Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 71

NoFap and off-wiki canvassing
There's been a spike in questionable editing lately at the article on anti-masturbation subreddit and forum NoFap, much of which has been reverted. However, a few hours ago, NoFap complained loudly on their subreddit and Twitter about our Wikipedia article. It's pinned on their subreddit; and it seems the group is feeling really persecuted lately in general.

The article has been semi-protected, but since then, there has been restoration of an IP-added tag by an existing editor. Who knows what is going to happen as more people see NoFap's alert. So, yeah, the article definitely needs more eyes. Crossroads -talk- 07:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't like "Criticism" sections as they are often partisan attempts to draw attention to contrary views or unfortunate incidents with a heading intended to predispose the reader towards believing the criticism is well-founded (it may be, and in this case, surely is, but why have a leading heading?). Why not omit the heading in this article and leave the text as part of "Reception"? Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think criticism sections can be fine if done right, but in this case it doesn't seem needed as a heading. I had thought of just omitting the heading (and the tag), but given I was already reverted on trying to remove the tag, I figured I'd wait and see what other editors do. Indeed, some of the criticism is above the heading anyway, and the last paragraph under it is not clearly criticism. Crossroads -talk- 08:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, the problem isn't combating porn addiction. The problem is that random guys self-diagnose with porn addiction based on shallow evidence or religious prejudices. Or they fell prey to therapists who told them that vampire pornography is going to turn them into the next Ted Bundy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh. "Vampire pornography". I guess there are far more special genres than anybody is aware of. (There is probably a lot a sparkling in that one.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's nothing especially new, really. It's more a natural offshoot of vampire literature than pornography, as no literary criticism of Carmilla or Dracula is complete without addressing the sexual overtones, and the first literary (as opposed to mythic or legendary) vampire was inspired by the Regency era fertility deity Lord Byron. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , see Rule 34. Incidentally, the image on that article should be nuked. Guy (help!) 09:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "A 2020 study found that while NoFap claimed to be science-based, the more that NoFap followers believed that they should abstain from masturbation, the more they also reported 'lower trust in science'". Fap for science and fsck for forest?Face-smile.svg — Paleo  Neonate  – 11:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Children's Health Defense‎
I don't know much about this, but this revert is reverting David Gorski as a source. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Science Based Medicine is agreed to be a reliable source for criticisms of antivax and pseudomedical claims. Gorski's blog is called Respectful Insolence, the two are quite different - there is some thematic overlap but the tone is entirely different. Guy (help!) 19:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Joe Biden assault allegation
Notifying this board of Articles for deletion/Joe Biden assault allegation, as it bears the typical hallmarks of efforts to promote a fringe theory. BD2412 T 21:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drawing our attention to this. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Tasseography
In conjunction with working on a draft Draft:Annie O'Reilly, user has been adding content to the Tasseography article with an overall credulous tone towards divination. The added history of tea seems completely unneeded and some other aspects of the additions look questionable to me. More eyes, please?  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a conflict of interest: user who uploaded the picture, |the same user,, a quick search about the publisher Whiteslaw Press didn't bring much but the same book. — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I posted related notices but at the same time saw that a connection was already declared. — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Mark Steyn
Is he a climate change denier? Some say yes, some say no. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologia. jps (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If some say yes and some say no, we obviously can't say one or the other in wikipedia's voice - we go by sources, and attribute them. Doubly so in a BLP. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No. We only go by reliable sources and all the reliable sources say it is climate change denial. jps (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In BLP, we go by what reliable sources say, and if they conflict, we attribute views. Refresh your knowledge here: WP:BLP. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we're in agreement. Since there is no reliable source which disputes that this guy is a climate change denier, I think we're done here. jps (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Has there yet been a reliable source article that explicitly labels Steyn a "denier" or "denialist" that isn't some sort of opinion column, though? I'm including articles that phrases things in a manner such as "Steyn, who has been labeled by individuals such as X and Y as a climate change denier" or in other such ways. I've yet to see a single one.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of ever citing opinion columns. It's just that they appear inadequate in this context. Label as a "denier" or "denialist" is just about strong as a pejorative as "pedophile", "rapist", "thief", et cetera and should not be treated glibly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * To be absolutely clear about this: adding a statement like "Steyn has been labeled as an advocate for climate change denial" would be perfectly reasonable, the only catch is that there doesn't seem to have been proper sourcing supplied yet. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Um, no. Rapists and thieves are criminals, and pedophiles too if they act on their impulses. (Frauds too, BTW.) Denial is legal. That label just marks people as being wrong about something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously denying the pejorative nature of flaming somebody as a "denier" or "denialist"? The term is intentionally meant to be highly negative, hence why the analogous comparison of people with such views about climate change to Holocaust deniers and AIDS deniers as well as others got started in the first place. We all know this.
 * Also, and I can't believe that we're debating this, but legal =/= moral and moral =/= legal. You just admitted that labeling somebody as a "pedophile" doesn't imply calling them a criminal. And yet we'd never add the label of "pedophile" to somebody's article without really good sourcing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I am seriously denying that the pejorative nature is "just about strong as" accusations of crimes. Please pay attention to what people actually say.
 * Also, I never said that moral is the same as legal. Please pay attention to what people actually say.
 * Someone can have pedophile inclinations without acting on them and without committing any crimes, thus making them non-criminals. That is rather simple logic.
 * Also, I do not think that most denialists are actually immoral - they are just committed to a free-market worldview, and since scientists say things that contradict it (the market did something wrong by causing global warming), in their eyes, those scientists must by lying or stupidly doing something wrong. So they see those scientists as villains or idiots. That is just normal behaviour for people who have not been trained to avoid pseudoscientific reasoning. The alt-med crowd is the same, as are astrologers, creationists, and so on.
 * To me, a denialist is just like somebody who has not learned how to knit and refuses to learn it, but still has a very strong opinion on how people should knit. Just with a vastly more important subject with dire consequences. In short: they are stubborn, self-important, and ignorant. And there is a real lot of them, making the accusation rather ho-hum.
 * Criminals are different. There are relatively few of those, and there is a very broad consensus that you should not be one. (I will borrow your "I can't believe that we're debating this" here.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess that I can understand from your own perspective that these labels exist in a certain way, but I'm just going to have to disagree since things are different out in the real world. I say this not as a personal attack (after all: you live in a bubble, I live in a bubble, and regular people generally live in bubbles due to practicality, for example nearly all individuals in the world only speak one language). It's just that the vast major of people are aware that, for instance, "pedophile" does not necessarily from a cold, logical perspective that somebody is an actual "child molester" (hence why the different terms exist). At the same time, try calling your everyman at a local library or some other public place a "pedophile" in a normal conversation and... of course, what reaction do you expect? Try doing the same thing in a dry educational context and it won't be that much different. Writing a college term paper and accusing John McNonexistent of being anything that emotionally charged out of the blue? It'll immediately be flagged by an educator as ghastly. That it's an accusation unrelated to crime is not relevant. It's still an accusation, meant to be extremely pejorative.
 * Again, we are not talking about crimes. We are talking about accusations of gross malevolence. Hence why the terms "denialist" and "denier", used initially to refer to Holocaust based quakery and nonsense peddling about AIDS, got applied to the climate change debate in the first place. It was always, from the very beginning, meant to be treated as such.
 * That denialists are or are not immoral in the abstract sense isn't relevant either. Again, a pedophile can be said to be inherently not immoral for a number of reasons (i.e. they've been born a certain way and thus feel given attractions, desires that they didn't ask for, and thus haven't actually done a wrong by merely existing). One can say the same thing about a pyromaniac. One can, to be blunt, also say the same thing about Holocaust denial. Really. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, a regular person off the street with a certain naive attitude to authority and government could read about World War II and find it so repugnant that he or she cannot psychologically accept that it occurred. He or she is a "denier"/"denialist", but he or she isn't immoral per se.
 * None of that changes the fact that you wouldn't call somebody on the street a "denialist", "denier", "pyromaniac", "pedophile", or whatever else. It's an intense label that's emotionally loaded for a reason and has severe consequences. By design. Again, I can't believe that we're even debating this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a minor point, but "Criminals are different. There are relatively few of those, and there is a very broad consensus that you should not be one." is honestly so bonkers that I kind of chuckled. Are you seriously living in a world where people don't speed on the roads, run red lights, jaywalk, park in two parking spaces, drink raw milk, sell flowers without a license, illegally watch television shows online, engage in homosexual conduct, insult each other past a libelous standard, illegally download music online, turn at a red light without coming to a complete stop, visit a bathroom while displaying a gender identity contrary to their birth certificate, loiter, drive a vehicle that hasn't been inspected recently enough, or... do one of the many countless actions that regular, non-malicious human beings will do on a regular basis? If anything, I'd say "Criminals are normal. There are relatively lots of them, and there's no consensus about being one." Oh, and I'll add that as an Irish-American personally some of my ancestors and their associates committed treason to the British crown and legally deserved to be executed for it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * TL;DR. I read your first three sentences and saw they were not going anywhere, except on a tangent, so I decided to skip the rest. May I remind you that the is the Wikipedia Fringe Theories Noticeboard and that its purpose is to alert fringe-savvy users to problematic articles? You are free to chat about pedophiles or whatever as much as you like, but I will not further indulge you. If you had anything to say which is relevant to the subject at hand, please repeat that part without all the chitchat around it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised by your comment, though I'm disappointed nonetheless, but then I guess that you've demonstrated a rather limited perspective in these such discussions. Yes, this is the aforementioned Noticeboard. Yes, it's based on discussing problematic articles. As per the central point, once again, labeling someone a deliberately emotionally charged and vindictive term such as "denier"/"denialist" is not to be done glibly. Mere opinion columns are not enough. We need reasonable, reliable sources that would be appropriate in this context. I'm still waiting for something other than an opinion column to be produced. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * blah, blah, personal attack, blah, blah... not worth reading again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll note the irony of you accusing somebody else of making personal attacks when you've been doing just that, with me displaying a rather unjustified kind of restraint by comparison. At any rate, though, do you really not want to actually discuss the topic at hand? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am attacking what you write, not you. Easy to tell apart if you try:
 * "your first three sentences [..] were not going anywhere" - about the writing.
 * "you've demonstrated a rather limited perspective" - about the writer.
 * "blah, blah, personal attack" - about the writing.
 * See? Easy peasy. But I made the same mistake a few days ago in the heat of argument. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm trying hard to be unreasonably reasonable with you here. Again: are you interested in having an actual discussion on the substance of this topic? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to contest your claim that "denier" is as strong a pejorative as some other... well, "pejorative" is not even the right word for them. "Libel" is the right word if they are not true. That was a minor point of no particular interest, intended a small correction, and I did not expect you to blow that tidbit out of proportion like this, starting with you misrepresenting what I said (the parts where I had to say "Please pay attention"), and ending with you misrepresenting what I said (the parts where I had to explain what is and is not a personal attack). Can we stop this now and get back to the point? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see more false claims and attacks. If you're willing to drop this particular part of the discussion, then so am I. As I just typed above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's a pretty good longform journalism piece that so identifies him: NCSE, no slouch at all, so identifies him:, Here is yellow source Media Matters for America identifying him: , Michael Mann's book on page 267 does the same: , or, if you prefer, here he details his attachment to the denial machine for Bill Moyers:. jps (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Thank you. Looking at these in reverse order, the BillMoyers.com source (Is the website reliable? I think so personally and have utilized it without seeing objections. Might be worth checking to see its status in terms of past RFC discussions.) mentions the "right-wing columnist Mark Steyn" in passing and neither labels him anything else nor details his views in depth. The article mentions "diehard climate change deniers" but doesn't name any of them individually in the context of that paragraph or the preceding one. This all doesn't really work.
 * Mann's book is something that I'm genuinely unsure about in terms of the appropriateness of the citation. He's literally part of a lawsuit against Steyn and, naturally enough, can't be said to have anything close to an objective view. At the same time, oddly enough, Steyn himself doesn't appear labeled as a "denier"/"denialist" here either. The exact wording is that Steyn has been "linked time and again in some way to... an ever well-oiled climate change denial machine." In the context of Steyn's own page, there's already a long section about the aforementioned lawsuit. It may be reasonable to add something like "Mann stated that Steyn has been linked to what the scientist considers the "climate change denial machine". That still, though, is questionable since it's Mann's own opinion isolated from anything else; an assertion made in the book by him rather than by some newspaper or the like. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I already tried the first second one. It was rejected as "just an opinion". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * r.e. the other two websites linked:
 * The opinion column from MMFA is highly unsuitable, I think, to be used as a source in his context. Not only is the group itself a political activist organization, but this isn't even a detailed report from the organization. It's simply a generic blog post. Interestingly enough, the labels "denier"/"denialist" don't come up here either. Steyn is criticized for "his track record of climate denial" in his statements. Yet the fact that a left-wing activist group has condemned a right-wing writer, well, it's not a surprise, is it? Doesn't seem at all like the kind of reliable source that we need.
 * Finally, there's the opinion column from the NCSE. This, honestly, is the closest to a possibly justifiable source in this context. It's a reasonable-enough organization tied to work that's been cited approvingly on this website before, multiple times, and I know that. However, I still find some fault with it in this context since, if we're going to label Steyn in the fashion of explicitly adding "Steyn is a climate change denialist" or something like that in the article, we need something beyond a mere opinion column. Yes, it's from a writer associated with a reasonable organization. It's still merely his opinion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

