say. I noted her self-identification and what the article currently says. And yes, some sources do go with skeptic. Others use denier. Some call her the new face of climate change denial. Another calls her the Heartland Institute's face of its climate change denial programme. Wikipedia has a redirect from climate change skeptic to climate change denial and a pretty robust consensus that we call a spade a spade here, especially when someone is a political activist with no expertise in climate science. Guy (help!) 12:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Show me one reliable source that says that she identify as "climate change skeptic" and show me a reliable source that explicitly says she is a "climate change denier".-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , wrong venue, that has already been provided at the talk page, but the discussion belongs in the RfC not here. I will just point out again that climate change skeptic is a euphemism for climate change denier. Guy (help!) 12:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I do believe in climate change and I also believe we should follow rules especially in BLP. All sources call her skeptic. She identify as "climate change realist" so when you say that "climate change skeptic" is self-identitication you are not saying the truth.
 * Washington Post: Naomi Seibt, a 19-year-old climate change skeptic and self-proclaimed “climate realist,” speaks Friday during a workshop at the Conservative...
 * Business insider: Naomi Seibt, a 19 year old climate change skeptic and self proclaimed climate realist, speaks during a workshop...
 * Independent: A 19-year-old German climate change sceptic who has been described by her supporters as “the antidote to Greta Thunberg”
 * -- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , wrong venue. This is an invitation to participants at the relevant noticeboard to join the RfC discussion. Guy (help!) 12:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * unfortunately you made a biased misleading invitation so I had to explain.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see nothing biased about this notice.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , said proposing to use her self-identification as a "climate change skeptic"
 * This is not true and misleading. Reliable sources identify her as "Climate change skeptic" not her. She identifies as "Climate change realist" see what sources are saying "Naomi Seibt, a 19-year-old climate change skeptic and self-proclaimed “climate realist,” speaks Friday during a workshop at the Conservative". JzG invitation is false and misleading.-- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Inaccuracy and none neutrality are not the same thing. Even this source (we her in fact) acknowledged she is described as a denier.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, " Even this source (we her in fact) acknowledged she is described as a denier", what does this mean? Are you saying the source in the WaPo describe her as a "denier"? Where?-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No I am saying that in that source she denies she is, you do not deny something no one has accused you of.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , what? how is this even relevant? All sources describe her as a "climate change skeptic", she doesnt identify as "climate change skeptic" as JzG inaccurately said. Sources identify her as a  "climate change skeptic" full stop.-- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, the as-yet-unspoken subtext here is that WP:FRINGE trumps reliable sources. See the essays Yes, we are biased and lunatic charlatans. [I say that as a supporter of the climate crisis]  Esowteric + Talk  13:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, in a nutshell, NPOV is central. We do not indulge fringe notions (like climate denial is "skepticism"), because that is the policy. The idea that good editing means we adopt verbatim terminology from sources, is wrong. We summarize sources in our own words in accord with Wikipedia's policies, and NPOV is a core one. Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Points taken thanks. I was just thinking that were this not classed as a fringe issue, the description "denialist" might otherwise be taken as being clearly biased and POV.  Esowteric + Talk  15:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the term is indeed biased: towards empirical fact, and against an ideology which finds that fact financially inconvenient. That is exactly in line with Wikipedia policy.
 * It's worth noting that the documentary evidence also shows that the ideology of climate change denialism was deliberately manufactured by the fossil fuel industry. Unlike creationism, nobody woke up one morning and decided that their religion forbade them from believing in climate change. It was invented from whole cloth by consultants and think-tanks paid by the fossil fuel lobby and then retconned into Christian right dogma. Guy (help!) 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Deliberately manufactured by the fossil fuel industry and by market fundamentalist think tanks such as Seibt's employer, whose tenet that free markets are always the best solution is refuted by the existence of man-made global warming. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is how I would have phrased the introduction here: In view of differing, contentious opinions, an RfC was opened at Talk:Naomi Seibt proposing to use reliable sources as a "climate change skeptic", rather than her self-proclaimed role as a "climate change realist", or what others see as a "climate change denier".  Esowteric + Talk  12:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Argee, this is why I said JzG should have not been pinged. This is why canvassing is bad. We might end up with a BLP violation due to this canvassing.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , The alternative was that you and Esowteric came up with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that would be speedily overruled as soon as someone from Wikipedia's reality-based community noticed the article. Guy (help!) 16:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. That wording of an RfC would effectively tell editors that they should vote for skeptic. It is the opposite of neutral. NightHeron (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article also belongs under WP:SKEPTIC (which I tagged now), the RFC would have therefore shown up at the top of this page soon anyway. Posting on a public official noticeboard is not canvassing.  Some of the sources did use denial or denialism in their headers.  In any case, there are plenty of other sources that would call "climate skepticism" denialism.  As was also already said, we don't need to quote sources, we can call things what they are per WP:PSCI, as long as the sources use "climate skeptic" or "climate realist", or that they mention that the person rejects the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change or on global warming...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , but you didn't, so I did it in my own words. Which are neutral, regardless of whether you'd have said it differently. My statement was neutral and 100% factual. Yours uses framing language. Guy (help!) 16:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

None of which is relevant, wp:soap applies to all of us.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's unclear who this message was addressed to or why WP:SOAP applies here. — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a general notice to everyone who might (for example) be discussing user or off wiki corporate actions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Including attributed statements as to what she calls herself is fine, but we've resolved the debate about the synonym between climate change skepticism and climate change denial some time ago. Easy to see by clicking on this wikilink: climate change skepticism.

So we cannot, in Wikipedia's voice, assert that she is a "climate change skeptic". Of course, we also are under no obligation to assert in Wikipedia's voice that she is a "climate change denier" (and really should be cognizant of sourcing requirements if that's something editors think should be done). However, we absolutely can make it clear that there is an ideological category into which she falls and we certainly can link to the appropriate articles and categories as source warrant. jps (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Trial of George Zimmerman