r.e. Inverse.com, almost forgot to mention, they do discuss the Mann-v-Steyn situation in depth, but the broader website itself doesn't appear to be a reliable source (I welcome the possibility of maybe an RFC on that). The article itself also doesn't appear to have a credited author, nor does it cite any other sources anywhere. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We have been able to examine a few sources that say “yes, I think Steyn is a denier”... Could we see a few sources that say “no, I don’t think Steyn is a denier”? Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes please. Where are they? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * First, the sources don't all say that, as stated above. Second, it doesn't really make sense to expect sources to report on a negative proposition that way in this context. It's sort of making the argument "We can't remove the uncited claims that John Q. Public is a concert pianist until one of the news articles about John surfaces saying 'John: No Musical Talent'" or something. Journalism doesn't work that way. You don't make assertions and proclaim them as absolute truth a prior as long as they're not disproven. Third, even if we had a source provided that said something like "Steyn's views on climate change are often misunderstood" or something like that, it wouldn't somehow function as a trump card to stop all argument. The question at hand is what constitutes a proper source that meets our guidelines in the context, and then we'd have to represent the source correctly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The author is JACQUELINE RONSON. jps (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This article, I think, appears to be the only source that I could consider possibly reliable enough and right in these circumstances. I'm not sure, though, and welcome additional discussion. We can state that "Steyn's writings have been labeled as climate change denial" or something along those lines bearing the results of the discussion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * NCSE should be considered a gold standard as well. Their agenda is exactly in line with the kind of reliability we would want in making determinations about who is or is not in what camp vis-a-vis scientific consensus. jps (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, science advocacy is not only political advocacy... — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The Hidden Messages in Water
New article, needs a bit of attention. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Help, I'm stranded on a desert island" -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have redirected this. It was based on the book itself (which is bollocks, as we know) and synthesis from articles written by Dean Radin and others. Guy (help!) 10:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored it, while there are issues they can be solved by normal editing. Also there are good sources used as well, New York Times and Vox for instance. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say it does seem notable, even if utter bollocks.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup... bollocks, but notable bollocks. Present it as if it were fiction. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like Guy has taken care of most of the issues. Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Emoto's bollocks is indeed notable bollocks. But this book is not independently notable bollocks, because it's the same bollocks that the Emoto article is about, and that (after pruning sources like Dean Radin) is not big enough that we need this split. Guy (help!) 20:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Aanndd at Articles for deletion/The Hidden Messages in Water. PackMecEng (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Martensville satanic sex scandal
Is that a good name for an article? Including "hysteria" has been suggested. See Talk. --Hob Gadling (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure there is a fringe theory involved. Or at least, not one that merits discussion on WP:FTN, since there is no evidence that the allegations of 'satanic sex' are still being taken seriously. As for the title, 'Martensville satanic sex allegations' would probably work. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The existence of Satanic sex rings is a fringe claim, and we have several articles on the subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the article in question isn't being used to promote such claims. My only issue was with the title, which didn't reflect the content. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So what? "Your issue" is not the point. On this board, people have experience with how to phrase such stuff.
 * BTW, "allegations" does not quite fit. "Accusations" is better, since there were charges. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Attributed "conspiracy theory" label for the artificial origin claims about COVID-19
There is an ongoing discussion about whether the hypothesis on COVID-19 having man-made origins from a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (not the more recent hypothesis on accidental natural transmission from the same laboratory) should be described in the lead and body of the article as a conspiracy theory (attributed to the RSes using the term), after. Any additional input and participation is welcome. — MarkH21talk 07:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Unknown years of Jesus
New additions seem pretty dubious. Doug Weller  talk 12:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess the best thing to do is challenge it somehow. The text could be removed. Meanwhile someone could start a discussion on the talk page to determine where it lands on the fringe meter.
 * Steve Quinn (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Harold Ambler
He is apparently famous enough for holding fringe views (climate change denial, again) to deserve an article, but not for anything else. And the article says he holds fringe views, but not much else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Article made of puffery, huge fan of Ambler adding cruft and removing tags - more eyes most welcome. See also the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Joey Carbstrong
A vegan activist who is notable. The Problem is a few extensive quotes citing Carbstrong's own words that have been added to the article that run into the issue of WP:UNDUE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Also I am not sure if The Northern Echo is a reliable source. It looks worse than the Daily Mail and the website takes ages to load up and is filled with adverts. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Northern Echo is fine in comparison to the Fail. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is amazingly favourable to the subject considering how negative all he headlines of the sources are.GPinkerton (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian Academy of Natural Sciences is Wikipedia's current article for improvement
whatever that is. Anyway, it's fringe so might be a good idea to watch it. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Fringe interpretation of the Holocaust in Bulgaria: attention required for a Request Move: "'Rescue' of the Bulgarian Jews". Talk:Rescue_of_the_Bulgarian_Jews
The present article's title is non-neutral and misleading, promoting fringe beliefs. The phrase is a creation of the People's Republic of Bulgaria as an exercise in self-promotion and an abnegation of Bulgarian responsibility for the Holocaust. The pro-Nazi Bulgarian state and Axis member organized and paid for the systematic massacre of 20% of the Jewish population within the borders of the Kingdom of Bulgaria as it existed in 1941. A similar proportion of France's Jews were killed in the Holocaust, in a country directly under German occupation and with collaborationist government; no German soldiers ever occupied Bulgaria. Unlike the Rescue of the Danish Jews, in which nearly all Denmark's Jews escaped imprisonment and death and German occupation, and which the post-war communist Bulgarian state sought to rival with its own "rescue" claim, Bulgaria's Jews had their property confiscated, were expelled from major cities and confined to ghettos, and were subjected to forced labour until the Red Army crossed the Danube and Bulgaria finally changed sides. Moreover, the Bulgarian state organized and executed the arrest, transport, imprisonment of more than 11,000 Jews inside Bulgaria in concentration camps at Skopje, Dupnitsa, and Blagoevgrad, and final expulsion onto boats on the Danube at Lom bound for Vienna and a railway journey to Treblinka. For the cost of that part of their journey that was through German-occupied territory, the Bulgarian state paid the Nazis 250 reichsmarks per head. The Bulgarian government also signed an agreement that it would under no circumstances request their repatriation. In occupied France and elsewhere the Bulgarian government declined to intervene to help any Bulgarian Jews arrested in round-ups in France and Italy, and many went to their deaths with the express approval of the Bulgarian state many months after the supposed "rescue of the Bulgarian Jews".

Pages 1-44 of the 2018 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, vol. 3: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany deal with Bulgaria, as does the [|Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence] (required reading), which are the most full and comprehensive recent tertiary sources, as well as the Encyclopedia of the Holocausts chapter on Bulgaria. An excellent historiographical treatment, vital for the understanding of recent historical revisionism and the role of the issue in Bulgarian nationalism pre- and post- the fall of communism, is also found at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23256249.2017.1346743 (2017) (required reading). There is, furthermore, a fringe belief in Bulgaria, propagated by revisionist non-historians and the Bulgarian far-right at a January 2020 "round-table" and accompanying document produced by the "Bulgarian Academy of Sciences", politicians of the former United Patriots ultra-nationalist coalition, among others, that the forced labour by which Jewish families were separated and immiserated (together with the Bulgarian Turkish and Muslim minorities and the Roma/gypsys, euphemistically termed "unemployed") was in some way an elaborate ploy to "rescue" the Jews. This is denounced as antisemitic distortion by Bulgaria's main Jewish organization, Shalom, and the World Jewish Congress, as well as Bulgarian Holocaust survivors: https://sofiaglobe.com/2020/01/17/controversy-over-round-table-on-second-world-war-labour-camps-for-bulgarian-jewish-men/

https://sofiaglobe.com/2020/01/27/international-holocaust-remembrance-day-bulgarian-survivors-tell-their-stories/

https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/wjc-and-bulgarian-jewish-community-concerned-by-national-round-table-on-wwii-labor-camps-1-5-2020

The present title is used as cover by editors to absolve Bulgarian responsibility for the Holocaust and propagate falsehoods denying the relevance of incorporating material on ghettoization, forced labour, and internal deportation in the article, on the grounds that it is not "rescue". This circular argument can be short-circuited by changing this page to a neutral title like: "The Holocaust in Bulgaria", along the lines of other Axis and occupied countries' own Holocaust articles, e.g. The Holocaust in Slovakia, The Holocaust in France, The Holocaust in Italy, and so on. Much of the present Talk page dispute hinges on whether confiscation of real estate and forcible evacuation of Bulgaria's Jews from its cities to regional camps, labour camps, and ghettos with hand-luggage only constitutes "confiscation" and "deportation" and whether the fringe beliefs on "forced labour as rescue" has any place on a mainstream encyclopaedia. The page deserves a more neutral title and less fringe pro-Bulgarian theory. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * see here at DRN -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The above DRN is now closed. See the RM, now with strident fringe casuistical opposition from involved Bulgarian Wikipedians: Talk:Rescue_of_the_Bulgarian_Jews. GPinkerton (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The disputes over this are now part also of ANI report by a third party, here. GPinkerton (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Unofficial Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories
Isn't "unofficial" loony-code for "loony"? At the moment, I cannot think of a good replacement for the word, but it should be replaced with something. But not "conspiracy theories", since it does not fit all of the ideas in the article. How about "speculation"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Rumours? Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories is the appropriate title, because each individual "unofficial (i.e. fringe) theory" carries with it an unspoken assumption that the mainstream is suppressing/ignoring it in favor of the official explanation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I second 's suggestion. Do we need a RM on this? It should be an uncontroversial move, I think. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep works for me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Opened a section on Talk to inform passer-by. - 15:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Zamzam Well
User:‎Touhid3.1416 has added "However, an article published in the journal chemosphere on December 2011 cites that the arsenic present in the water may have positive effect on human body as proper use of Arsenic works against cancer(like in the medicine Arsenic Trioxide ). " The first link doesn't mention the well. The second is about the well but I'm not at all sure appropriately summarised. I disagree with the addition of "claim" in their edits also - there are times when the word is appropriate, I'm not sure this is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The edits are surely pushing in one direction, connecting two wholly unconnected mentions of arsenic to prove arsenic is good for you (!) when drunk from a spring said to be teeming with bacteria ten years ago. The editor could have used this respectable-looking thing as a basis for all sorts of absurd claims. How is religion in medical(?!) journals like that dealt with? GPinkerton (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed that source and reverted one of the wording edits. It's clearly a misuse of a primary source, contrary to WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE, in order to suggest that the holy water really does have healing properties. Crossroads -talk- 03:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the extra paragraph about the debunking of the therapeutic claims - since we no longer have therapeutic claims, we no longer need to debunk them. This para was not talking about whether the water was "safe to drink". Wdford (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fine to include a statement that claims of dsafety or therapeutioc properties have been found to be bogus. That's better than not nmentioning it at all. Guy (help!) 11:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, I have restored and enlarged the statement. Is this in the right section though? Wdford (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Bible code


A user brought this up off-wiki (at WP:DISCORD, and caught behind a rangeblock, for full disclosure) so I thought I'd shoot a quick post here about it. It feels like the article is a bit too credulous about fringe viewpoints, especially in the lead. Moreover, it almost looks like material has been cut out. For example, right after the lead in the Overview section, reference is made to "two schools of thought", but only one is actually described. Anyway, I just figured folks here might be interested and have better experience evaluating this sort of situation. Thanks in advance. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 22:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Baba Vanga
Uses The Sun as a source for predictions having come true. Probably more nonsense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is indeed pro-fringe, with statements like . But I can certainly find some evidence of notability: . –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 03:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Fringe content being added to Bruce Lipton
This article has been edited with unreliable content added that promotes Lipton from an uncritical angle. Lipton is a fringe figure into quantum woo like Deepak.

If you check the history of the article interestingly two accounts edited this article on article at a similar time Hasan.2526272829 and Bigbaby23 and their edits match. I looked deeper and it appears these users are likely the same person. For example compare their edit summaries and editing interests compared to. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced they're the same editor, but have tried to clean up a bit the article. To really improve it, one should ideally start looking for sources from scratch (I've not dealt with sources at all yet).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Scale relativity again
A promoter of this non-notable fringe theory restored 93K of bad content against consensus. I am afraid I will not have time to deal with an interminable argument this week. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do people think this is worth keeping around? I really don't get it. jps (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I doubt that it rises to the level of being a fringe theory worth writing about. It's like having an article on El Naschie's "E-infinity theory" &mdash; there's so little of substance that it fails to attract substantive criticism. And unlike the cases of El Naschie or the Bogdanov brothers, there hasn't been a scandal to write about, either. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can it be taken to AfD with a good chance of having it deleted? Since it is fringe without a lot of coverage or criticism, maybe AfD the best way to go. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Or WP:MERGE to Laurent Nottale might be simpler. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support either of those courses of action. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I think merge as proposed is an acceptable option. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * — Paleo Neonate  – 21:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Scale relativity has been merged to Laurent Nottale per a snowing consensus. An IP editor has recently shown up complaining about the thought police. I've put in a semiprotection request for the redirect in the hopes of minimizing drama and time-waste. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ahasuerus
Ahasuerus has been filled with fringe WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Many of your sources are WP:FRINGE (SDA theology, not mainstream history) or dated (written before 1960). So, yeah, in Wikipedia language this means you are a fringe POV-pusher. It's not an insult, it's a fact. You even had the balls to quote Ellen G. White as if she were a historian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

He stated: Get the biased Jesuit/Masonic controlled Harvard and Yale's to write your official position and drop the pretense that this is a grass roots platform, by the common men and helping the common men. His POV is now manifest. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The talk page and recent history of Esther and Vashti are now involved in related disputes over the presentation of the purported historicity of the Book of Esther. GPinkerton (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Spam and whitewashing on Joel Fuhrman
User is removing reliable sourced content and adding countless links to amazon.com Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

New ArbCom case concerning Race and intelligence
An ArbCom case has been opened at by an opponent of the above RfC determination that claims of racial genetic inferiority/superiority in intelligence are fringe (see  and ). NightHeron (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels
Now the Judith Curry whitewashing discussion has moved to the next denier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is obviously whitewashing. Yawn. PackMecEng (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not me. The scientists who research the phenomenon of denialism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
Not sure whether this properly belongs to this noticeboard. For years, there was one user promoting Russian conspiracy theories (which are different in Nature but the essence is that Ukraine shot down the plane), but there was enough reasonable users there to keep this confined. Now another user joined (and they presumably joined because they have been indefblocked on ru.wp and have a lot of time, but this is not the point), and one can see that the article, which was stable for several years, started to change, with these conspiracies being given more weight. More eyes there (or even straight administrative invasion) would probably help.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See also WP:ANI. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Entheogenic drugs and the archaeological record
Would people familiar with medical sources have a quick look at the above article, which is not well cited. Thanks if you can. A lot of claims are made about archaeological evidence for drug use, when because such evidence is intrinsically unlikely to be preserved, we are really in the territory of speculation and assumption. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone who is familiar with mainstream archeological studies and who is aware of fringe in this area should take a look. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

McKenzie method
Recently a new SPA has started editing the McKenzie method article. Changes such as removing references to having at most, limited benefit for helping alleviate acute back pain to "system encompassing assessment (evaluation), diagnosis, treatment, and prevention for the spine and the extremities." I think moving back to this version would be helpful and then start going through the references that have been added since then. My background is not in the medical field so eyes on the article that are more familiar with this content would be helpful. -- VViking Talk Edits 13:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Estimate of the Situation
Articles for deletion/Estimate of the Situation

I am... amazed that this article exists.

jps (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Scale relativity and (not so) subtle vandalism
Hi all,

The scale relativity article has been gradually deleted by anonymous, obviously non-academic, non-expert wikipedia editors. The situation changed from a full-fledged article, containing 130 references, that was gradually improved during 5 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scale_relativity&oldid=949596454

to a redirect to one of the main actors of the theory (Laurent Nottale).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scale_relativity&oldid=953159300

I have tried to engage in a civil and rational discussion, refuting the initial decision to "stubbify" the article (see the initial discussion here and there for the refutation). The editors leaning towards stubbification did not engage in the discussion (or only very superficially). What's more, one of them (XOR&#39;easter) reverted himself the improvements that ensued from the discussion (from here to there). This clearly shows bad faith.

I know some editors can use, abuse and hide behind many Wikipedia Policies, so please do look at the big picture. The situation is now clear to me: what happened is pure and simple vandalism WP:VANDAL.

I propose to re-establish the full-fledged article, punish the vandals, and improve from there. Clementvidal (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, how many of those sources were actually about Scale relativity, as there looks like a degree over wp:overcite going on.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The degree of overciting and "referenciness" in the advocates' version of the scale relativity article was significant. Many are basic references on quantum mechanics or other background material, like Mandelbrot's book on fractals and even a translation of Galileo, which do not establish the notability of the topic. Then there's a heap of primary sources, which would not be suitable to build an article upon (and they are generally published in marginal or outright junk journals). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Does overciting justify deleting a whole page? Of course not! This is a superficial problem that can be easily fixed. Clementvidal (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That was my impression, very poorley cited.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If anything, having a short discussion in the article Laurent Nottale is kinder to scale relativity, since the long list of "predictions" in totally different fields, from the electron mass and the strong nuclear force to the distribution of space debris, the radii of planetary orbits, human embryo development and the technological singularity, reads to any working physicist like the "Theory of Everything!!!" spam email we get whenever we publish something with "quantum" in the title. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Scale relativity is definitely not a theory of everything. You may see it as a generalized theory of measure, which explains that it can have a wide range of applications and make predictions (real validated ones, not in quotes) on measurable science. But really, it has nothing to do with spam emails, if you take the trouble to study it a tiny bit. Clementvidal (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I took the trouble. I read Nottale's 2011 book (as I recall, I did so not long after it came out). All of my statements reflect my position after having done so. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The 2011 book is definitively a hard read. I'd recommend starting with the 1994 book, or better with the popular book The Relativity of All Things: Beyond Spacetime that has now been translated into English. I now understand why you may have been discouraged and quickly concluded that it would be all non-sense. Clementvidal (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The scale relativity article has been gradually deleted by anonymous, obviously non-academic, non-expert wikipedia editors. I presume you mainly mean me. I'm a professional physicist. The "improvements that ensued from the discussion" were trivial cosmetic changes (which, moreover, had no consensus in their favor). The "big picture" is that "scale relativity" is a content-free heap of words and equations, ignored by everyone except its adherents. Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things. And phrasing like punish the vandals is difficult to interpret as offering good faith (much like the accusations that Wikipedia editors are the "polizei" or the "thought-police", made by another scale relativity advocate recently). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a professional physicist. That's what you claim but a proof is needed. The "improvements that ensued from the discussion" were trivial cosmetic changes (which, moreover, had no consensus in their favor). We even disagree on this. These were actually useful. Since you made these comments towards these changes, I presume it's a consensus of two persons. The "big picture" is that "scale relativity" is a content-free heap of words and equations, ignored by everyone except its adherents. Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things. That's your regular rhetoric, unfortunately empty of any scientific argument or rationale. Again, as I argued in the talk page, it's not ignored as it counts thousands of citations. And phrasing like punish the vandals is difficult to interpret as offering good faith I tried to engage in a conversation about your concerns (and other's), but you not only did almost not reply, and when I addressed your concerns and made changes to meet them, you reverted them. I call this a non-constructive attitude to say the least. And I do maintain that deleting a full-fledged article with zero rational, zero scientific argument is against the whole spirit of building an encyclopedia. Clementvidal (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "proof is needed" - Wrong. When you make a personal attack containing a false claim, the user you attacked does not need to prove that the claim is false. Instead, you need to stop making personal attacks and focus on content. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not a personal attack. Anybody behind a pseudonym can claim to be anyone. There is no true or false claim involved here. Under anonymity, we just don't know. I just express my legitimate doubts here. Clementvidal (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "obviously non-academic, non-expert" is very obviously a personal attack. As I said, you should focus on content instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I'm not trying to argue from personal authority (just because I have "professor" in my title doesn't make me right about everything), just pointing out that an assumption was incorrect. I tried to make arguments focused on scientific content; the changes made in response to them were trivial and left my points unaddressed, so I concluded that further attempts would be in vain. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I tried to make arguments focused on scientific content; the changes made in response to them were trivial and left my points unaddressed, so I concluded that further attempts would be in vain This is wrong. I did debunk or did address systematically your points here. You did not further engage with them, which seems to mean that you ran out of scientific arguments. And you did revert the changes where your contributions were correct (albeit now you consider them trivial or cosmetic). Clementvidal (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is moot given the subsequent consensus to merge here. Also, WP:VANDNOT. VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess what I'm asking for is WP:IAR to re-examine the so-called "consensus" of 1) deleting the content of the page 2) merge it with another page. Note that a previous discussion (AfD in 2008) of a deleting request had led to a "keep" consensus, which contradicts the course of action taken recently. Possible issues of overcitation, or lack of secondary sources are issues of form (not content) and can obviously be fixed without deleting a whole article that had evolved during 5 years. This resulting slow deletion is clearly WP:RECKLESS if not more... I grant you that the decisions leading to the deleting and merging may have followed strictly wikipedia policies, but they were not based on any scientific or rational argument, and led by anonymous non-expert users, so their value is limited if not nil. Thank you for your consideration. Clementvidal (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a valid argument, if the result of an AFD was keep we would need another AFD to overturn that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This however this is not the version that was kept, this is [].Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And as long as we're invoking WP:IAR, I'd suggest that we should not regard an AfD for a drastically different version of a page, held twelve years ago, as very binding upon our actions now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But it may be an argument for restoring that version (well no may about it). Nor did I invoke IAR, so its irrelevant to my point. Thus I suggest restoring to the consensus version.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being unclear; I was referring to the invocation of WP:IAR a few comments above yours. The version kept at the 2008 AfD is NPOV, virtually unsourced, and scientifically incorrect (Newton's constant G does not appear in the Schrödinger equation, for example). Restoring to it would not, IMO, constitute progress. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but consensus can change, but until it does its consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If restored, that version would have to be edited (severely) to be an acceptable encyclopedia article. That would not be the worst thing, although it would leave us in pretty much the same position we were in before the merge. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then that is what should have been done. Passing AFD does not mean it cannot be improved.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * can you clarify why you think an article that was kept at AfD 12 years ago can be stubbified or merged now only after another AfD? VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There were as many !votes to merge in the merge discussion as there were !votes to keep in the 2008 AfD. Isn't that a sign of the consensus changing? I'm asking seriously, not to be snarky &mdash; I don't know of many examples of articles revisited after decade-old AfD's, and so I don't really have a sense of what precedent there might be. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The merge discussion took place over only 3 days. The AFD took twice that long.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * True, the AfD was longer than average, though the merge discussion was open for a full week. The comments trailed off, as they often do (but were unanimous until then). Without splitting hairs or trying to be overly precise about what is, after all, not supposed to be a majority vote, it does seem like the wind that had blown towards "keep" had shifted to "merge" instead. I don't want to claim that the outcome of the merge discussion must be taken as definitive, but I also feel that it's poor form to override a strong consensus. (Pinging, who opened the merge discussion, and , who suggested it.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggested the merge originally because my !vote in any AFD would have been merge, and it seemed likely that that would have been the final outcome. The broad consensus that emerged in the pre-discussion seems to confirm that instinct, as does the merge discussion itself. One small advantage of the merge over deletion is that Scale relativity survives as a redirect with all its past history and can be easily resurrected if consensus changes, although I think that unlikely in this case. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that consensus has now shifted to "merge."  After more than a decade consensus appears to have changed. I don't see any need to resurrect the article as a stand-alone. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See my comment below, the merge process was biased, and the 2008 "keep" decision means that the topic is considered notable -whatever the actual content of the article that inevitably evolved through time. Clementvidal (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Removing fringe content is not vandalism, and old AfDs do not trump recent consensus to merge. User conduct concerns should be raised at WP:ANI or possibly WP:AE, not FTN, but be aware they'll likely be dismissed there for the same reason they're being dismissed here. –dlthewave ☎ 02:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I want to add that the merge decision was completely biased from the start, because it was based on the almost completely deleted version of the article (again, deleted without any scientific argument), instead of the elaborated version that was standing as a consensus since five year. So of course, if you first delete an article almost entirely and write a bad and hollow one instead, it looks like a good idea to further merge it as a subsection! This two steps course of action that led to the deletion of the article without scientific argument is both against the 2008 decision to keep the article, and obviously against the rational, constructive, collective wikipedia spirit. Please do carefully consider this! Clementvidal (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out most of those sources were not about the topic, and many more were a violation of wp:primary, in fact I have to say (given the state it was in in 2008 I am amazed it passed AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems that the AfD basically ignored the state of the article itself and said "hey look sources exist!" without bothering to evaluate their quality. The WP:TNT essay didn't exist at the time, but it sure would have been applicable. The only version that makes the subject look halfway respectable is the one that got merged. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which I why I would rather it has not been merged, rather than a second AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To what benefit? WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Frank J. Tipler
Criticism is being removed from the article, with the usual justifications or giving no justification. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Loren Coleman's Twitter, synthesis, and fringe views
Over at Mapinguari user is stitching together biology texts with fringe sources like Loren Coleman's Twitter. This could use more eyes. See and  for examples. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, this entire topic is fringe. A plausible real-world explanation for the reported sightings of this supposed creature (especially as compared to the possible but totally implausible suggestion that they are relict giant ground sloths) should be considered some of the least fringe information in the article.  Loren Coleman is certainly acknowledged as one of the leading authors in the pseudoscientific field of cryptozoology, so this isn't fringe from within that perspective either.
 * And again, I don't believe I was synthesizing anything; the refs for the capabilities of the giant anteaters' claws and their self-defense behavior are independent from the refs establishing the "some believe" possible identification part. The references for anteaters being capable of killing people and other predators are just there to back up the claims in the Yahoo! News story Coleman links to in the tweet.  --Dan Harkless (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Fringe topics demand reliable sources—fringe advocates are never reliable sources, not even for their own beliefs (as academic analyses of these topics, such as those by Prothero, make very clear). You're stitching together a fringe advocate's tweet with a bunch of other random stuff you've found that don't mention the fringe claim at all. This is WP:SYNTH and very much in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. If you want to include this material, you'll need to find a reliable secondary source discussing it in full, not some fringe advocate's twitter account stapled to some stuff you've found about how an animal can harm people. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the first time I've seen it said that you can't cite people for their own beliefs, but okay. I mean, I get that an RS on a psuedoscience is going to organize the information better, and present the different possibilities more broadly than a true believer on the topic, but ultimately, they're having to source this info they're organizing and analyzing to the true believers.  This (nonsense) topic isn't important enough for me to scour for a "a reliable secondary source discussing it in full", so I'll just have to agree to be muzzled on that.  However, your characterization of me "stapling random stuff together" remains inaccurate.  --Dan Harkless (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscience and fringe proponents are not reliable for a variety of reasons. They'll often switch positions or misrepresent themselves to, for example, the media. They don't provide context. Sometimes they'll hide who is funding their 'research', etc. One would never know this until turning to the experts who have performed analyses on these topics. On the topic of cryptozoology, Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science! (Columbia University Press) makes for a good read and presents both context and many examples. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is written from a mainstream point of view and fringe topics are no exception. A theory's adherents, regardless of how prominent they may be, are not reliable sources and even their attributed opinions do not meet WP:DUE WEIGHT unless they've been covered by secondary sources.
 * The content of the tweet "Giant Anteaters Kill Two Hunters in Brazil ~ An anteater "stood on its hind legs"? #Mapinguari? ~ @CryptoLoren " is so superficial as to be practically useless even if it came from a reliable source. I'm not even sure what it means — is Coleman trying to say that this sort of attack spawned the Mapinguari legend, or is he implying that this was actually an honest-to-goodness Mapinguari attack and not the work of anteaters? This is not the level of scientific discourse that Wikipedia is built on, and the linked article provides zero support for the statement as it makes no mention of Mapinguari. –dlthewave ☎ 02:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, that's the first pretty good point I've seen; it honestly hadn't occurred to me that Coleman might be considering this to be "the man" covering up bona fide "mapinguari" attacks. I'd read the meaning of the tweet as obvious, and you're right, even though, as Coleman's page states, he's considered one of the more reputable cryptozoologists, even by skeptics, there's too high a chance that's not what he means.  --Dan Harkless (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well we have this [], [], [], []. So it seems the attack is getting coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee enemas
Flare up of activity here recently. Two accounts are already blocked for socking, but more fringe-savvy eyes might be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really on-topic, but are there people who use kopi luwak for enemas? Or coffee with milk and sugar? SCNR... --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well judging by the taste of the products of certain high-street coffee shop chains, I assumed this was the method by which their cappuccinos were made. Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See also Panda tea. "Protects from radiation" no less! GPinkerton (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I nuked that section. Crossroads -talk- 05:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , we were citing Ralph W. Moss? Wow. Special. Guy (help!) 17:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We were, but I have removed that (and a load else beside). Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can a stronger word than "questionable" be applied to Paltrow's branded duck farm of designer quackery? GPinkerton (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Category:Fatuous bullshit Guy (help!) 22:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Much too respectful. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 11:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ufology
An edit war over the lede regarding the question as to whether ufology is the investigation of UFOs without qualification or whether it's only the investigation of UFOs by people who... shall we say... take the idea that they could possibly be alien aircraft seriously. jps (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OED (1986) unhelpfully has " The study of UFOs." for ufology, but the citations (going back to 1959) are without exception rather derisive and to believers, even 'contactees'. " The articles, reports, and bureaucratic studies which have been written about this perplexing visitant constitute ‘ufology’." Times Literary Supplement, 1959 & "another addition to the burgeoning literature of Ufology" Nature, 1973 while ufological has "The ufological definition of a flap is a concentration of sightings in a small area within a short period." The New Yorker, 1966 & " George Adamski ... wrote, in collaboration with Desmond Leslie, ... the first ufological best-seller, Flying Saucers Have Landed. The Spectator, 1984. Ufologist is "one who makes such a study" and quotes "Long before the frustrated ufologist has realised that even the finest binoculars do not help in finding ufos, he will have discovered that there are other sports and pastimes than ufology"  New Scientist, 1963 & "Cley Hill is the Loch Ness of the Ufologist. Flying saucers, it is claimed, cannot keep away from its flat top." The Guardian, 1981. I think the reference to Loch Ness clinches the believers-only argument. GPinkerton (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Anne Wilson Schaef
A lot of puffery and promotion of new-agey stuff in this bio, e.g. Living in Process works with recovery from the addictive process of individuals, families and societies and moves beyond to wholeness of body, mind and spirit. Could use some trimming from someone with a critical eye. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal
Not my proposal, I hasten to add. Some regulars here might have a view. Guy (help!) 19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Council/Proposals/Mysticism