There has been a recent attempt to add some information here about a recent-ish book which seems a bit fringey, using a lot of sources which seem questionable to me. Additional opinions would be welcome as to whether I'm being too harsh, or if this is really no good. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This promotes a recent book and film by Joel Gilbert. From that article:
 * "Joel Gilbert (born April 15, 1964) is an American filmmaker, musician, and conspiracy theorist. Gilbert's political films advance right-wing conspiracy theories.  He has been a frequent guest on InfoWars. "
 * Sources include a guy from Judicial Watch and the American Greatness webshite. I am happy to block if he keeps this up. Guy (help!) 16:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a self-published book but I see that the editor hasn't mentioned that. If we do mention it, we shouldn't go into any detail or mention any names and certainly shouldn't be using sources such as Judicial Watch. It looks very much like just another of Joel Gilbert's conspiracy theories and if we include it should be presented as such. Doug Weller  talk 16:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Synchronicity
WP:PROFRINGE edit-warring. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Unplanned
Editors consider that anti-abortion propaganda film Unplanned should have a "plot" section to be consistent with other film articles, but the plot section is seen by others (notably me) as violating NPOV by giving undue weight to anti-abortion propaganda. Guy (help!) 23:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * not a WP:FRINGE issue. fiveby (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a fringe issue where a plot summary is a backdoor allowing fringe/pseudoscientific proponents a "free hit" in article space. Plot summaries are allowable per a MOS that explicitly allows exceptions, and here core policy (which is not negotiable) would apply, notably to prevent giving undue prominence to fringe views. Alexbrn (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks very much like a fringe issue to me. Doug Weller  talk 11:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How does Fringe theories, which lists "Pseudoscience", "Questionable science", and "Alternative theoretical formulations", apply to this POV dispute? It's a fictional movie (based on controversial memoir). Problems with the "Accuracy of portrayal" section would apply, but that is not what was presented and there does not appear to be any questioning of that section on the talk page. Labeling opinion and belief as fringe and attempting to apply the Fringe theories guideline is not a neutral approach to editing. Bringing a POV dispute that does not deal with pseudoscience to this noticeboard is WP:Canvassing. fiveby (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't omit the plot of a movie just because you don't like its POV. Of course, there's no reason why there can't be a criticism section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you can't include it when it violates WP:NPOV. Guy (help!) 21:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As a point of comparison, Triumph of the Will describes the movie's plot in extensive detail in the Synopsis, Themes and Hitler's Speeches sections. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not about omitting the plot section, it is about the plot section not containing unchecked WP:PROFRINGE propaganda. Nothing wrong about asking fringe-savvy users to check that it does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we challenge it in the section below about accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , we follow Wikipedia standard policy and practice and include only that which is verifiable from reliable independent sources. Which fixes the problem, because reliable sources do not uncritically repeat the false narrative that is so problematic in the "I watched the movie and this is what I saw" version of a Plot section. Guy (help!) 18:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And Wp standard policy on plots is that the source material is an RS for what it contains (we are not saying it is true, we are saying it is what is included in the plot of film).Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What "standard policy" do you mean? Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:FILMPLOT for one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That not policy, but a style manual. Alexbrn (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Its a guideline, just as much as wp:fringe is (a guideline).Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Plot synopses can be used as WP:SOAPboxes. It is important to make it clear that while the movie may be striving for a cinema verite look, there are choices made in the depictions of abortions and related events that do not coincide with reality. This film is no Triumph of the Will in terms of notice of its individual scenes, for example, so it is not really a fair comparison as the WP:MAINSTREAM critique of Triumph of the Will is readily apparent so there is little danger in violating WP:WEIGHT or WP:SOAP if editors are diligent. In this scenario, there may be some strong arguments to excise certain long descriptions of plot elements if no one independent of the filmmakers has commented upon them. jps (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There are definitely some problems at that article. E.g., I had to remove the claim that a WP:MAINSTREAM OB-GYN's explanation of the inaccuracies in the film's portrayal was "false". This is not only a fringe belief regarding fetal pain, it's also an egregious WP:BLP violation. I gave an extremely stern warning to the user who did this, but I suggest some scrutiny of this user's edits if to see if more of this is going on. There are a number of discretionary sanctions notices on that user's talkpage, but not particularly recent, so someone might want to do that as well. jps (talk) 11:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, problems with the "Accuracy of portrayal" section apply, as i said above, tho the issue looks pretty minor and already taken care of. That is an objective implementation of the Fringe Theories guideline. All else mentioned: propaganda, soapboxing, pov, undue weight, etc. are subjective and should be discussed on the talk page, not here. Fringe Theories guideline does not apply. fiveby (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are simply wrong about this. I'm not sure if you're being willfully wrong about it or are just trying to be disruptive to prove a point. Either way, I suggest you back down. jps (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This was a perfectly reasonable discussion until your comment, and not disruptive at all. I think maybe the guideline you've linked is probably another you are using improperly. fiveby (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. "Minor and already taken care of" is not objective, and soapboxing, POV, undue weight etc. are not subjective. Since there are many fringe ideas about abortion, The Fringe Theories guideline is relevant to the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, you are allowed to disagree that something is relevant to this board. You can even state that disagreement. But to repeat this disagreement over and over again when others are trying to discuss the situation and work out solutions is not helpful, it's disruptive to the purpose of this noticeboard. There are plenty of other things you can turn your attention towards at this website. Trying to halt discussion here is not something that you should be doing. jps (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We gain nothing by not giving the reader a full picture, we do lose credibility. We should giver a full plot synopses and then demolish its arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Our hands our tied by reliable sources, of course. If there is no notice of certain plot elements, I question whether they deserve inclusion. jps (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, neutrality requires that we omit fringe material where inclusion would risk unduly legitmizing it. If there's no counterpoint in RS, Wikipedia shall remain silent. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I understand it plots can be referenced to the actual work. If these plot elements have not be questioned it is not out job to do that. Maybe it needs to be made more clear this is a fictionalised account, not fact.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Referencing the plot points is one thing, but the question is how to summarize and which parts to emphasize. There is quite a lot of gore in the film for example and going through the details of it is probably not in the best interest of the reader nor would, for example, providing a complete transcript of the dialogue. The best thing to do is look for which plot points are most notably discussed in the independent literature to guide the means to describe the plot.
 * The film enthusiasts have written themselves a MOS that permits plot summaries, but I'm afraid that goes in the bin when NPOV is violated. The film does not promote itself as fiction but, on its main site, as "an eye-opening look inside the abortion industry from a woman who was once its most passionate advocate". Wikipedia should not get suckered in buy the "it's fiction!" bait-and-switch. Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No we should make it clear its fictionalised and sensationalised.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a little hard to do that as the movie-makers themselves are loath to admit that this was fictionalized and sensationalized. Still, it would be good to find some sources to this end. jps (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

One question, give an example of a fringe theory in the plot that is not questioned in the critical response section?Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is the conspiracy theory that Planned Parenthood does not call ambulances during medical emergencies for fear it makes them look bad. jps (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That did not take long [], so we can point out this is a lie.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Go for it! jps (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not the one arguing for that a plot of a film is not RS for what it says. The lede says "The accuracy of the film's portrayal of abortion and of Planned Parenthood have been severely criticized by doctors and advocates for Planned Parenthood." and that as far as I am concerned is all we need to say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? You think it's not important to identify what was inaccurate? jps (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We do which part of ""The accuracy of the film's portrayal of abortion and of Planned Parenthood have been severely criticized" does not say that the whole plot is not accurate? I am not against singling out specifics if you wish, but I am not sure we need do more then just say "and the film is bollocks" (but more politely worded).Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the "whole film is bollocks" is what our sources say. There are serious doubts as to the veracity of what is being claimed to be "based on a true story" or whatever, but there are some interesting self-reflective points in the movie as well where they, for example, admit that there are register problems with the way some anti-abortion activists have behaved at clinic protests. The film also condemns the killing of George Tiller in a somewhat hamfisted but still unequivocal fashion. Of course, nuanced critiques are simply not going to be easy to come-by here, and that's kinda my point with wondering how much detail the plot should have. Obviously a full transcript is not needed. jps (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say "the whole film", we already say its factual accuracy is disputed (in the first line). Once our reader knows that he (I would hope) treat the film like any other dram film that is "BASED ON A TRUE STORY!". If you want to add a Battle of the Bulge (1965 film) style "differences from history" style section, fine. The lack of one (not that there is) is not a basis to gut the plot summery.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is that it's not clear which aspects of the film are disputed just from reading through the plot summary. I don't know what you mean by "gut the plot summery". I've actually been working on at least making the summary true to what happens in the movie which it wasn't before. But there are a number of plot elements that are glossed over, omitted, or unclear as to whether we should include them. I'll let someone else argue over whether there should be a plot summary at all, but my point is that if there is a plot summary then we have some editorial decisions to make about what to include and exclude from it. I hardly think that's controversial. If you want to help figure that out, feel free to jump over to the page. jps (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not, that, is not. What maybe is your reason for what you want to exclude. Generally fringe does not apply to fiction, even if dressed up as fact. So to my mind the only question is not should we exclude fringe topics, but how do we make it clear the film is in fact fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, "it's fiction" is not an immunization from WP:FRINGE. I can point to other instances where people tried to claim this, and it's not a good defense. And as a matter of genre, it's not quite fair to call a dramatization "fiction". Anyway, exclusion or inclusion of fringe topics is handled by WP:NFRINGE and it's fine to refer to that if and when it becomes relevant as it may in instances where the filmmaker seems to be attempting to portray certain aspects of abortion that are essentially the purview fringe theories. In any case, there is active work going on over at the article, so feel free to help out. jps (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It takes an extraordinarily tortured reading of "undue" to use it to remove the "plot" section of a piece of fiction.
 * It's very far from unusual for fictional works to have have a heavy-handed message, but we don't normally treat them as though they were some devious backdoor into Wikipedia. We accurately describe them, because that's the point of having an article about them. ApLundell (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I agree that removing the section is not warranted, but I think there are real questions about what level of detail is appropriate while maintaining an accurate description. jps (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The movie's plot should be included regardless of whether or not it includes WP:FRINGE content. The policy is not intended to ban all mentions of fringe ideas. Instead, per WP:NFRINGE, notable fringe ideas can get coverage in their own article or even in articles on mainstream ideas, insofar as the coverage is in accordance with due weight, neutrality, and notability. And it's hard to argue that the plot of an otherwise notable film is not notable. Indeed, MOS:FILM implies that a plot summary is a standard part of articles on films. Jancarcu (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again: Nobody wants to remove the plot. Please read what the other side writes before refuting something nobody ever wanted. See Strawman fallacy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the Guy that started the thread removing the whole plot section, twice. PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And he started the thread by saying "should have a "plot" section to be consistent with other film articles, but". That means his preferences are like this:
 * Plot section without WP:PROFRINGE material
 * No plot section
 * Plot section with WP:PROFRINGE material
 * Got it now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Fringe history
I just read http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/new-owner-of-skinwalker-ranch-previously-advocated-for-mormon-pseudohistory] and that led me to. Some of the people associated with this Ancient Historical Research Foundation may seem reliable on their own if one didn't know about their association with this group. Their home page also has some legitimate news articles, which helps them look respectable. Doug Weller talk 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

New Chronology (Fomenko)‎ - now is mainly a showcase for his theories
SPA is editing  mainly adding material sourced to Fomenko. Most of the article now simply promotes Fomenko's fringe theories. See also New Chronology (Fomenko)‎. I'll ping the other editors involved: you might also wish to take part here. Cjbaiget has also added the 2019 opening of a private museum called "The Multimedia Museum of the New Chronology" which I find mentioned in only two pages, a website on private museums in Russia and our article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I would like to reflect on the concerns raised:


 * -"Most of the article now simply promotes Fomenko's fringe theories."