Luis Elizondo
Another edit war over whether we should mention, triumphantly, that the Navy declassified the videos that Luis leaked to the press. jps (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be aware of WP:CANVAS. This is the second time I contest this to you. Please edit the notification above accordingly. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then report it, but do not de-rail this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean de-rail? Just following: Canvassing -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "on their talk page.", this is not that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done that too. Thanks. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FTN exists for the purpose of notifying users who are interested in fringe topics of a conflict in an article on a fringe topic. That is exactly what ජපස did. If that violated a WP guideline, then this whole board would be illegal, and its existence would not have been tolerated for all those years. It would have been deleted after a few weeks.
 * So, go on, Don Quixote. Go and complain. Fight those four-armed giants. Do not believe those who tell you they are just windmills. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Better yet, I think that this may not be viable for a standalone article. Perhaps a merge with To the Stars (company)? Not sure:

Articles for deletion/Luis Elizondo

It's good to have this discussion.

jps (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Rashid Buttar
Sigh. As above. So below.

jps (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Turtles all the way down. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce
SPA at work, deleting skeptical analyses and inserting "90% accurate" fake statistics. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * DS alert dropped, if this continues they can be topic banned speedily. Guy (help!) 21:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Fractal cosmology


I found a roughly 4-month-old complaint at this article's talk page about the alleged fringe bias of this article, noting that the article has a history of removing fringe content. I had removed some content about 4 months prior, and (correctly) removed even more content a month after. The purpose is to determine if there is any remaining fringe content, or if too much has been removed from the article. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 05:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

This page badly needs an update. I see it is flagged as fringe and I think the main reason why is that it fails to incorporate or specify the connection to microcausal structure and early universe stuff. As the original author; I know there was originally more content in the lead about fractals in the microcosmos and early universe that was deleted by other Wikipedia editors as not germane. And yet when I attended GR21 in NYC in 2016; I heard prominent researchers in both the plenary and quantum gravity breakout sessions use the word fractal in their lectures. I got to chat with professors Loll and Ambjorn, two of the people who developed CDT which is the subject of the Scientific American article referenced in this Wiki entry, but many gravity researchers are familiar with and comfortable with fractals in a theoretical or cosmological setting.

What is less accepted is the appearance of fractals in the Large Scale Structure that is currently the main subject of this article. And yet; the purported counter-evidence has been disproved with the discovery of an even larger void that was missed until recently. So the jury is out once again, on whether the evidence supports the notion of a fractal distribution of cosmic matter. As it turns out, however; there could be a connection back to the micro-physical fractals discussed above, because a recent paper including the CDT authors above suggests microscale fractality and the ongoing evolution of cosmic dimensionality may influence large scale structure. I have yet to digest that work though. So yeah; this entry has broken from the mainstream view in Astrophysics and in some part Cosmology, but does so mainly by failing to properly highlight the breadth or depth of the arena where they show up in theoretical Physics and especially Quantum gravity.

That's all for now folks,

Jonathan JonathanD (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

And I should add right away...

What seems most difficult to accept as mainstream for Wiki editors is the notion that spacetime itself is fractal in the microscale, but this is a very common thing to see in theoretical Physics today, because it is connected with dimensional reduction - the root cause of holography in Physics. I have had a few brief discussions with Gerard 't Hooft, who discovered the holographic principle. Steven Carlip, whom I met at GR21, showed how dimensional reduction and fractality are not only common features of many quantum gravity theories; they may be a defining feature that helps us to discover or select the correct theory of quantum gravity.

In her plenary talk at GR21; Beverly Berger implored the people working in Quantum gravity to work together, and to seek common threads to explore from the work of people down the hall or at another institution, that could help the common effort. Lee Smolin stood up during the Quantum gravity talks to echo what Beverly had said, saying that the common needs and common language of their endeavor should give people working in loops or CDT to compare notes with string theory people and so on. I would suggest that a similar ethic be exercised here at Wikipedia, where every attempt at equanimity is made and the focus is kept on the common ground.

So I think this Wiki article needs to include a discussion of microscale or spacetime fractality as well as large scale structure, in order to be coherent with the current state of mainstream Physics. But I admit that the basic premise of emergent spacetime is kind of radical. It was amazing how the attendance swelled to overflowing when Juan Maldacena presented his theory of emergent spacetime via entangled black holes, and went back to a smaller number thereafter, but people who were there for the entire session got to hear more proposals along similar lines. Those people also got to hear the word fractal a few more times. I stopped counting after a while.

Regards,

Jonathan

JonathanD (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The page is currently not terrible, and I'm not sure it still needs to be tagged. The problem is that it's very easy to push the words "fractal" and "cosmology" together, and so that label covers a wide variety of notions and proposals with a correspondingly wide variety of respectability levels. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, I've removed the tag until and unless deemed necessary. –LaundryPizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 22:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

USS Nimitz UFO incident
THERE ARE NO EXPLANATIONS and we can't let Wikipedia include text that says that the explanations are likely to be mundane.

Can someone else figure out what to do here?

jps (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Joe Nickell, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and “Investigative Files” Columnist for Skeptical Inquirer. The other source did not say,the sightings likely have mundane explanations such as equipment malfunction or human errorDriverofknowledge (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this a WP:SKYISBLUE issue? Geogene (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The whole ufology edit war and general warfare, including the USS Nimitz UFO incident, is now at ANI. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC).


 * Maybe add context? Elizondo should take a bow. fiveby(zero) 02:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've proposed a merge and rewrite at Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge both into To the Stars (company), Acts I & II. fiveby(zero) 16:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Gareth Knight and Fraternity of the Inner Light
Fringe articles that could use some work. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Would probably be the weekend at earliest before I get to it (if I can), but J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology (probably the tertiary source we should be using to outline these articles) have entries on both (although the Fraternity entry points to the entry on the Society of Inner Light). Peter B. Clarke's Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements and James R. Lewis (scholar)'s (terribly titled) Satanism Today have relevant entries on the Inner Light group as well.  Between that and King's Modern Ritual Magic, there's definitely enough on the Inner Light group to have a proper article.  Aside from the Melton reference, the only references I'm seeing for Knight are works by associates, passing mentions, or the occasional citation in a fringe work (even the Melton entry is more of a secondary source, since it's pretty much "this guy was involved in these groups and has a website").  The Knight article doesn't even really contain any particular assertions of notability, just inherited notability.  Looks like the related Servants of the Light could use a little work, too; though thankfully not as much because it's going to be hell wading through all the crappy fantasy and "inspirational" books.  I'm seeing a passing mention of both groups in Nevill Drury's Stealing Fire from Heaven, though short enough that I don't expect it to be much more than the other sources.  John Michael Greer's New Encyclopedia of the Occult has entries on both groups but I remember that work being a bit more emic than I'm comfortable using as a source on here (and I say that after bringing up Drury!).  At any rate, I must get ready to spend several hours teaching Japanese toddlers the word "NO". Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson and Doug Weller, This article has recently been deleted via WP:PROD. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Curry again


The article is becoming fringier and fringier. Now it reads as if all climatologists except Curry are incompetent. They do not know what they are doing, they are caught in groupthink, they do not know the very basics (handling uncertainty is one of the things you have to learn when you are a student), all their "models are wrong". As opposed to the "skeptics", who "bring up valid points" which are not named, and who are called "skeptics" in Wikipedia's voice. And her position has been "much criticised by some scientists", with a little of a lot of much some weaseling, plus a bland "neo-somethingism" label, but without any details.

Also, the discussion has a "poisonous nature", and therefore Curry thinks that scientist should "be more accommodating of" those who poisoned it with their lies and misrepresentations. Law of similars anyone? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hob, this article is about Curry, not global warming, or climate change, or climate denialism. Those topics have their own articles already, where the science is thrashed out. People will come to this article (if they come at all) to learn about Curry, so this article must therefore describe Curry's views and positions, right or wrong. It is important to mention that most scientists disagree with her on some specifics, but this article is not an additional opportunity to bang the general anti-denialist drum, or to smear the individual - especially considering WP:BLP. In the article on the Shroud of Turin, we state the science as per the evidence. However if we had an article on e.g. Ray Rogers or Walter McCrone etc, we should focus on describing their work and their views - with only a mention of the conflicting consensus, and links and citations where readers can go to obtain the full picture on that larger issue if that is what they are actually interested in. Wdford (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's core policy that if a fringe view is aired it needs to be clearly identified as such and the contextualizing mainstream view needs to be prominently included. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Which policy are you referring to? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV, specifically WP:PSCI, the basis of WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are misreading that policy, or at best, stretching it. WP:PSCI requires that when discussing the topic of climate change, we present the scientific mainstream view as such, with contrarian views presented as minority (if at all). But that policy does not mean that when we are discussing a person and their views, we need to say (in Wikipedia's voice) that these views are fringe. At most, if there are notable critics of that specific person's views, we can include them, and attribute those criticisms to them. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The policy is clear. WP:PSCI makes no mention of climate change specifically, but applies to all fringe subjects. This is further explained in WP:GEVAL:
 * I know nothing of Curry's views in detail, but if they are fringe it is essential that they are contextualized by a clear &amp; prominent statement of the mainstream position. Alexbrn (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It applies to all subjects, but not to describing people's views on those subject, in their BLPs. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? Ideas are ideas, and people are people. While some WP:PROFRINGE editors have in the past tried to WP:CRYBLP and extend biographical protection to the ideas people espouse, it hasn't worked because the policy is clear as is: we must "include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world". This is core policy, and this is area under discretionary sanctions so editors ignoring it can expect to get sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Describing "these ideas in their proper context" is exactly what I wrote above- when discussing the idea - in its article - the proper context is to present mainstream views vs. fringe views. In the context of a BLP, we don't have license to add editorial comment, in Wikipedia's voice, that evaluate the views, unless reliable sources do so - for that person, specifically. For example, David Icke's article contains a very lengthy section about his "Reptilian" theories, but we don't add a paragraph there that says "this theory is of course nonsense" in Wikipedia's voice.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)
 * David Icke's article does not describe policy. I have quoted policy, and it is clear. For an example of an article that has been raised here before where fringe ideas have needed to be qualified, see G. Edward Griffin. Bottom line, fringe ideas must never get an unqualified airing on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * David Icke's article is an example of how Wikipedia policy is applied, which is contrary to your interpretation of policy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Icke is a bad example because almost everybody can see that what he says is absurd, but still: We do not describe his ideas as if they were a reasonable position within science, without adding any substantial contradiction from mainstream scientists, beyond the milquetoast "has been criticized" and "other scientists disagree", as we currently do in the Curry article. We say he has "conspiracy theories about public figures being reptilian humanoids and paedophiles". We do not say "Icke calls for better understanding of the danger the reptilians pose".
 * A better example is Kary Mullis, where we just say what he believes. We do not give lengthy quotes of him justifying why he believes that HIV does not cause AIDS, because Wikipedia is not a propaganda platform for fringe views. Instead, we quote what mainstream scientists say about his opinions. In Linus Pauling, we do not give quotes by Pauling arguing for his hypervitamin ideas. In Brian Josephson we do not quote Josephson reasoning for psi.
 * Those three are Nobelists, and, as scientists, obviously better models for the Curry article than Icke. This is how it is done. The current Curry article is how it is not done. If someone wants to read justifications for climate change denial, Wikipedia should not be a source for that. When I read "Curry believes natural forces also play a large role", and that "climate models [..] don't do a very good job of [testing sensitivity to CO2]" I want to know what they responded to that. Did they? If not, why do we quote claims that have not received any reception? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Icke is a bad example because almost everybody can see that what he says is absurd" - that illustrates perfectly why we can't do what you are proposing - in Curry's case, it is not the case that "everybody can see that what [s]he says is absurd" (because it's not), and you are trying to substitute your personal opinion to force people to see it the way you want. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is bullshit. I am not trying to substitut "my personal oponion", I am trying to follow the rules by balancing fringe positions with quotes that show how mainstream scientists respond to Curry's reasoning. What Curry says is an extreme minority position in climate science. So, if we leave it in the article, uncommented, we mislead those who are looking for information on the subject by pretending it is just one normal scientific opinion among several, subject to disagreements but still legitimate science, probably based of actual studies - which is not true; it is just her personal opinion. In the Icke article, that danger does not exist. According to WP:FRINGE,
 * "Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence"
 * If we allow Curry's fringe opinions without also including the response from the mainstream, we give them undue prominence. And in the cases where there is no response from the mainstream to specific claims she made, these claims are not notable and should be deleted.
 * If, as you say, "we can't do what [I am] proposing", that would mean that the three Nobelist articles need to be changed. We have to include quotes by those three people where they defend their positions, as well as delete the responses from the mainstream. And we must also delete the few weasely sentences in the Curry article about "other scientists" and "some scientists" who think differently.
 * If your position is generally applied, Wikipedia will turn into a hotbed of woo where every crazy idea gets explained without any chance of contradiction. But I do not think that will happen because we have done it the way applied in the Nobelist articles, the way I am trying to explain to you, for many years now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If your position is generally applied, Wikipedia will turn into a hotbed of woo where every crazy idea gets explained without any chance of contradiction. But I do not think that will happen because we have done it the way applied in the Nobelist articles, the way I am trying to explain to you, for many years now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

((od)) For those who don't know Curry's views in detail, after 2009 she became a "contrarian [scientist] who is frequently invited by Republicans to testify before US Congress", "as she will reliably state that the uncertainties in climate science are much larger than her fellow scientists will acknowledge, although she doesn't identify any sources of uncertainty that aren't already factored in.". . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Wdford and JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, you must also comply with WP:WEIGHT policy: In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. Curry's views need that context, yet even sources used in the article are misrepresented to exclude critical majority views, and tucked away at the foot of a section in contravention of WP:STRUCTURE policy. . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint" - yes. But this is not such an article, this is a biography. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously every article must comply with the WP:WEIGHT policy. What specific extra sentences would you like to add - please suggest the wording here or on the talk page? Wdford (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For every instance where we include Curry's reasoning or opinion about a specific item, if that opinion is a minority opinion, it either must be balanced by mainstream responses to Curry, or deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."
 * It's a pity to see this matter resurfacing after an apparently stable solution had been reached. Can I just remind all editors that whatever conclusion is eventually reached, this does not grant any license to indulge in WP:SYN. As stated there


 * Whatever we end up saying must be explicitly sourced without improperly combining multiple sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Stability" is not the foremost goal of Wikipedia articles. If you just want stability, you can simply block all articles. That "apparently stable solution" violates WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * An apparently stable version was reached with this version which resolved long contention over how to describe her controversial views post 2009, by well sourced description of her own views as contrarian and her blog as part of the climate change denial blogosphere. On the talk page at 04:38 on 22 April this comment made the false claim that Curry's name wasn't mentioned in one of the sources, and disparaged the sources. Following a day of discussion, a proposed revert to an earlier version was carried out at 00:32 on 23 April 2020 with the edit comment "see the talkpage discussion, and start an RfC if you want to include this contested material. This is a BLP." Which looks chilling and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, the editor concerned had already been notified re discretionary sanctions. This edit reintroduced the contested term climate skeptic, which is a redirect to climate change denial that avoids misleading ambiguity and so is used by those clarifying the mainstream view, including the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, the National Center for Science Education and historian Spencer R. Weart. It has of course met opposition, as shown by those opposing its use in WP biographies. . . dave souza, talk 10:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That was indeed the "stable" version I was referring to, thanks. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes. This is a case of WP:CRYBLP being used to obscure the fact that Curry is a key figure in the denialist movement. The revision as of 2020-04-10T18:19:35 is solid. I am not wholly convinced that the arguments for change are always being made in good faith: some Wikipedia editors involved here have climate change denialist talking points on their user pages. Guy (help!) 12:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While it's correct that articles about someone can include information about their notable views (subject to WP:WEIGHT), BLP articles should not be used to promote those ideas. They should primarily be covered using independent sources (WP:FRIND), with self-published and author primary sources mostly usable for non-controversial information (WP:SPS, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:PRIMARY) and third party unreliable sources avoided.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , indeed. And while we're about it, the fact that one or more editors don't like the fact that climate change skeptic is a synonym for climate change denier, that doesn't make it any less a fact, and when a source says she engages with climate change "skeptics" we can indeed say deniers because that's how we refer to climate change deniers. It's also extremely easy to identify the "skeptics" she's been engaging with, and as other sources in the article note, they are indeed deniers. Guy (help!) 18:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See and Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger   talk   19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Planet of the Humans
At Planet of the Humans, has decided that climate change experts are part of an "industry" and therefore have a "conflict of interest" in criticizing the film. It seems he's unclear on the notions generally, given his posting at the COI noticeboard.

Someone may wish to go over to Talk:Planet of the Humans and check. --Calton &#124; Talk 12:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Even though I was not notified of this discussion according to the large red instructions up top, thank you for allowing me to respond: Removing the word "widely" from a sentence because it is presumptuous per MOS:NOTE and inserting a citation needed template where citations are needed is not a "fringe theory". Kire1975 (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that some progress was made at that article since, — Paleo Neonate  – 18:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Bicameralism (psychology)
Just a notice of a discussion started at that may also concern this noticeboard and WP:SKEPTIC. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 05:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m certainly no expert in psychology but that article seems entirely too credulous. The only reason I had ever heard of Bicameralism was due to Westworld, a science fiction show. The basic hypothesis doesn’t seem to comport with the last couple decades of neurology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, archeology, etc. Just a quick look at the APA.org dictionary notes that it has not received significant attention. Capeo (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed and so far the other WikiProject notice seems to have gathered no attention. — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Kshara and Sutshekhar Ras
Kind of your classic under-sourced alt-med articles, in this case, Ayurveda. 86.167.240.48 (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, behold the majesty of Medohar Vidangadi Lauh! 86.167.240.48 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Medohar Vidangadi Lauh is currently at AFD, Kshara was boldy redirected to Ayurveda like previous Ksharsutra and Kshar-Sutra. — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Henry Moray needs some sources
About a fringe inventor who claimed to produce electricity with no energy input. No sources. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a 5 part series in The Arizona Republic March 5-9, 1978, lot of "according to Moray" but probably usable. Gary L. Johnson was published by IEEE, not very trustworthy. fiveby(zero) 16:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure notability is met if sources are lacking. I've not tried to find them yet though, — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Some Congressional Testimony around the Rural Electrification Act concerning Moray, probably more newspaper sources, looks like a lot of primary sources and published "free energy" advocates. By the way, the Republic piece has a local engineering firm saying he was probably just picking up a strong local radio station and storing enegy in a capacitor. fiveby(zero) 16:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * AFD?Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Plenty of free energy Tesla conspiracy books and websites lionize him, but I can't find any WP:FRIND secondary sources for this fellow or his ideas, which indicates he's not notable enough for a stand alone biography article on Wikipedia. There is that record of a hearing held by a Congressional subcommittee in the 1940s which is an amusing read, however this single WP:PRIMARY source isn't enough to justify a bio of the guy. Looks like there is secondary coverage of that Congressional hearing by Arizona Republic , but I'm still not convinced Moray meets WP:ANYBIO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec)There are news sources also, but they aren't going to be very critical, at least what i've seen. Like Georges Lakhovsky only fringe proponents care to write about and publish. You can create an article, pick thru the primary sources and fringe works for what is usable but that's really just original research and a lot of work for a not very good article. On the other hand delete and WP has no article for someone with a bunch of search hits where it's reasonable to expect some neutral information here. Move to draft and see if anyone cares enough to work on it? If there are no sources can anyone just draftify without an Afd? fiveby(zero) 18:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The topic of free energy lives under the umbrella of perpetual motion on Wikipedia. There may be enough sourcing to justify a few sentences about Moray and his ideas at History_of_perpetual_motion_machines. I don't think anyone would object to that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a lot about him in this Oxford University Press book, but may help. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Postmodernism
Some editors experienced with highbrow science denial should take a look at the Overview section of this article, especially with the very recent editing in it, and maybe keep an eye on it. It has significantly changed how postmodernism is defined and removed or replaced several sources. Whether the changes are more or less neutral and accurate, or a mixed bag, is not clear to me. Crossroads -talk- 04:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This article has a long-term problem with attempting to describe postmodernism in its own terms instead of providing an external objective analysis. Some of the themes include a lack of precise language (the same type of issue often observed in postmodernist writing) and the use of terminology and framing in a way that implies or assumes that the viewpoints of postmodernism are correct. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 18:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Some comments on that section:
 * Postmodern scientists are concerned with socially-constructed fact rather than metaphysical truth claims. I think I can tell what this is trying to say, but not because it is doing a good job of saying it.
 * Conservatives Michael Oakeshott and Leo Strauss considered postmodernism to be an abandonment of the rationalist project which many conservatives consider the most important cultural product of humans. I don't know what "conservative" is supposed to mean there &mdash; that's lifting a description from American politics and presuming that it is meaningful in a broader context. Who are these "many conservatives"? What is this "rationalist project" &mdash; can the entirety of intellectual effort since Newton or Bacon or Copernicus or whoever be called a single "project", regardless of the ideological divisions within it? Is it just Oakeshott and Strauss deciding that it's all one "project" and declaring that their friends consider it important? Peculiarly, the only people whose politics are identified are these "conservatives"; there is no mention of Sokal being an "unabashed Old Leftist", or that he saw himself following in the footsteps of Levitt, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Overall, this looks like an attempt to paint "conservatives" as the ones having good sense, but the writing is so unclear that the POV-pushing is an inept faceplant.
 * Others have claimed that persons who are knowledgeable about postmodernism have difficulty distinguishing nonsensical postmodernist artifacts from those that are nominally genuine. This sounds like an attempt to be clever ("artifacts", "nominally"), but it's ultimately just opaque. Moreover, it makes a poor summary for what Sokal and Bricmont's book was actually about. Sokal himself said, From the mere fact of publication of my parody I think that not much can be deduced. It doesn't prove that the whole field of cultural studies, or cultural studies of science -- much less sociology of science -- is nonsense. Nor does it prove that the intellectual standards in these fields are generally lax. (This might be the case, but it would have to be established on other grounds.) It proves only that the editors of one rather marginal journal were derelict in their intellectual duty, by publishing an article on quantum physics that they admit they could not understand, without bothering to get an opinion from anyone knowledgeable in quantum physics . He's been quite insistent on this over the years; for example, in 2019, someone wrote an article saying that Sokal concluded "cultural studies as a field lacked rigour and quality control", and Sokal demanded a correction: In fact, I don't know anywhere in my writings where you could find a quotation asserting what you have written, because it is not at all my view. Indeed, I have many times explicitly written the exact opposite! So, in addition to being unclear, the "Overview" in Postmodernism is also unfortunately superficial. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Postmodern scientists are concerned with socially-constructed fact rather than metaphysical truth claims. I think I can tell what this is trying to say, but not because it is doing a good job of saying it. Well, I can't tell what it's trying to say and I'm partial to postmodernism as well as being a scientist. I went to see if I had the book in my library's e-reserve and we did. The book does not say this or anything close to this. Nevertheless, we are required to keep this nonsense sentence in the article, apparently. . jps (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * this looks like an attempt to paint "conservatives" as the ones having good sense It's the other way around: As Sokal, Levitt and others repeatedly pointed out, postmodernists attempt to paint the ones having good sense as "conservatives". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Breaching experiments really shouldn't be done like this from an ethical standpoint. We don't actually know whether Sokal was abusing the good faith of the editors who were just excited to get a physicist submitting to their journal or whether they were really taken in by his blather. Regardless, it says more about the relationship within academia than really anything about postmodernism as a critique or movement. The whole thing is pretty old by now too, we've basically all moved on. Science and technology studies is an extremely valuable academic approach to questions related to how science works functionally. They explicitly make no attempts to evaluate the actual empirical or theoretical claims being developed in the scientific community. I think there were lazy theorists who may have gotten some attention from about the 1970s to 1990s who did, but such approaches are essentially marginalized in that field. Anyway.... jps (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If they were not taken in, they should not have published it, from an ethical standpoint and from a professional one. But it does not matter whether they acted in good faith or bad faith: Sokal proved that worthless bullshit could easily be published in that journal, putting it in the same category as predatory journals or publications by Young-Earth Creationists, climate change deniers, and alt-med gurus. And with his and Bricmont's book "Intellectual Impostures", he showed that large amounts of worthless bullshit had already been published by big names in postmodernism.
 * If the field got its shit together afterwards, good for them. But I see no evidence for that. First, they would need to acknowledge that large parts of postmodernism had been on the wrong track before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fair critique. Hopefully in the aftermath there is more nonsense rejected than before. jps (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Blond
Wiki users like Queenplz, Hapa9100 and myself want to remove what is blantant FRINGE THEORIES edits in the blond article page, we have expressed our opinion on talk page aswell. A user named Hunan201p edited many controversial ethnic groups and mythical historical figures as blond. The most controversial is the inclusion of Huangdi, the mainstream concensus is that he is considered as a mythical figure by the vast majority of scholars and historian, but Hunan201p edited him like he was a real life person. The same goes for claiming Bodonchar Munkhag being blond which also has no mainstream concesus view, the blond hair claims of Bodonchar Mukhag was actually based on the mythical legends of Alan Gua. Is it correct to remove those figures that were never confirmed to be blond ? Please let me know.Shinoshijak (talk)
 * It would be helpful for the uninitiated if you could give examples of sources used in the article that you consider to be supporting a WP:FRINGE theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Like Huangdi for example. In the blond section of Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Asia", the last paragraph says
 * "Some scholars have suggested that the word "yellow" in Huangdi is more accurately rendered as "blond", referring to the color of Huangdi's hair.[65][66] The sinologist Tsung-Tung Chang said that the epithet "Huang-ti" can be etymologically interpreted as "blond heavenly God". He suggests that Huangdi was related to Indo-European migrations to China.[67] "