 * I don't know if that's the case. If this is true, it's not my fault, as anyone can check by reviewing my contributions. Until now, I've just provided correct and verifiable data for *previously existing claims regarding new chronology in the article*, that is *I'm not providing new sections, considerations, or rephrasing of mainstream perception of the theory.*


 * I beg to the reader: please check this claim by yourself. Actually, and despite all the opposition to my edits, I've improved the article in some data that was erroneously quoted: place of Peloponessian War according Fomenko (article said "Spain" and now "Greece", edited by DougWeller. Please trace the origin of the discussion and also the talk page), precise dates and places of Christ birthday and crucifixion according Fomenko, precise dates of relevant eclipses according Fomenko, and removal of non existent eclipses attributed to Fomenko. *Mention of all this data was not initiated by me, data existed in the article before I edited it*, please check. But was erroneous and I could provide the correct data and was accepted.


 * -"Cjbaiget has also added the 2019 opening of a private museum called "The Multimedia Museum of the New Chronology"


 * I beg the reader again: please check article history. I did mention the opening of the museum *in the already existing section of Russian acceptance of the theory*. The opening of the museum is relevant in that context. Creationism articles point to Creationism Museums which also have their own wikipedia articles, and I thought, and still think, that this is relevant information for the reader to evaluate the current state of the affair.


 * -Regarding "Lies in this article maintained by 'administrator' Ymblanter]]"


 * I'm not proud of the title of the section I opened in the talk page. However, after I pointed the errors and provide correct data and verifiable sources, erroneus data become lies if reverted with this knowledge in hand. This information was dismissed with sarcasm and not reasons. I'm not calling Ymblanter a liar, I say that erroneous data are now lies, and Ymblanter tolerates them. Sadly, title of the section is both unfortunate and true. Also, I'm not going to open a section with a similar tone by any means in the future.


 * Following (what I feel as) harassment, I've also publicly DESISTED on correcting certain erroneous data that currently remains in the article, after providing the correct data and the sources to check them enumerated in the talk page waiting for its time to amend and improve the article.


 * -"mainly adding material sourced to Fomenko"


 * True, but only when talking about what Fomenko claims, following the recommended advice of Wikipedia of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD : "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are *supporting a direct quotation*"


 * In my humble opinion, and after having actually taken the time to *impartially read* almost all books of New Chronology, I've to say also that in its current form, the article is plagued with erroneous data and literally misrepresents https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misrepresent "New Chronology (Fomenko)" to great extent, up to the point of describing a clumsy parody of it, and any activity to minimize this situation is perceived as "pushing Pseudoscience and Fringe theories".

Cjbaiget (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've no time to get into the details right now, just two minor points. I think Cjbaiget will agree that although he initiated the Spain/Greece discussion, which was a good idea, the current edit clarifying the issue was mine. As for the museums, yes, there are Creationist museum articles because there are Creationist museums which have had a lot of publicity for various reasons. I could not find anything similar for the Russian one, only the one website. Doug Weller  talk 20:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem, I do have time to get into the details: of course the current edit clarifying the issue was yours, as I was not allowed to do it after my editions being *systematically reverted*. And you did it only after I dared to edit the wrong statement with this challenge: "Thoroughly explained *two* weeks ago on talk page, without debate or refutation. As a wikimedia *contributor* and *supporter*, I think the time has come for the shame of wikipedia insisting on this *lie* to be assigned to the concrete name of the self proclaimed "truth warrior" reverting this *fact*: war was in *Greece* not in *Spain*.)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Chronology_(Fomenko)&diff=885358405&oldid=883097853


 * So the current edit is yours, but *that edit did not change the correct place I edited, only the words surrounding them*, that is, *is another edition* (I remember feeling that the excesively wordly revision was only a way to obfuscate the core matter). Moreover, your edit *did not clarify the issue we are talking (Greece vs Spain)*, only the historical context of it, *that I had to explain to you previously on the talk page as you were not aware of this war until then*, even replying me erroneously: "Of course there was no conflict between the Navarrans and Catalans in Greece" (DougWeller, 16:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC) on New Chronology (Fomenko), talk page)


 * If you or any other reader do not agree on this, please check dates on both the talk page and history of changes, and its corresponding author.


 * Surprisingly for me, that lengthy clarification became only 'necessary' *only after factual data was forced into the article in place of the erroneous one*, and the proof is that *the previous explanation was considered satisfactory for a long time although it was giving the wrong place*.


 * It seems to me, that had I not dared to take that step, the article will continue to say the wrong data and the true one would have remained ignored *as all the other correct data I'm providing now on the talk page now*. Anyway, I think this debate is preposterous, I'm not asking for any recognition, and I prefer your current elaborated edit rather than my simple *one word* change *that you extended*. Now all this circumstances are summarized as me 'having a good idea'? Thanks for those proportionate and comforting words.


 * About the NC Museum, I think that we are losing the opportunity to pioneer the public awareness of this fact. In any case I think that its mention in the article is inevitable in the short/medium term, but this circumstance will have to be brought by another messenger as yours truly has already been shoot.Cjbaiget (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Quacks who poison patients with mercury compounds and the Wikipedia editors who think this is OK


Both of the above users have received recent arbitration discretionary sanctions alerts on the topics of complementary and alternative medicine as well as pseudoscience and fringe science.

Background: Siddha medicine and its twin brother Ayurveda medicine are forms of ancient Indian folk medicine that is said to have been conveyed by Lord Shiva to his wife Parvati, who passed it on to her son Nandi, who gave it to Siddhas. The word Siddha denotes one who has achieved some extraordinary powers (siddhi).

A key part of Siddha medicine is giving patients toxic mercury compounds, causing heavy metal poisoning.

Siddha practitioners have had mixed results getting the Indian government to approve what they are doing, with the Indian Medial Association and the Indian Supreme Court calling Siddha practitioners "Quacks".

Despite the page being fully protected, the proponents keep hammering away on the article talk page, trying to get us to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks.

I am thinking of taking this to WP:AE. Comments? Pinging User:JzG. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Before you go off all guns blazing, consider that both Mohanabhil and Gandydancer may well have a point. I need some more clarity before I decide either way, but ... Siddha is Pseudoscience and quackery and imho fraud. The Indian Govt have tried to improve their regulatory framework of these practitioners (quacks from our pov) by requiring them to register as practitioners and reqiuiring them to have training of some kind to enable them to register. What we have difficulty with is interpretation of those simple facts. So, the question is, are Mohan and Gandy saying that if these practitioners register under these regulations, then they are not quacks? Something is being misinterpreted? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree we should reserve judgment at this point - Gandydancer, in particular, is a long-time trusted editor. I am not familiar with Mohanbhil. My first step here would be to discuss with Gandydancer, but there is a definite problem here with India applying "legislative alchemy" to turn bullshit into "medicine". India's culture of religion and tolerance fosters a culture of "different ways of knowing" in which homeopathy, ayurveda and like bollocks are accorded parity with real medicine. Guy (help!) 08:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I keep searching and searching, and I cannot seem to find these mythical Siddha practitioners who have received sufficient training to no longer be quacks. In particular, where is the school that trains them to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds and only prescribe medicines that have been found to be safe and effective in double-blind medical trials? Where is the Siddha practitioner who advertises that they have abandoned mercury? Where is the Siddha practitioner who complains that he tried to get certified but was told he has to stop giving mercury to his patients? Where are the regulations for training that require no mercury?


 * Instead I see things like Ayurveda GCP Guidelines: Need for freedom from RCT (Randomized Clinical trial) ascendancy in favor of whole system approach and Clinical trials not mandatory for licensing ASU (Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani) drugs, says govt. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see the names "Mohanabhil" or "Gandydancer" -- the actual topics you brought up -- anywhere in that mini-rant. Nor do I see any sign that you've notified them about this discussion you've started. --Calton &#124; Talk 09:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the article talk page. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are pages such as ANI where the notification template is required and the instructions at the top of the page specifically says "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose". Then there are pages like this one where either method is acceptable. I used the ping method. If Calton wishes to make the template required, he should seek consensus for such a rule change rather than criticizing editors for violating nonexistent rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - A reminder: I don't see the names "Mohanabhil" or "Gandydancer" -- the actual topics you brought up -- anywhere in that mini-rant. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote before attempting to obscure both your lack of relevant commentary -- as well as your your lack of common courtesy and intellectual honesty -- behind rules-lawyering. --Calton &#124; Talk 02:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I think notification is not needed to post on this noticeboard, but is a courtesy. — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say, when I saw the heading I thought this would be Vaccine hesitancy related. Carry on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is odd that on the one hand we have antivaxxers claiming that mercury is poisoning children long after the tiny amounts of mercury in vaccines was removed, yet on the Siddha talk page we seem to have multiple editors who don't care about the fact that many patients are dying from heavy metal poisoning and who don't care about the complete lack of evidence that the so called "legitimate non quack" Siddha practitioners are required to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC).
 * Also been a problem with TCM in places like New York, where of course the crunchies lap it up. Guy (help!) 18:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It's right that a distinction should be made between a dodgy belief system (like Siddha Medicine) and its practice, which is quackery. The usual "safe" formulation for dealing with this kind of scenario is to say something like "${Woo medicine} is not supported by medical evidence and its practice has been characterized as quackery". Alexbrn (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read the charge of "hammering away on the article talk page, trying to get us to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks." I will give other editors a few days to read the article, the talk page, and the sites offered by Alexbrn and then I will respond to Alexbrn and the comments of others.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple of points. First, what sites has Alex offered? Second, why make us wait for your response? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps others have more time to carefully read the circumstances surrounding this complaint which states that I have been "trying to get [WP editors] to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks" including the article, the talk page, and the related sources posted at the article and TP, and here than I do. After all how else could they make an educated judgement? That said, I do consider my WP reputation important and I certainly do not want my name to be presented at WP:AE for a discussion of my behavior. So I will make a short statement to show that I have not been trying to get WP editors to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks but rather to respect and use RS correctly.