 * It's extremely misleading. Only one sinologist suggested he was related to indo-european and the vast majority does not consider him blond. The way Hunan201p edited it would make people think that he was really blond.


 * In the Historicity section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Emperor#Origin_of_the_myth most scholars agree that the yellow emperor is a god.


 * " Most scholars now agree that the Yellow Emperor originated as a god who was later represented as a historical person. K.C. Chang sees Huangdi and other cultural heroes as "ancient religious figures" who were "euhemerized" in the late Warring States and Han periods. Historian of ancient China Mark Edward Lewis speaks of the Yellow Emperor's "earlier nature as a god", whereas Roel Sterckx, a professor at University of Cambridge, calls Huangdi a "legendary cultural hero". ".


 * Since most shcolars claim he as God than it makes no sense for Huangdi to mentioned as blond god. Like Queenplz had said, there's even cultural perception section for mythical and historical figures that have some concensus mainstream view of being blond. Huangdi has no mainstream concensus of being blond, there's not even a scholarly debate because the claims of him being blond is almost non-existant.Shinoshijak (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment I agree; determining what hair colour the Yellow Emperor had is like trying to find out Romulus's shoe size. In any case, "Indo-Europeans" are speakers of vast language family not a synonym for "blond people". GPinkerton (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment I agree as well; for me it reeks of an incorrect accuracy with an agenda; to suggest Huangdi was a blond haired man when none of the Chinese historical records and text had ever recorded it, is pretty disingenuous indeed. Considering the fact that Indo-European; the biggest Indo-European populations in the world are India, Pakistan and Iran, 90+% of which have black hair, proves my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:55c0:c680:8077:bdda:e5e5:6e12 (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Numerous people is agreeing to remove Huangdi from the blond article. Another wiki user have also recently responded in the blond talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blond#Hunan201p_edits_in_the_blond_and_red_hair_section I see nobody opposing the removal of Huangdi or even Alan Gua. I decided to at least remove Huangdi.Shinoshijak (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: No valid reason has been presented for removing the statements describing Huangdi as blond to the article, which are backed by high-quality references, and were defended by admins at the Yellow Emperor article. Multiple gods and goddesses, such as Sif and Jarl are already mentioned at blond. The statements in the article do not link blond hair to modern Indo European speakers, but rather to Huangdi to ancient Indo-Europeans (such as Andronovo and Sintashta, advocated by philologists such as Christopher Beckwith and Victor Mair as an ancestral source of the Indo Europeans in ancient north China. Several fossils from archaeological digs like Sintashta had blond hair.

Also, Shinishijak has not provided a single reference to support his claim that the "majority of historians do not consider Huangdi as blond", and I guarantee you he can never provide such a reference. On the other hand, multiple scholars support the theory, and it is highly regarded by independent scholars. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: the creator of this noticeboard discussion failed to notify me of it. I did not find it until the creator mentioned it | five days after it was started in a recent edit summary from May 13. Failing to notify mentioned parties is extremely seedy. - Hunan201p (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hunan201p, the admins didn't defend you against the other editors. He locked the page up and told you guys to sort out the concent dispute in the talk page, the admin replied back to Hapa9100, this is a matter of "concensus". Just You claimed wikipedia admin Ymblanter supported you against me and the others on Genghis Khan page but this what he said in : "I do not think I supported anybody on this page. I just said that admins do not resolve content disputes..... ". Stop claiming you're supported by admin because you were almost banned by admin Steve Quin because of your consistent edit warring. Queenplz (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Hunan201p, the admins didn't defend you against the other editors. He locked the page up and told you guys to sort out the concent dispute in the talk page"
 * Wrong. See:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yellow_Emperor&diff=954249928&oldid=954249635
 * ^ Above edit was made 1 day before the page was locked, and another admin had also reversed the deleterious edit of one of your comrades named "Hapa":
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yellow_Emperor&diff=954185580&oldid=954184157
 * Do you ever get tired of lying (and subsequently failing to get what you want)? - Hunan201p (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I also agree with the removal of Huangdi being blong and Indo-European. There is every valid reason to remove it. Indeed this theory has no consensus from scholars, so little is not even worth debated on. It has never grabbed the attention of mainstream scholars and historian, because it's based on pseudo-science and FRINGE theory of a tiny minoriy few.

Christopher Beckwith makes no mention of Huangdi being related with Indo-Europeans. Victor Mair only uses Taiwanese Tsung-tung Chang to try to indo-Europeanize, " it says the paper by Tsung - tung Chang ( 1988 ), used by Victor Mair as authority for Indo - Europeanizing interpretations". There's not a single piece of evidence that Huangdi ever existed, one sinonologist attempting to connect Huangdi with Indo-European, just shows how weak this theory is. Andronovo existed only in 2000–900 BC in western Siberia and the central Eurasian Steppe. The Sintashta culture stretches from Eastern Europe to Central Asia, dated to the period 2200–1800 BCE, obviously unrelated and had no presense in historical Chinese territories. Huangi existed in 2600-2700BC which predated any existence of Chinese civilization, predated the existence of those indo-european culture long before it even expanded to Asia.

I've helped Hapa9100 with his references There's a obviously a huge general concesus that Huangdi is a mythical god and not a real person.


 * K.C. Chang, Chinese/Taiwanese-American archaeologist and sinologist. Sees Huangdi and other cultural heroes as "ancient religious figures" who were "euhemerized" in the late Warring States and Han periods.


 * Mark Edward Lewis, American sinologist and historian of ancient China. Speaks of the Yellow Emperor's "earlier nature as a god". American scholar Mark Edward Lewis says "modern scholars of myth generally agree that the sage kings [including Huangdi] were partially humanized transformations of earlier, supernatural beings who figured in shamanistic rituals, cosmogonic myths or tales of the origins of tribes and clans.


 * Roel Sterckx, a professor at University of Cambridge, calls Huangdi a "legendary cultural hero"


 * Henri Maspero French sinologist and Marcel Granet French sociologist, ethnologist. Published critical studies of China's accounts of high antiquity for example, Granet argued that these tales were "historicized legends" that said more about the time when they were written than about the time they purported to describe


 * Sarah Allan, In the late Warring States period, the Yellow Emperor was integrated into the cosmological scheme of the Five Phases, in which the color yellow represents the earth phase.


 * Lothar von Falkenhausen that Huangdi was invented as an ancestral figure as part of a strategy to claim that all ruling clans in the "Zhou dynasty culture sphere" shared common ancestry.Given that the earliest extant mention of the Yellow Emperor was on a fourth-century BCE Chinese bronze inscription claiming that he was the ancestor of the royal house of the state of Qi, Lothar von Falkenhausen speculates that Huangdi was invented as an ancestral figure as part of a strategy to claim that all ruling clans in the " Zhou dynasty culture sphere" shared common ancestry.


 * Michael Puett, historian and Professor of Chinese History and Anthropology at Harvard University writes that the Qi bronze inscription was one of several references to the Yellow Emperor in the fourth and third centuries BCE within accounts of the creation of the state.


 * Yang Kuan, a member of the same current of historiography, noted that only in the Warring States period had the Yellow Emperor started to be described as the first ruler of China. Yang thus argued that Huangdi was a later transformation of Shangdi, the supreme god of the Shang dynasty'


 * Shiji, The figure of Huangdi had appeared sporadically in Warring States texts. Sima Qian's Shiji (or Records of the Grand Historian, completed around 94 BCE) was the first work to turn these fragments of myths into a systematic and consistent narrative of the Yellow Emperor's "career".


 * Charles Leblanc, Chinese language researcher,Jan Yun-hua was a Chinese language researcher and Anna Seidel; Explicit accounts of the Yellow Emperor started to appear in Chinese texts the Warring States period. "The most ancient extant reference" to Huangdi is an inscription on a bronze vessel made during the first half of the fourth century BCE by the royal family (surnamed Tian 田) of the state of Qi, a powerful eastern state.