During my many years as a WP editor I have run into many instances of finding political bias of the WHO and US agencies such as the EPA (who are supposed to protect our health through addressing environmental concerns), the CDC, and the AMA, and as such I would well expect to find the same within the comparable Indian agencies such as the IMA and Indian governmental agencies. That said, following WP policy I do not enter my opinion re their positions and statements as demonstrations of fakery and lies, but rather I use RS to support or dispute what RS has reported. That is what we are supposed to do here; we are not supposed to argue in an article or on the article talk pages whether or not they are correct as has been going on here and on the Siddah talk page.

The article currently states: Identifying fake medical practitioners without qualifications, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions"  However a reading of the judgement offered as a reliable source clearly shows otherwise and anyone reading the judgement should be able to easily see that that is the case. The judgement states they are addressing "Paramparya Vaidyas", not qualified practitioners of traditional Indian medicine. Quoting the court judgement:


 * The 2018 judgement made by the Supreme Court of India states: "Learned senior counsel for the appellants contended before this Court that in the State of Kerala, a large number of �persons are practicing in Sidha/Unani/Ayurveda system of medicines known as ‘Paramparya Vaidyas’, which are in vogue for a long time. They have acquired knowledge and experience from their gurus and parents and by continued practice over a long period of time they have acquired the requisite expertise."


 * Conclusion: "The government had been vigilant all along to stop such quackery. A number of unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions.[...]But in the present case, the appellants herein have failed to show that they possessed requisite recognized qualification for registration entitling them to practice Indian system of medicines or their names have been entered in the appropriate registers after the commencement of this Act."

As I say on the article talk page, this is a poster child of the reason that we should not be using primary sources as the one being used to (incorrectly) provide RS for this statement offered as factual in the lead of this article. There are similar problems in the second primary source used in the lead, an IMA statement, as well. Gandydancer (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article at this moment seems to have improved a lot from the time when I looked into it for the first time in last month. I was merely concerned on talk page regarding the representation of the sources and if we are using credible sources. I am not adamant or seek enforcement of my suggestion but a civil discussion without any obstruction is ideally a good idea for improving the article. I agree with Alexbrn that the article must be careful with differentiating the historical Siddha and the present Siddha. Mohanabhil (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

To move on to the next primary source used in the lead. First and most importantly, this IMA source clearly shows why WP annon editors should not be using primary documents to back accusations of wrongdoing, or anything else, in our Wikipedia articles. Never the less, reading the second source which supposedly states that the IMA finds practitioners of Indian traditional medicine to be quacks, this document does not support that statement. It states:

Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :


 * 1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.


 * 2. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine. (emphasis added)


 * 3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.

The third source in the lead, the Guardian, does a good job of presenting the IMA's position, but even there Indian traditional practitioners are not called "quacks" but rather those practitioners who are practicing modern medicine and the IMA's fear that the Indian government will make legal changes to laws that allow them to do so. As time permits I will discuss the charge that I supposedly believe that it is OK to be poisoned with mercury. Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Finally, it is very insulting to have a fellow editor say that it's OK with me if the people of India are poisoned with toxic mercury compounds and that I should be taken to WP:AE. I'd like to defend my WP reputation by saying that I am not some sort of troublemaker or nutcase. I have one India-related article, the 2012 Delhi gang rape article and I have another related article that came up in the talk page discussion, the New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak. I'd suggest that anyone reading the links that have been offered here keep in mind that any medication that is not properly prepared and prescribed correctly can be deadly, see the meningitis article for example. Another of the links offered here is clearly a discussion with an unlicensed Siddha practitioner of the type that India does not permit to legally practice. From my reading I learned that India has many universities that teach Indian traditional medicine and the government encourages their use for people that desire that form of medicine. IMO it is an insult to India and perhaps even racist for Wikipedia editors to declare that the people of India use medicine that is fake and is provided by quacks. Gandydancer (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not any more racist (i.e. none at all) than it is to say that (some of, as was the case above) the people of the USA use medicine that is fake and is provided by quacks. And I don't appreciate use of the trope of using "racism" or "other cultures!" as a shield for quacks and fraudsters. Crossroads -talk- 03:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I am referring to properly trained and licensed practitioners of Siddha medicine, which is what the particular article is about. Gandydancer (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Government endorsed quackery is still quackery. See: climate change denial. Crossroads -talk- 05:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

As the protecting admin, I vouch for as someone who is competent, edits in good faith, and is insightful. El_C 02:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: I absolutely agree with this. It is the reason I posted to this thread in the first place. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * " properly trained and licensed practitioners of Siddha medicine, which is what the particular article is about" are still Quacks. Nothing in Gandy's posts above supports that IMA didn't call these people quacks. They clearly did. Gandy and Mohan provide nothing to support the differentiation, (read conjecture) that they, not the IMA, are making. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

There may be a question of labeling versus exposition going on here. The term quack is a somewhat inartful sobriquet that can mean a variety of things. I wonder whether it even means the same thing in the context of Indian medicine as compared to how it is defined in Wikipedia. E.g. The Times of India, which is a source of uneven quality at best, seems to define a "quack" as a doctor practicing without appropriate education rather than promoting dubious treatment regimes which is typically the way it is used in the US and the UK. jps (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * jps, I will give my best guess as to what is going on here. I did a lot of reading and as such I think I do now have some understanding of this matter.  What I found out is that India has millions of people that need health care and the Indian health ministry is attempting to do the best they can to help their own people.  But they have found themselves between a rock and a hard place when it comes to making mandates with strict rules because a large number of their people would be left without any care at all.  Hence they did come out with a ruling that "‘Paramparya Vaidyas", those practitioners that had no formal schooling in medicine (see the link above in which a practitioner explains that the education cannot be taught in schools but only learned from one's guru--and it must be kept secret at that!), would not be sanctioned by the Indian ministry of health.  ...And other guidelines which the IMA is not very happy about, which I mention below.


 * Add to that the problem that a large number of allopaths leave India because they can earn more money elsewhere and of those that stay, most of them do not practice in the rural areas. So one thing that the government is promoting the possibility that practitioners of traditional medicine be given rights to legally prescribe around 70 "modern" drugs after a three-month course.  From reading the IMA statement that the allopathic doctors have issued one finds, not surprisingly, that they are vigorously protesting any laws that they see as cutting into their own territory.  They argue that the Indian health ministry has been so vague as to allow all sorts of ways go get around their concerns (and I'd well guess that they are quite correct in their charges). So that's where things are at.  (Though one can add to that the problem that the allopaths and the Indian traditional practitioners are not being educated in both types of medicine as this pharmacist believes is needed and is explained in this helpful link  )  But all that said, India accepts traditional med as a legal form of medicine and does not see it as fake or quackery, and our article should not be claiming that it is.  We're required to report RS here, not what we think is true or false. Gandydancer (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand one point, do you think that just because the Indian government "accepts traditional med as a legal form of medicine and does not see it as fake or quackery" our article needs to follow the Indian government's position? I can understand an argument that our article might not be able to say with some clarity what exactly the position of the Indian government is, but it is not Wikipedia's place to argue one way or another on the basis of government proclamation. If we have reliable sources that indicate that Siddha medicine is "fake or quackery", we should report that. The Indian government is not the ultimate arbiter of this, surely. jps (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * jps asks, "I don't understand one point, do you think that just because the Indian government "accepts traditional med as a legal form of medicine and does not see it as fake or quackery" our article needs to follow the Indian government's position?" No, I am not arguing that we should accept the government's position.  The problem is that the editors that support the lead as written are using the government's decision as RS to support their position that Siddha traditional medicine is fake quackery.  As I have argued, we should not be using primary sources in the first place and what's more, the government source that is being used actually is not addressing Siddha but rather practitioners who do not have university training and are lacking a license to practice medicine.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Well I assume you are aware that I have all along argued that the claims that the article makes in the lead are not backed up by the references that are offered. If you have RS that would top what their own Ministry of Health through the Supreme Court of India and the IMA have made I'd like to see it used to replace what we now have, though I should think that the opinions of those two would be considered as the leading agencies that we would use for a comparable article.  The lead states:
 * The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine degrees as "fake" and Siddha therapies as quackery, posing a danger to national health due to absence of training in science-based medicine.[5][6] Identifying fake medical practitioners without qualifications, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions".[9]
 * I would assume that if you have been reading the talk page and the links that have been offered that there is no question about whether or not the Indian health ministry supports traditional Indian medicine. Gandydancer (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are evading the question. But it does not matter. The Indian government is not the ultimate arbiter on the question of whether something is quackery, period. Their position does not matter, only the position of the scientific community does. If we report the position of the Indian government, it is just in order to give the reader an idea about the relation between the Indian government's opinion and reality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there is a question about whether or not the Indian health ministry supports traditional medicine. I mean, do you think the sources indicate that they are endorsing the use of the mercury compounds? And if there is a nuanced take to be had here about access, why is the current wording something with which you disagree? It seems to me that you're playing a game of either/or when it need not be that way. jps (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no doubt some parts of the Indian government that support traditional medicine, just as there are parts of the UK and US government that support nonscientific remedies. See Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 for an example of the dietary supplement industry health lobbying the government to vote down laws requiring supplement manufacturers to demonstrate supplements safety before marketing the supplements.
 * In the above, Gandydancer says
 * "Add to that the problem that a large number of allopaths leave India because they can earn more money elsewhere and of those that stay, most of them do not practice in the rural areas. So one thing that the government is promoting the possibility that practitioners of traditional medicine be given rights to legally prescribe around 70 'modern' drugs after a three-month course."
 * If the India government was talking about allowing say, homeopaths, to prescribe those modern drugs after training, they would at least have practitioners who are otherwise prescribing harmless but ineffective remedies. But when that talk about letting Siddha practitioners prescribe those modern drugs after training without requiring them to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds that is another matter.
 * At Talk:Siddha medicine I asked the following question:
 * "Some here claim that there exist Siddha practitioners who are licensed, trained, and thus not quacks. Please show me any shred of evidence that any such license or training requires Siddha practitioners to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds."
 * It appears that the same editors who are prepared to argue all day about "properly trained and licensed practitioners of Siddha medicine" not being quacks have fallen strangely silent when faced with the above question. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh right. Does nobody else wonder why anyone would routinely call practitioners of scientific medicine allopaths, as if Hahnemann's ideas had merit, and as if medicine, like homeopathy, had made no progress since Hahnemann's time? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, Guy, have you stopped beating your wife? ;) also, whenever I see the word “allopath” I substitute it with “real medic” when reading. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's an India thing. See the top step of the pharmacy here: File:Bangalore pharmacy.jpg. The quacks have infested Indian healthcare rather badly. I put it down tot he culture of religious faith (homeopathy and ayurveda are both quasi-religious practices) - back in the day, reality-based doctors were mroe likely to be Christian and this was seens as a religious equivalence thing as far as aI can tell (despite homeopathy having been plucked out of the arse of an 18th Century German). Guy (help!) 10:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There’s a particular irony in the use of the term here, given that (unlike modern medicine) Siddha medicine, along with at least 2 of the other therapies under the “AYUSH” umbrella, uses precisely the sort of humour balancing based approach that Hahnemann derided as “allopathy”. Brunton (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon states, "Some here claim that there exist Siddha practitioners who are licensed, trained, and thus not quacks. Please show me any shred of evidence that any such license or training requires Siddha practitioners to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds. It appears that the same editors who are prepared to argue all day about "properly trained and licensed practitioners of Siddha medicine" not being quacks have fallen strangely silent when faced with the above question."  It is not our place as Wikipedia editors to place our personal opinions about the practice of traditional Indian medicine in this article.  In all of our articles, medical or otherwise, it is just basic WP practice to use reliable sources to back up everything we write here.  Since I've been threatened with a trip to WP:AE, which I take very seriously since I know that I would need to spend even more time than I have already to defend my position,  I'd appreciate it if some editors here would not use this as an opportunity to use this page as a grandstand to express their dislike of Indian traditional medicine, even to the point of discussing its non-Christian origins and "have you stopped beating your wife" jokes, but rather to look at the TP discussion and note that the only thing that I've "hammered away" on is to note that the article sources are using and interpreting the primary sources incorrectly.  As for the practice of using mercury compounds in their medications, I have not argued here nor on the TP as to their benefits or dangers.  I have only addressed mercury when accused of ignoring its dangers where I noted that the links offered were either not RS or did not state that properly prepared mercury compounds were dangerous.   Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following this closely, but I must agree we follow sources rather than users' opinions. Looking at the page just now, I see we cite a Steven Novella (SBM) article which calls Siddha Medicine, in terms, "quackery". Since this is a great source I'm not sure what the issue is. It seems from the sources this "medicine" is obvious bollocks and so its practice obvious quackery - and we have a gold standard source saying so. All else is surely fluff? Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is the fact that I have refused to agree that the current sources are being used correctly. It is good to see someone present an acceptable ref (only I wish you would have done it sooner and saved me all this work...) By all means, please replace the primary refs with this one and note that it is his opinion.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with a good "have you stopped beating your wife joke when the object of the comment accuses everybody, including you Gandydancer, of supporting the use of organic mercury in victims patients. Now, you have not shown anything that supports your contention that we are using primary sources incorrectly. Do so, or drop it. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Cryptic pregnancy
Cryptic pregnancy could probably use better sources and a check to make sure it's not veering off into non-medical territory. It looks to me like the last version that wasn't based on Dr. Phil and reality television shows was back in November 2019. However, I don't know anything about the topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of "claim" to denote fringe views
Is it permissible preferable or required, in light of WP:CLAIM, to use non-neutral words such as "claim" or "point out" to denote fringe views, such as on Blue Monday (date)? Elizium23 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes. The MOS "words to watch" are stylistic recommendations, nothing more.  They are not policies and are not prohibitions.  In the case of pseudoscience topics such as that article, the only way to describe the subject is to use terms such as "claim" and "purport". Otherwise, we run the risk of stating the pseudo-scientific (or pseudo-historical, pseudo-archaeological, etc.) proposition in Wikipedia's voice.  That would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, both of which are policy. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, the choice is not between saying it in Wikipedia's voice and casting doubt on it, the choice is using neutral terms like "so-and-so says" or "so-and-so writes". And I don't see how that is worse than using POV language in an NPOV encyclopedia. Elizium23 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And WP:CLAIM is part of a WP:Guideline and more than "stylistic recommendations". Elizium23 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CLAIM says: To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. In the case of fringe views, WP:FRINGE says that we should call their credibility into question, and we should emphasize any potential contradiction or disregard for evidence. NightHeron (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have revised my question on reflection. I should have asked, is using POV language "preferable or required" when it comes to fringe views? Elizium23 (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , wait a second. You had a question, I answered it, and then you told me my answer was wrong. Why ask the question in the first place, then? This isn't the place for "I was just testing you all" quizzes.  If you have a dispute, then coming here and asking a seemingly-neutral question to solicit the responses you want is bad faith canvassing.  Especially since you are engaged in a slow-moving edit war on the article in question. There has been no attempt by you or  to engage in dispute resolution via the article's talk page. An editor as experienced as you should not need to be reminded of WP:BRD or WP:CONSENSUS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you mischaracterized the situation a bit on your first answer. Elizium23 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that the mischaracterization was a result of reading your original question as it was written, not as it was intended. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you realize I am an experienced editor, so why did you lecture me on the rookie mistake of putting POV language in Wikipedia's voice? Elizium23 (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I knew from the beginning you were an experienced answer but you asked a naive, rookie question so I gave you a naive, rookie answer. Please don't play games. Be direct. Take it to the talk page and make your case there. You know the proper dispute resolution policies and procedures. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sometimes people accidentally misphrase questions or statements and don't intend anything by it. They linked to the article where this issue first came up, so they weren't exactly hiding anything.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Just considering which phrasing is more likely to result help, harm, educate, or cause trouble, we should use "claim" to describe false, incorrect, or nonsensical claims; and any guideline suggesting we don't use it would only make sense if the intention was to avoid casting undue doubt on merely contested (but otherwise plausible or at least not-disproven) claims. Blue Monday is a pretty innocuous example but there's still no harm whatsoever in using "claim" to reinforce the existing sourced information calling it nonsensical pseudoscience; while using more "balanced" phrasing could reinforce a superstition for a reader and so should be avoided.  That superstition is, again, seemingly innocuous, but we don't need to give anyone any distractions from finding the real causes of their depression.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Claim" is a word to watch, but sometimes it is the exact right word, particularly for fringe topics. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 05:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Quackery and coronavirus
We are probably going to find the two intersect a great deal going forward. Our project currently says that MMS is claimed to treat coronavirus, and I’m not gonna edit war. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 05:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I just mentioned that at Administrators' noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Indur M. Goklany
May be worth watching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Past life regression
IP infestation and WP:SPA infestation; advertisements and WP:PROFRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Adam's Bridge
A recent flood of messages about the name of the feature seems to have been solicited from somewhere. These aren't requests in any sense of the word but accusations that the article name is Christian propaganda or anti-Hindu discrimination. The article is semi-protected so most of the disruption is on the talk page but extra eyes would still be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A look through the article’s talk page archives shows that this dispute is a perennial one... going back to at least 2012. Every other thread seems to be a request to move the title, and there have been multiple RMs.
 * Unfortunately, the only thing we can do is (once again) point editors to the previous move discussions (A full list is pinned at the top of the article’s talk page), and (once again) reject the move request. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Engdahl and Genetic pollution
Genetic_pollution has more than I suspect is due weight for some theories by Engdahl, especially as it doesn't seem to be balanced by rebuttals or alternate theories. Fresh eyes appreciated.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well (e.g. picking up links to Stack Exchange in List of unsolved problems in fair division). Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Cow urine