There is no concesus that Huangdi is blond or even Indo-European and that. If there was than Hunan201p would have shown a significant number supporting this obviously Fringe theories of Huangdi Queenplz (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

comment I also agree...absolutely agree with the removal of Huangdi from blond (including yellow emperor) wikipedian front pages. It reeks of so much eurocentric bias, it's really no different to psesudoscience afroncentrism theories of Black athena, black egyptians which is at least far more credible, because at least it had been debated by mainstream scholars and historians but even they get removed in wikipedia. Why does Hunan201p thik it's okay to claim Huangdi being blond and indo-european when is not even worth debating in the mainstream circle. Every evidence points him as a mythical figure, a god. There was no record of his existence of his reign for 2600-2700 years. His first mention was in the warring states around (375 BC) while his mythical reign date back in 2500-2600 BC.Hapa9100 (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents
Another edit war about whether or not the last line from an article written in Space.com should be attributed to Space.com. I question whether it should be in the lede at all.

jps (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems there have been efforts to give undue weight to credulous views and hype the idea that these UFO sightings are officially “unexplainable”. This is part of an ongoing pattern of dedicated and persistent WP:ADVOCACY across many UFO-related articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is that there are two ways to value-laden "unexplainable" or "mysterious". One is that there are no explanations so wild speculation needs to be entertained. The other is that there are no explanations so it should be carefully considered whether the evidence is well-posed. The latter point gets extremely short-shrift in the UFO community and, unfortunately, the members of that advocacy group carry on so loudly and at such lengths that they seem to get the ear of some of the less-than-extremely-meticulous journalists. jps (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on sources. Not personal opinions and WP:OR. Provide WP:RS supporting the statements you wish to include in the articles and I will gladly insert them for you. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 15:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources have already been provided. That you don't care for them or understand them is the problem. jps (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

When put sources on the ufology page, they said somebody's  edit, did not match with the source so I checked and they were right. For Bob Lazars pageLive Science is used and they also use the same article, that is written by space.com. we never quoted the credentials of that person who's saying Bob Lazar is lying? I know he is a conspiracy theorist and never went to the school he said he did. https://www.livescience.com/ufos-videos-declassified-navy-release.html https://www.livescience.com/23514-area-51.htmlDriverofknowledge (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for verifying the edits and the sources. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 15:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have made this claim a number of times, but I don't know to what it refers. It would be good if you would be explicit about which source does not match which edit rather than being vague. jps (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Using a random story on Live Science (which is where Space.com recycled it from) as the punchline of the lede gives it undue weight, I think. The claim is taken almost verbatim from the last sentence of the story, There is as yet no explanation or identification — official or not — for the mysterious aircraft that the pilots recorded. First of all, the line in the current version of our article (there is currently no explanation or identification for the incidents, official or not) is a copyvio, and that's bad. Second, Live Science is of dubious reliability, and even if they are generally OK, we have no grounds to treat them as definitive here. Third, the claim is factually wrong. Perhaps nobody "official" has offered an explanation, but plenty of subject-matter experts have proposed them. There are mundane explanations &mdash; IR overexposure, etc. &mdash; though in the absence of more data, there's only so much one can say. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree its undue for the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Unsensationalized non-credulous explanations like this from Tom Avril, and this from Mick West do exist, and could be used per WP:PARITY and WP:FRINGE. Sadly, the trend in these articles recently has been to emphasize the sensational stuff and enhance the credibility of UFOlogy spokesmen and organizations, often one in particular. There has even been lobbying at MDPI, which I can only assume is to pave the way for use of fringe papers as a citation to justify of "otherworldly UFO" interpretations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. That paper seems to be part of a set of conference proceedings, which in physics often means a lower standard of review. Basically, conferences are where preliminary work gets reported, and so papers in conference proceedings are often about partial results or early stages of research &mdash; even when they're legit, they're on a bit of a lower tier. And so, the people in charge set a lower standard, and junk gets through, even with better publishers than MDPI. Nor would I really expect peer review by physicists or computer scientists to be all that helpful here. As Carl Sagan once wrote, "The magician Uri Geller is happy to warp keys and cutlery in the vicinity of scientists&mdash;who, in their confrontations with nature, are used to an adversary who fights fair; but is greatly affronted at the idea of performances before an audience of skeptical magicians&mdash;who, understanding human limitations, are themselves able to perform similar effects by sleight of hand." I doubt a conference on statistical inference and machine learning has the right kind of reviewers on call. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are two interesting sources. The first one seems ready to be included in the article as is. Regarding Mick West's analysis has it been picked up by any reputable source that we may cite? Or can we link to https://www.metabunk.org/ directly? Seems a bit borderline to call it a WP:RS though... -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The MDPI source is by no means ready to include as is. It hasn't gained any more notice outside of it's fringe bubble since the first time you lobbied to include it, so WP:EXTRAORDINARY still applies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * mmm I'm talking about and Mick West's videos... you like fighting don't you? -- &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * p.s. regarding Mick West's analysis and just for the fun of it. F/A-18E's are equipped with state of the art beyond-visual-range radars: the AN/APG-79. Are we saying they wouldn't pick up an airliner that is close enough to be detected by I/R? That's nuts right? This would be a colossal radar detection failure. The FLIR video clearly shows there is no radar lock as range is not estimated. Chad Underwood, who filmed this, also made the following statement: "The radar was in a standard search mode (RWS/ 80NM/ 4bar/ intr) and the FLIR was in L+S slave (the FLIR would point in direction of a radar L+S track). There was no radio or communication interference and they had entry into the Link-16 network, Initial awareness of an object came via the radar. According to the radar display, the initial tracks were at approximately 30-40 nm to the south of the aircraft. Lt._________was controlling the radar and FLIR and attempted multiple times to transition the radar to Single Target Track (STT) mode on the object. The radar could not take a lock, the b-sweep would raster around the hit, build an initial aspect vector (which never stabilized) and then would drop and continue normal RWS b-sweep. When asked, LT.__________ stated that there were no jamming cues (strobe, champagne bubbles, “any normal EA indications”). It “just appeared as if the radar couldn’t hack it.” The radar couldn’t receive enough information to create a single target track file. The FLIR, in L+S slave, pointed in direction of the initial track flies as the radar attempted lock. The FLIR showed an object at 0 ATA and approximately -5deg elevation (Figure 2). According to LT.__________ “the target was best guess co- altitude or a few thousand feet below,” estimating the object to be between 15-20 thousand feet. The object, according to the FLIR, appeared stationary (Figure 3). There was no discernable movement from the object with the only closure being a result of the aircraft’s movement. As LT.__________ watched the object it began to move out of FLIR field of view to the left. LT.__________ made no attempt to slew the FUR and subsequently lost situational awareness to the object. The Flight continued with training mission with no further contact with object."
 * So the options appear to be:
 * the NAVY's radars don't work (possible as I think they were brand new at the time)
 * Mick West's explanation doesn't explain it
 * The NAVY/witnesses is/are lying
 * -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 00:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is also interesting speculation: Maybe Fravor saw a blimp that terminated it's flight and deflated away quickly? Was this a submarine doing a covert mission/test and getting "caught"? Obviously the Navy has the best info to investigate this. But they say it is unexplained... In any case none of this has been picked up by any WP:RS as far as I can tell. We have the two recent MDPI papers but they have been disputed as sources despite the peer review. Let's hope that, with the recent publicity of those events, someone will publish some reply of some sort. Maybe Mick himself? Metabunk seems the best source for informed speculation on this. Everything else I've read is woefully ignorant of the facts. -- &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 00:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Since there's debate on the sources and the wording drawn from them, I recommend the BBC's treatment of the subject, |"Pentagon releases UFO videos for the record", which I don't see cited in the article yet. GPinkerton (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Cover-up! It should work now, but on second thoughts I think I've mixed up the aircraft carriers and this is about Nimitz. GPinkerton (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've struck through edits by Driverofknowledge that had replies and deleted the last two. See w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack90s15. Doug Weller  talk 13:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Piers Robinson
Talks nonsense, gets called a conspiracy theorist, threatens to sue Wikipedia, gets banned. So far, so good. See Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

But the result is: Wikipedia spreads his disinformation for him. His article contains his disinformation and no refutation, although it does have a See also link leading to an article that refutes it. I think that is not how it is done. Opinions? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is | The Jewish Chronicle and | The Times and | The Times again and | The Times again and good enough for the "conspiracy theorist" label? There's also: "Also closely associated with Beeley is academic Piers Robinson and former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford. Ford, who routinely appears on British media defending the Assad regime line on Syria, should be more accurately referred to as director of the pro-Assad lobby group, the British Syrian Society, founded by Bashar al-Assad’s father-in-law Fawaz Akhras." from | New Statesman. Not to mention the numerous HuffPost articles over the years..
 * Also instructive that googling him produces a lot of screengrabs with the Russia Today banner and a favourable write-up in The Canary ("top academic ..."). GPinkerton (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * lets not leave out the Huffpost [] and snoopes [].Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently, this article does not identify Robinson as a member of a panel of conspiracy theorists because it is included as a subheadline. I am amazed. jps (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But wait, isn't the cancellation of the (ultimately non-)event at Liverpool University itself notable? GPinkerton (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would think so. But apparently there is a pretty big group that just doesn't want to include anything like that in the article. jps (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Union of Jewish Students criticized Robinson and encouraged the University to take "all actions necessary" seems notable, but where in the article would it go? Seems impossible to get any information in or out of the article in its current state due to debates and edit warring anyway. Nanophosis (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Larry Vardiman
Nominated for deletion by yours truly.

jps (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * While we're at it: Articles for deletion/RATE project. jps (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Ghost stories courtesy of the NY Times
Not sure if this is going to end up being cited in articles but FWIW the Times has posted a story on all the people who have suddenly discovered during lockdown that their domicile is haunted. And if that's not enough there are more than 200 comments, mostly from people relating their own stories. At least they posted a one sentence disclaimer... "There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts..." immediately watered down with "a fact that has little bearing on our collective enthusiasm for them." That said, some of the stories in the article and the comments are amusing. Enjoy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You get cooped up for a few months, you start going batty. I imagine the New York Times is no different. If you want some other sad times, look up their articles on UFOs and astrology. I don't know who the editors who are greenlighting these sensationalized public interest stories are (the authors and the times ignore my tweets), but I'd love to be able to corner them to know exactly what they think about empirical reality -- likely it has "little bearing on [their] collective enthusiasm" for woo. jps (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, Molly Fitzpatrick. She's a freelancer who specializes in these kinds of stories:, , , , . Who knew the old paranormal cash cow still had some blood left in it? - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, maybe it falls under Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the environment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to flip if someone creates Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the supernatural. Natureium (talk)!
 * I'd prefer Supernatural responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's entertaining. Possibly related, other than enhanced anxieties and concerns about the recently deseased, may be the increased animal activity in recently more quiet cities...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Arthur Laffer: COVID-19 bs
Arthur Laffer advises the Trump administration on the reopening of the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic. He has suggested that the coronavirus death toll was inflated, claiming that doctors attributed deaths to the coronavirus regardless of whether the coronavirus caused the death: "When you attribute a death to the coronavirus today, what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died. It doesn’t matter if he got hit by a car and died, and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death." Are we allowed to state in Wiki-voice that the claim that doctors are claiming car crash victims as COVID-19 victims is "false"? The cited source cites a doctor who says that Laffer's claim is BS. An editor on the Laffer page is however arguing that we cant say it's a false claim. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TENYEARTEST, none of that paragraph should be in the article at all. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't think advising a presidential administration during an unprecedented crisis merits mention? That's a ridiculous take. It's hard to think of anything that more clearly meets WP:TENYEARTEST than directly influencing a presidential administration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in that section that indicates that anything he said had any influence whatsoever, so no, I don't think it should be in there. Moreover, even if he had exerted any influence, the quote that's there serves no purpose other than to be inflammatory; it was obviously offered hyperbolically, and presenting it matter-of-factly is a silly thing to do.  Moremoreover, the stuff you were specifically asking about is a non sequitir: if he advised the administration on how to reopen, then okay...why is it then necessary to add his claims (however false they may be) about doctors misattributing deaths to COVID?  Or maybe is it teensy bit likely that you're once again using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 00:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That the man advising the administration on when and how to re-open the economy believes that COVID-19 deaths and cases are inflated is directly related to his role. Does this actually have to be spelled out for you?: the economy will be re-opened when COVID-19 deaths and cases decline. They are intrinsically related. Just to summarize your views because it's astonishing that anyone would actually write this down: (i) you seriously think that being a White House advisor in an unprecedented crisis has no long-term encyclopedic significance (because who among us hasn't advised a presidential administration about life-and-death matters), and (ii) you seriously think that BSing about how COVID-19 death counts are fraudulent has nothing to do with determining when it's safe to re-open the economy. And then you whine about how it's all propaganda. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources that talk about this? Otherwise, see WP:SYNTH. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes a single source says that a single line uttered once by Art Laffer is refuted by a single doctor. This is not a Fringe theory, this is something that should have been trivially handled on the talk page. Deacon Vorbis is right, none of this information should be in the article at all. Bonewah (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with above, especially with Deacon Vorbis and citing WP:TENYEARTEST. Most COVID-19 related topics are relevant, but there's so little coverage on this that it's borderline trivia. Give it a little time, until then, I don't think it's important enough for the general Laffer bio. Nanophosis (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The media phenomenon of soliciting comments from random known people dovetails nicely with those peoples' need for attention, but really a decent encyclopedia is going to ignore all this, even in the person's own article, unless it escalates into something that doesn't just fade away (e.g. Jim Bakker's coronavirus treatment scam). Laffer got laffed off the policy stage a long time ago, and there's every reason for us not to help him back on by making a big thing out of his cry for attention, given that it largely went unheard in the long run. Mangoe (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

John J. Davis (theologian)
I see "archaeologist" but actually see pseudoscience related topics in listed publications. More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate  – 07:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake
The usual RfCs asking for the usual changes for the usual effect of pretending that Sheldrake engages in legitimate scholarship. Guy (help!) 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, and Shen Yun
A Wikipedia editor is removing mention of The Epoch Times and Shen Yun from the lead of the Falun Gong article, as well as the phrase new religious movement.