IP(s) edit warring to remove cited material that questions cow urine's claimed medical benefits. I'm not that familiar with WP:MEDRS, but I'm assuming the claim that drinking cow piss cures disease is WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks like there's a reason for this. See BJP man feeds cow urine to Home Guard staffer to prevent Covid–19, arrested and this twitter threads from one of the people behind the outing and persecution of one of our editors. I'll protect the article. Doug Weller  talk 19:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible change to NPOV wrt fringe content
There have been recent edits to core policy (WP:NPOV) and discussion which bears explicitly on fringe content, which may be of interest. The discussion is at WT:NPOV. Please comment there, not here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

National Endowment for Democracy and Chinese government claims
There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:National Endowment for Democracy regarding whether the article should include certain additional content regarding the Chinese government's accusation that the National Endowment for Democracy secretly fomented the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests.

The article already notes the accusation briefly. The present dispute centers on due weight: whether more text should be added about the claim, and whether the article should note that the claim is not supported by evidence. (A New York Times article indicates that this claim is fringe and has no real basis, stating that there is "no concrete evidence" of foreign interference and that the Chinese government's claims variously "amount to little more than crude disinformation" or are "grounded in just enough fact to spin a conspiracy theory of covert American nefariousness.").

More outside input would be appreciated. Neutralitytalk 19:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

International Biographical Centre
The International Biographical Centre puts out vanity imitations of Who's Who. The notion that what it does is of value (other than to the self-esteem of those who are profiled, or their chances of success with particularly gullible readers of CVs) is I think "fringe". But recent edits to the article claim that the IBC is valued in Belarus. So far, they do so discreetly enough, but it could be worth keeping eyes on this article. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And interesting spam here... — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Chinese zodiac signs


For some reason, somebody added a section "People born in Year of the *" to all of these. And now an IP is adding lots of links to those. I don't think Wikipedia should do this. Any thoughts?

Since all the articles on astrological signs, Chinese, Indian or Western, are edited frequently in a similar fashion, maybe they should be semi-protected indefinitely? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hardly anybody seems to be interested, but there is a RfC on the subject in Talk:Rat (zodiac). --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents
Some work on this would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Some sources useful for general criticism of various under-criticized or critique-free articles regarding Navy UFO reports, AATIP, To The Stars, etc.: Robert Sheaffer, Joe Nickell , Flying Magazine and Ben Radford ("Newly Revealed Secret DoD 'UFO' Project Less Than Meets the Eye". Skeptical Inquirer, 2018, Vol. 42, pages 6–7, possibly available via WP:REREQ). - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't have a "possible explanations" section yet. Do any reputable skeptical sources exist that have been published more recently? Most of those sources are old (around 2017 except for Robert Sheaffer which seems recent) or blatantly incorrect (Joe Nickell's article based on a grave misunderstanding). This incident has received most of it's coverage more recently so most of those articles don't mention it (only Sheaffer I think). Would be interesting given all the additional evidence that has emerged.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. What makes a WP:FRIND source “blatantly incorrect”?
 * 2. ”Additional evidence” for what exactly?
 * 3. What evidence?
 * - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. I am in contact with SI and Joe Nickell regarding a mistake that undermines his whole article. He mistook the pilot report as being made by Cmdr. Fravor while it was, in fact, clearly made by his female wingman. You can clearly see that yourself if you read his article and source with a basic knowledge of the events. I hope he will retract but it's a very old article. And in any case it's about another incident.
 * 2/3. Additional evidence such as congressional hearings, additional witnesses, etc. that UAPs have been sighted multiple times and nobody knows what they are.
 * I am guessing from your answer we don't have many recent skeptical RS? -- Gtoffoletto (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The user is now inserting things into quotes that are not found in the source. jps (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , from the article history, you seem to be challenging "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching.", quoted and attributed to NYT, as "failed verification", but it's verbatim from the third paragraph in the NYT source. I'm confused why you feel it fails verification? Schazjmd   (talk)  15:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Dunno which part of the quote is being questioned, maybe jps can clarify details. However, I note the general trend of Gtoffoletto's editorial work in these articles is to quote and highlight material that supports credulous interpretations and ignores mundane explanations. For example, when describing the video, a quote is selected asserting it shows an "object" that pilots are "watching". For some reason this quote alone is attributed to the New York times — as if the Times endorses only that point of view. As I mentioned above, these NAVY UFO sighting articles desperately need critical context added to counter the sensational narrative that "To The Stars" has been pushing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I noticed you added some less credulous quotes to balance it out, that's helpful. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was going to clean up a bunch of other sensational text, e.g. "A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released" (OMG! RELEASE THE TAPES!), but jps beat me to it . - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an object lesson? If I write:
 * "Person A said, 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.'"
 * And then you edit it to say
 * Person A said, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. According to Person A, "consectetur adipiscing elit.""
 * We obviously have problems.
 * jps (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , if I saw that, I'd fix the missing quotation marks to show: Person A said, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet." According to Person A, "consectetur adipiscing elit." Schazjmd   (talk)  18:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you're saying your claim that "user is now inserting things into quotes that are not found in the source" is based on an obvious typo where quotation marks weren't closed properly? That's it? Schazjmd   (talk)  18:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It's, apparently, not an obvious "typo" as the user continued to reinsert it despite being told about it. The user does not understand the issue and there is no reason that I should have to clean up for such incompetence when competence is required. jps (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are four quotation marks in the sentence you dispute so your example is incorrect. There are absolutely NO typos. Simply reading it properly would have cleared things up. See the edit you dispute:
 * I'll report the actual text once again hoping to put this to rest with direct quotes from source highlighted (everything else is NOT a direct quote):
 * The New York Times said the footage showed "an object tilting like a spinning top moving against the wind". A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released. The second video was taken a few weeks later and according to the New York times "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching."
 * Four quotation marks. Two sentences directly attributed since you were challenging their factuality. Seems pretty black and white to me. What has not been highlighted is not attributed verbatim to the NYT as it is not within quotes although a part of it is actually identical to text in that article. Much Ado About Nothing --Gtoffoletto (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * P.s. people are dying all around me and you and here we are fighting over quotation marks of parts of an article that doesn't even exist anymore. Makes me terribly sad. See you all on the edit page. Be safe. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Just reverted another set of edits as WP:POVPUSH:. Should we ask for a topic ban yet? jps (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And a second time. It's like two steps forward, one step back here. jps (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what got you into such an irrational an combative mode against me. But I welcome any editor to participate to the discussion with constructive criticism. You are failing miserably to provide a coherent explanation of your multi-edit revert of my work at the moment.-- Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Biopsychosocial model
This article is full of primary and dodgy sources and largely edited by people with no other area of interest. I am deeply suspicious of this topic. Guy (help!) 18:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the people who edit the page or how balanced it is, but the model was published in Science and has about 5000 citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelirojopajaro (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, not fringe, this is a major concept in medicine and psychology and is covered in pretty much any introductory textbook in the health professions.  The article needs considerable work though. I suspect a lot of the low quality SPA edits are from students - it's the sort of subject that professors would have their classes work on. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The main issue with topics like this is while their is certainly valid criticism of Western medicine as currently practiced, the main critics of it are quacks and woo-peddlers going "Your evil Western doctor is evil and won't listen to you, here at Woo Inc, we make sure to listen to you, confirm your biases, and sell you these wonderful organic Reiki crystals / essential oils / etc... that we've convinced ourselves works better than placedo and conventional medicine because it is a tenet of our profession that Western medicine must be wrong".
 * Not all sources on it are bad, of course, but books like Acupuncture in Neurological Conditions give me pause, given the field's propensity for woo-peddling and acupuncture being pseudoscience in general. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I just read the Lead. I have no idea what it means. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 02:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I just read the article. I have no idea what the model says. Does it have any actual scientific content, or is it just philosophical fluff and reductionism-bashing? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The original article should help there: . I'm no physician, but from a quick read this seems mostly a general "holistic approaches are better because it also takes into account psychology, sociology, etc... on top of typically biomedicine stuff" with few specifics and many generalities on a more philosophical nature. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , so the usual woo-monger mix of the blindingly obvious, arm-waving and faux-profound appeals to the supernatural? Guy (help!) 11:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Not even close, except for the "obvious" part (which wasn't so obvious in 1977).  This is "if you're looking at a homeless combat veteran with schizophrenia and PTSD, then you have to fix all the problems, not just one of them".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, half-close. I don't exactly know where Engel stands on things, or what the so-called model is in details, but it's pretty accepted that medicine is most effective when taking sociological aspects on top of the core biomedical ones. The issue is that this criticism/model/whatever you want to call it has at least been co-opted by woo peddlers to claim their bullshit is more effective because it takes care of the non-biomedical aspects better. But like I said, I read this thing very quickly. Engel could be anything from a mainstream physician calling for better/more effective medical practice, to having been 'right' then evolving into a quack over time, to having been co-opted by woo peddlers, to being a woo-peddler himself.
 * The solution is, as always, find what reliable sources report about Engel's model. Probably the consensus is somewhere along "there's a basis of validity, but the 'model' itself is too vague to be falsifiable". &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

AAH
A paper that was published two years ago in an out-of-the-way journal purporting to survey scientists about their attitudes towards AAH is being inserted into our article by agenda-driven editors. Quite apart from the fact that the paper has no independent citations outside the AAH citogenesis community, this is also a social science paper published in a journal that is not dedicated to social science.



jps (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , so they saw the Talk page and conducted a survey to support their pre-existing views? That is a world-class case of citeogenesis I'd say. Guy (help!) 19:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Having read the paper, the study's results and its conclusions are wildly out of whack. The results throw a huge number of "hypotheses" at the respondents and ask them to "rate the credibility of 51 alternative hypotheses that have been proposed to explain their evolutionary origin (such as freeing the hands for tool use or seeing over tall grass)". The analysis then groups all the AAH traits into a large group called "other" and says that the credibility of that aggregate group is rated as highly as some of the individual parts of the Bipedalism or Encephalization groups.  This is not science in any actual sense of the word. The large number of items surveyed and hopelessly muddled analysis and really dodgy credibility scores render the whole thing meaningless. Of the three related authors (siblings?), one works on tropical rainforest plant communities, one works on experimental psychology, and one organic pollutants; none work on human evolution. On top of all that, the Discussion doesn't actually say what the editor was trying to get it to say. There is no way that this can be included under any rational standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Bates method sources
I'm concerned that some valid sources may have been removed here, especially an AAO report. This whole thing started with the use of "ineffective", but that is a secondary issue at this point. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A primary source from 1993 is not WP:MEDRS and neither is it WP:RS for being pressed into service as "support" for bollocks like the Bates Method. Alexbrn (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The AAO report is from 2013, although there was apparently an earlier version from 2004. And the report does not support the Bates method, but does suggest reasons why it might seem to work. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Some document from "AAO Complementary Therapy Task Force" is not reliable either, especially as "support" for bollocks like the Bates Method. We would need WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:MEDRS sources for that. Why the method might offer sporadic instants of apparently clear vision is covered elsewhere in the article. Alexbrn (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Anecdotal support" probably wasn't a good subtitle, and I see you have changed it. But you do realize that AAO stands for American Academy of Ophthalmology? Belteshazzar (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can read thanks (with the aid of glasses). Alexbrn (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the following “No evidence was found that visual training 1) has any effect on the progression of myopia; 2) improves visual function for patients with hyperopia or astigmatism; or 3) improves vision lost through disease processes, such as age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, or diabetic retinopathy.” Take home message “ineffective.” Am I missing something? Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 01:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite: the (prior) use of this source as "support" for the Bates' method was - problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps ineffective as far as those conditions are concerned. But if you read what is just above that, it's clear that some people do get improvement of a kind. So "ineffective" should at least be qualified. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You think staring at the sun (etc.) is in some way effective for myopia? It's time to produce your source saying so as this is beginning to look like a waste of time. Alexbrn (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The AAO report says this: "There is Level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia. In other studies (Level II/III evidence), an improvement in subjective VA for patients with myopia that have undertaken visual training has been shown, but no corresponding physiological cause for the improvement has been demonstrated. It is postulated that the improvements in myopic patients noted in these studies were due to improvements in interpreting blurred images, changes in mood or motivation, creation of an artificial contact lens by tear film changes, or a pinhole effect from miosis of the pupil." Belteshazzar (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ineffective in other words (apart from wishful thinking or unrelated phenomena). But in any case this source is about VT (another form of quackery) and does not even mention the Bates' Method. Alexbrn (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It does mention Bates. See the first footnote under "References". Also, see Elwin Marg's report, which clearly makes a connection between the methods practiced and fleeting improvements. I was hesitant to mention that one because of the date, but that shouldn't really matter here, as this essentially expands on what recent sources have said. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That Marg page is not a WP:RS for your claim. Please stop. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also .. that ref you mention in the “References” is 108 years old. Gosh. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you need to learn the difference between evidence and anecdote. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The AAO report and Elwin Marg (and some other sources which were recently removed on questionable grounds) show that people have gotten at least fleeting improvements in eyesight. Marg is more explicit in connecting this to the Bates method. Not that these sources support the Bates method; far from it. But this is an important aspect of the subject. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense on stilts. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 20:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this discussion got quite muddled. I said at the top that "ineffective" is a secondary issue at this point. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the primary issue is your tendentious editing at the Bates Method article. I am minded to topic-ban or partial block here. What do others think? Guy (help!) 22:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it was the Dunning Kruger effect at work, but it doesn't rise to that, and now I think its the much more mundane Dorling-Kindersley effect. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * After the latest bout of editing, I think I agree with Guy that a sanction is warranted. We've all better things to do than deal with this BS. Alexbrn (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My latest mistake was that I didn't work harder on a revision, and restored old wording which while basically true was perhaps misleading and sounded like it was supporting the Bates method. The "blur adaptation" is still a relevant, valid aspect of the subject. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * it wasn't "basically true", it was a fringey falsehood. I think you need to be removed from this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The way it was stated was perhaps misleading, but this "blur adaptation" is a known phenomenon, and is one reason why the Bates method might seem to work, even though it doesn't do what it is claimed to do. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

God's Not Dead trilogy


I've been trying to bring some much-=needed reality to these three articles. A number of sources point out that they exemplify the Christian persecution complex, and that the first two especially are clumsily made and rely on stereotypes and strawmen. I'm not wedded to any specific content, but I am not happy with the blatantly hagiographic tone of the articles as I found them. As with Unplanned, the plots sections were written as if by evangelicals watching the film with rapt attention, a problem when (as with the second film especially) it's effectively presenting a mirror universe version of real events where atheist professors have been persecuted for teaching science that conflicts with biblical literalism. Guy (help!) 00:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The plot summaries are sourced to the film's own websites, so they could be deleted as effectively unsourced, couldn't they? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries often aren't sourced unless there is a dispute about something, the implicit source is the film itself (hence primary). Not much different from using the film's website.  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , except that they are peppered with subjective judgments such as the pastor's lawyerr having made compelling points and the like. We normally tolerat eplot summaries written by people who have watched the film. That's normally OK because most films aren't long-form sermons. In this case the films are generally agreed to be terrible, and almosty nobody other than True Believers (and the God Awful Movies crew) has watched them, so a viewer-written plot summary written fomr the primary source is unlikely to be anything like neutral. Guy (help!) 17:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , oh hell, that crap should just go period. Ravensfire  (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I removed all the parts of the plot sections from these three films based on the fact that they are the filmmaker's own summaries and not independent. Also per WP:NOTPROMO as nothing but proselytization. I will proabbly be reverted so any assistance would be welcome. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the hard part is to accurately describe the really one-sided plot without promoting / supporting the beliefs. It's true of other types of propaganda type films think Zeitgeist (film series) or some of Michael Moore's films.  The plot will always be presented "in universe", even when that universe is obviously crap (see the universe for the second two films in this series).  This is a tough one.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , there are a number of sources that describe the plot. But fans won't like the descriptions... Guy (help!) 23:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Ancient black influence in early medicine
The above article could benefit from attention from editors here who are familiar with medical history, Black Egyptian hypothesis, and related subjects. signed,Rosguill talk 22:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This article isn't even about what the title suggests. I AfD'd it. Natureium (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Ed Winters
A vegan activist with fringe views. The article was deleted in 2018 but was recreated a year later. There is a current afd discussion. The last afd suffered from sock-puppetry and meat-puppets associated with Winters. As for the article itself, most of the sources are unreliable and plantbasednews.org is still used as a citation to the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A user is repeatedly adding PlantBasedNews.org and VeganLife Magazine as a source to establish notability and removing unreliable source templates. I find this problematic but I will not be reverting further. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Skeptical Science
Is Forbes a reliable source now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it not an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Forbes is fine, but the source in question was actually a blog hosted on the Forbes site by a person who felt aggrieved by the criticism Skeptical Science leveled at him. If this WP:PRIMARY source gets noticed by some third parties, we could include it, but until that point I think it's rightly excluded as a violation of WP:FRIND. Like it or not, the Pielkes (both father and son) are fringe contrarians and no amount of their personal harping on the Skeptical Science website is going to change that WP:MAINSTREAM evaluation. jps (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes (sites/ in the URL), only reliable for Pielke's own personal opinion, if considered due. He's a political scientist and notable so some of his political opinions may be due with attribution, although his statements in relation to climate were often controversial.  WP also should avoid advocating for "politicization of science" POV or to participate in giving a false legitimacy to it with false balance and undue content...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:RSP, it's a bit more subtle than that - if it's "Forbes staff" or "from the print edition", or is old, it's probably RS content; if it's "Contributor", then it's just a blog post, WP:SPS applies, and it's not RS unless they're so expert their blog posts are RS - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Population Research Institute


This article is being edited to remove critical content and add self-sourced and primary sourced promotional content. Guy (help!) 23:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Their purpose of existence expressed in a mission statement presents basic information, and isn't it time to face the requirement that also critical content must be authentic? –Joppa Chong (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See Avoid mission statements, Joppa Chong. And before you say "That's just an essay" (I'm a little psychic, and I think you will), see also WP:NOTADVERTISING. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC).
 * PRI's mission statement is something very special implying a few remarkable intentions which are insightful. Avoid mission statements Here it makes sense. I did not mean, users like you should not be trusted.−Joppa Chong (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a user's opinion that a mission statement is "very special", "remarkable" or "insightful" is a reason to include it. The rule you linked does not say it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , no it's not, it's a marketing device. All mission statements are. It's also plainly at odds with reality, as established by RS. Guy (help!) 11:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We have a policy indication that the exeption to include it applies, and who says that PRI's stated intentions are not true? Reading the mission statement can prevent undue generalization. –Joppa Chong (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What "policy indication"? Is it related to being "very special", "remarkable" or "insightful"?
 * The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "it could be true, who is to say it is not". The criterion is "it is written in reliable sources".
 * Stop this. It didn't work yet, and it will not work ever. Wikpedia editors are not as easily bluffed as the simpletons you usually sell your ideas to. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is still ongoing there, making me wonder if AE is due... — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Very persistent edit warring by Joppa Chong. I have blocked them for 36 hours. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC).
 * You did not block us but only me, so the unpatient edit warrior behind the move continued attacking. Policy must be applied as I said earlier. –Joppa Chong (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Richard Epstein
Another virus "expert" defended by his fans. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Mototaka Nakamura
WP:FRINGEBLP

Should it be in Wikipedia? I am not impressed with the sourcing.

jps (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm involved in discussions on the page. Notability seems to depend on his academic record (based on two articles in the 90s). However, no strong reporting seems to exist regarding this, so there is a mismatch between notability and coverage (the coverage itself being weak). Jlevi (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm looking at the sources that support "Which gained positive and negative attention in news and blogs" (other than the problem I posted about at the talk page), I'm also skeptical about notability. I tried looking for more sources in large newspapers that'd mention Mototaka Nakamura, without success.  There's an argument about WP:NACADEMIC but the results are weak enough that AFD might succeed.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You really think there is an argument that he passes WP:PROF? What is that argument? jps (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wasn't clear above, but it's also unconvincing to me (but see the article's talk page).Face-smile.svg — Paleo Neonate  – 00:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mototaka Nakamura. jps (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Gateway belief model
I just noticed that this article was undercover deleted by redirecting to scientific consensus. Is there a justification for this? Should we restore the original article?

jps (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I liked reading it, but also admit it's written like an essay by someone close to the topic. It could certainly be improved if restored.  The Sander van der Linden article also seems to have a history of COI issues.   — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As it can't be improved without restoring it, and I did an independent check to see if it appeared to be a notable topic and found sufficient sources, I've restored it. Doug Weller (talk) 14:18, April 2, 2020 (UTC)

Another possibly fringe Mormon edit
this one. I don't have time myself to check it and don't blame anyone if they don't either, but just in case... Doug Weller talk 11:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin


This is about. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what "blog post" they are complaining about, but I updated the reference url from www.sott.net to an archive of the original Daily Telegraph article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for updating the link. Regarding your question -Because if you look carefully at the page you wills the article may well be on the telegraph website but it is filed under "BLOGS HOME » NEWS » RELIGION » TOM CHIVERS", it is an opinion piece which quotes a scientist's opinion. No experiments were carried out to disprove the opposing theories.We are talking about one scientific claim against another, they are both in loose terms "scientific" although one was published in a paper which details investigations and the other rejects them purely on the basis of "scientific opinion". Joe9y (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say I am not sure a news blog is not enough to make a scientific claim.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like you reverted to the fringy www.sott.net link. Not sure you meant to do that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry no, both sources should be removed and a better one found.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, until better sources which demonstrate better scientific levels of evidence, we should respect both opposing views as "scientific". Therefore I think it is misleading to say "all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted". The refutations are also technically speaking hypotheses and the challenge to C14 dating in itself is a scientific refutation. The sentence should, in order to maintain neutrality and give fair credit to credible evidence, should read "the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating is disputed", because that is ultimately what those counter-hypotheses are. Joe9y (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That I am less comfortable with. Can you give one scientific source that challenges the Carbon 14 dating?Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on what if I may ask? We can't decide these things on our feelings! There are at least four scientific papers referenced already in the page regarding this. That is why I question how that sentence is worded. From a scientific point of view, these are just as legitimate to be considered as "scientific". Science is only proven by results testing a hypothesis, not by faith or hope in a desired outcome. Here are the references from the page that were already there.   Joe9y (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

These are some shitty, shitty sources. Almost disqualifying you as an editor per WP:CIR. jps (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Forget about the Daily Telegraph, that source isn't essential for verifying the claim. There are plenty of sources for that phrase, it does not all rest upon the article from Daily Telegraph. So, DT is a red herring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we have a thoughtful analysis (by the way the second source may have done something odd, so I am not gona touch any of these). THe fost source does not seem to say "all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted", all it says is "it may be that there is a bigger picture" (in that it does not challenge the dating, it just finds the cloth may have been well travelled). So can someone explain why the rest of these source support a claim that the RC dating is wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't add any sources just so you know. They were already there. The fourth one seems to be the most relevant and respectable as it is written by a member of the original STIRP team who concluded the Shroud was from the Mideaval times. His paper questions his own, and his colleagues methodology in choosing a sample and sets out why he questions it. Also if you know anything about C-14 it should NEVER give a range that wide like it did for the Shroud, so it is plausible that Rogers' hypothesis has merit.Joe9y (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am happy to delete all the various Telegraph references – these are just journalists looking for sensation by selectively quoting suppositions – not scientific papers, not objective and not helpful. There are other quality references to support these issues. A lot of content was exported to a "fringe" article, which may have disrupted the referencing. I have made some repairs already, but more is needed.


 * The two opposing views are not equal. People who challenge the C14 dating have offered a variety of theories, all of which have been scientifically refuted by actual scientists using actual scientific evidence. The medieval-repair hypothesis has been refuted by proving that there was no evidence of any repairs on the earlier STURP photos, that textile experts who examined the shroud found no evidence of repairs, and that Rogers was not using verified Shroud threads when he did his "comparison". The contamination hypothesis has been refuted by proving that there was little contamination present even before the cleaning procedures, whereas an authentic shroud sample would need to be coated with a huge amount of contamination to produce a medieval dating result – which contamination would need to endure even after the cleaning was done. The monoxide theory was specifically tested in a lab by actual C14 experts, and found to be invalid.


 * The expert who performed the monoxide test concluded that "As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate."


 * Wdford (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing at Wikiproject Scepticism
here. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hard to verify quote by Singer, possible antisemitic hoax
Please see Talk:World_Jewish_Congress. Could use a few pair of eyes. This quote (hoax) comes back to Wiki every now and them, there is evidence of WP:CITOGENESIS too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)