Readers will notice that the article mostly reads as a fantasy-world puff peace promoting the organization as a peaceful, apolitical, ancient religious group—the reality is far different, as source after source outlines, with the group, via its media extension, spending tremendous amounts of money on promoting, for example, Donald Trump and extreme-right wing politics in Germany, alongside promoting conspiracy theories about Covid-19 and vaccinations. Deep fringe stuff. And while the Falun Gong would certainly approve, these extensions of the new religious movement are by far the most visible aspects of the new religious movement and a key means of drawing support and funds into the organization (cf., , )

The whole article could use a thorough review and far more eyes. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You appear to be shopping for a sympathetic audience. You are disruptively editing a page that is under active discretionary sanctions. I have explained that, and why, you contributions are incompatible with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. If you disagree, there is an ongoing talk page discussion that you can contribute to. The Blue Canoe  21:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the fringe noticeboard, where we discuss fringe topics, such as those promoted by The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and and their parent organization, Falun Gong. I'm also using the talk page, and I especially invite editors who regularly work with fringe material to contribute there. A look at your edit history shows intense lobbying for favorable coverage of the group, which probably explains the promotional state the article is in. Are you a member of this organization, by chance? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The user is now scrubbing numerous high-quality sources from the article, evidently in an attempt to bury the common classification of the group as a new religious movement. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you know that Wikipedia is not censored? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Notified them of DS regarding fringe science and reminded them of the DS for Falun Gong.  It may be worthwhile to go to the relevant board for that and ask for their removal there before we fix the article (...or we may need to attempt to fix the article, get into a dragged out conflict with them, and then use that as evidence).  Unfortunately, I've got to go teach Japanese toddlers the word "no" for several hours and can't find the board or build the case (...Oh yeah, there was something else here I was supposed to do, too), and will only have enough energy when I get home to reheat vindaloo. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, Ian—I'm not sure where to start, though. Where do you recommend? I wasn't involved with any of the discussion surrounding these topics prior to recently, having stumbled on to the state of these articles after getting hit with concurrent Shen Yun and Epoch Times ads—both while in the US and online. The Epoch Times in particular is, of course, currently an extremely hot topic given the conspiracy theories the organization is promoting and their recent political involvement. Given the profile, it seems to me that the avoidance of those topics on English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article can only indicate some level of lobbying and censorship. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , did you add this content or was it something you were restoring from a revert? Neither source supports a performing arts company that promotes anti-evolution and anti-LGBTQ messaging, and certainly doesn't merit labeling as such in a mere passing mention. This looks something more suited to the NPOV noticeboard. fiveby(zero) 22:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, I added it. The New Yorker article discusses Shen Yun's anti-LGBTQ messaging (search "Atheism and evolution are deadly ideas. Modern trends destroy what makes us human", he sang.), as well as its broader context as an extension of Falun Gong. Looking at the article, the anti-LGBTQ stance should be clarified (the author states "Aside from the organ harvesting, the homophobia, the anti-evolution ballad, and the Karl Marx apparition, the thing I found most odd about my Shen Yun experience in Houston was the hosts’ explanation of Chinese classical dance", but it needs more explication). Currently the Falun Gong article is scrubbed of the organization's political involvement via its extensions, such as Shen Yun and The Epoch Times, and avoids statements around these topics made by the new religious group's leader. I agree that this needs more development and discussion in the article. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added more sources to that section, but it needs thorough discussion in the body. Right now these topics are surgically avoided in the article beyond the section I've added, and, of course, the lead should really be a summary of the article's contents. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the beliefs here are straight up unabashed fringe pseudoscience and should neither be promoted nor whitewashed but accurately described. An evolution denial dance troupe is surely a novelty and no doubt some influence of Falun Gong, but the sourcing seems weak and doesn't look neutral to lead with in the face of the well supported and more pertinent propaganda and rhetoric against the Chinese government. fiveby(zero) 04:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have access (it may be available via Google Books), check out, for example the following source:
 * Junker, Andrew. 2019. Becoming Activists in Global China: Social Movements in the Chinese Diaspora, cf. p. 99. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108655897.
 * Junker discusses these connections, and how the organization is entirely operated by and funded by Falun Gong members, as well as the fact that Shen Yun is based by the Falun Gong headquarters, which also happens to include an office for The Epoch Times. There's a lot of secondary literature about this stuff currenly being essentially removed from the Falun Gong article by individuals who appear to be adherents. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No doubt some content needed, also New Tang Dynasty Television. Looking but everything i have full access to is pretty dated. fiveby(zero) 06:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm taking ndtv.com to RSN - we shouldn't be using it or at least certainly not for certain subjects. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Bloodofox has been taken to WP:AE mainly for editing this area. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Adherents crawling out of the woodwork
After adding a dozen academic sources on the article, it appears that adherents are crawling out of the woodwork to revert the article to a Falun Gong-approved version. We now have a pro-Epoch Times (ahem) editor reverting many academic soures I've added to the article that discuss that the Falun Gong is a new religous movement ( — ). The editor claims we must first request permission to add these sources after another Falun Gong-talking-point-promoting editor hit the 3RR after attempting to scrub the article of any discussion of the phrase "new religious movement", as discussed above (what a coincidence, right?). There are red names all over this and related articles, including on The Epoch Times talk page —these articles really need more eyes. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In April I indeffed for undisclosed paid editing an editor editing the Society of Classic Poetry Society but didn't look carefully at the article. It looked fairly harmless, but yesterday I took another look, seehere. Doug Weller  talk 08:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Teachings of Falun Gong needs attention. The lead is terribly pov, although I have restored a bit of some deleted material that wasn't praising or describing it. Doug Weller  talk 09:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article on its founder, Li Hongzhi, has little but praise for Falin Gon. Doug Weller  talk 19:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I applied ECP to as a WP:AE matter. We should have a pretty low bar to extending this, and applying topic bans, as the arbitration cases note a tendency for True Believers to engage in non-neutral edits. Guy (help!) 12:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ancient city walls around the City of David‎
Ancient city walls around the City of David‎ could do with some eyes with more access to relevant sources than me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Vile vortex
Well, it's certainly vile. The article I mean. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that it's now a redirect. No material seemed to be merged so I checked the sources. Only two seemed to be independent enough, yet they were only about the Bermuda Triangle, without more information on Sanderson's claims. One had him in their citations list but I couldn't find where and searching for "vile vortex" or "triacontahedron" in that book failed. I concluded that nothing may be worth merging, afterall, at least with the sources the subarticle currently used... — Paleo Neonate  – 16:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Judy Mikovits
This is likely to become a hotspot very soon. Might benefit from some editors here watching it. So far, looks like the problems are pretty much under control, but we know how quickly that can change.

jps (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's an active talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I lost interest in her after she was fired. I had no idea that she'd gone so far to the darkside until a couple of days ago. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Dark Side is powerful and seductive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Plandemic
A new article. I'm sure you're all thrilled that this exists.

jps (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That's actually a very good and useful article, now has filled it out! - David Gerard (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's just sad that it has to be made in the sense that it would be better if this thing did not exist. :( jps (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Catchy title, I like it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Has anyone made a response like, Screw Loose Change? StrayBolt (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a Google doc Debunking “Plandemic” refuting much of the movie, with references. StrayBolt (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This article may still need watchers, as it was soon being whitewashed as semi-protection expired. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I trust people saw this article this morning. Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The coordinated campaign has been pretty-well established at this point. We might want to recategorize as a one-offf "viral video". Odd that Wikipedia doesn't yet have a category/infobox for that sort of thing. Charlie Bit My Finger, Gangnam Style, Leave Brittney Spears Alone, etc. jps (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Ivan T. Sanderson and the concept of the "vile vortex"
Recently a well-meaning editor added this material about the concept of the "vile vortex" on the Ivan T. Sanderson article. Sanderson is best known as a founding figure of the cryptozoology subculture and pseudoscience, but also wrote about other topics. Does anyone know of any WP:RS-compliant discussion about this that we could add to the article? I'm not seeing, say, any summaries about what this is all about from academic source so far, but it seems to involve pseudoscientific stuff in connection with, say, notions about ley lines and related topics. I went ahead and just removed the material as the references appear to be straightforward WP:RS, WP:PROFRINGE fails (cf. this publisher), but if we have some appropriate sources discussing it in context, we should add a section about it. (Pinging, who brought this to my attention). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't have much to say about this topic in particular, other than that your revert was good, but on seeing the highly entertaining website of that publisher, I thought I'd check to see how many articles on Wikipedia use their name, generally because they use a source stated to be from them. There are 123 such articles. Anyone itching to use their wiki-sledgehammer? I see no reason to use their books as a source on any article.
 * Anyway, sorry to hijack your thread. Crossroads -talk- 05:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Great catch—I hadn't looked. I definitely recommend pulling all of these, especially after seeing coverage like this. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox: (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a mention that might be used as an RS to attribute the concept to Sandserson. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a few references. There's a useful chapter on Sanderson, it's in Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend (from page 90) but I don't have full access to that. I don't usually edit this subject so I don't think I will add anymore now but the article could be greatly improved. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you recently removed one of David Hatcher Childress's works that was cited in The Adventure Girls, linking to this discussion (thanks for pointing to the relevant place). This is, I think, one of the rare cases where it is appropriate to cite a fringe source: when it is being cited in the context of a discussion about it being a fringe work. There, the sentence reads "The story started a second life, as fodder for government conspiracy theories, after David Hatcher Childress included it in his 1992 book, Lost Cities of North and Central America." The cite thus doesn't support any of the facts in the sentence, but instead directs the reader to the bibliographic details of the work being discussed. An apt comparison, I think, would be a sentence saying "Conspiracy theories about x happened after the Daily Mail published an article," that included (along with another cite) a cite to the Daily Mail piece under discussion. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't see it as necessary as it is a WP:Primary source, and we have a secondary source there also, but the way it is used there is not a big deal, so I won't press the matter. Crossroads -talk- 05:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My general preference is to include that sort of "informative" cite when possible, but I see your point that, strictly speaking, it's not needed. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Update on Adventures Unlimited Press, and problematic articles found
The number of articles with the string "Adventures Unlimited Press" is so far down to 100 from 123. Someone else had removed a few of them as well. Some articles, of course, will always mention them, like David Hatcher Childress and List of group-0 ISBN publisher codes. Most references to them have been pretty trivial and easy to remove, but along the way, I've found a few articles that seemed like they should have wider attention at FTN: - pinging you so you definitely see this (especially the Bigfoot one). Crossroads -talk- 07:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Patterson–Gimlin film - famous film allegedly of Bigfoot. It includes sources like bigfootencounters.com, bigfoot-lives.com, the TV shows American Paranormal and MonsterQuest, something from a publisher called "Crypto-Logos", and self-published books; it even calls many of these scientific.
 * Elizabeth Klarer - woman who claimed to have had sex with aliens. Tagged with serious issues since 2013. Uses some ufology and YouTube sources.
 * Moon landing conspiracy theories - this one didn't badly stand out as unbalanced, but I was unable to extricate the fringe source as the article is set up in such a way that much of it sets up and then debunks the claims. I am all for debunking, but some more eyes looking over it for any portions of undue weight would be good.
 * Moon landing conspiracy theories has been on my watchlist for years. The current version is basically the compromise between "we can't ignore these/how do we explain they're crap?". Fresh eyes would certainly be welcome, but that article has actually been quiet for a long time. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The Deniers
For seven years, this soapbox of an article has been tagged as unbalanced and I agree. Does it pass WP:BK?

What I see is basically a lot of pushing by the denialist press when the book came out and essentially only passing notice by the WP:MAINSTREAM. Since then the book has not aged well. I don't see any lasting value in this article.

Redirect to the author? Stubbify with WP:TNT? What to do?

jps (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * does seem to overly rely on primary sources, I suggest redirect to Lawrence Solomon.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Along the same lines, can people find some better sources for ? I noticed many(!) of the sources for his actual biographical material were primary sources. jps (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I find a few "Lawrence Solomon" mentions in newspaper articles but I have the impression that they're other people. — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It's never a good sign when the only sources cited are right-wing think tankers and the Washington Times. I went looking for actual critical reviews and found none. It seems that nobody outside the denyosphere took this remotely seriously. Guy (help!) 00:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome
A new editor (actually registered in 2014 I think but has <1000 edits and made almost no edits in the last couple of years) has been working on a total rewrite of the CFS article from the "myalgic encephalomyelitis" POV. This has looked like activist editing fomr the outset but yesterday he posted a loooooooong screed that makes it plain that yes, he is here to WP:RGW. Given the WP:OWNership of the content, his status as a WP:SPA, and his citing of activist groups like Action For ME as authorities, I suspect a topic ban may be necessary, but regardless, this is one persistent CPUSH and needs more eyes. Guy (help!) 10:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Grover Furr
Not a historian, pretends to be one, but is a "revisionist", not a pseudohistorian. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure he's not actually notable, and put this up for AFD a few years ago. What he does have is a huge following amongst his fellow Stalinists. So expect mountains of special pleading and personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't stop reading this as Grover Hfuhruhurr . Guy (help!) 22:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how "Furr" is pronounced. By some. From now on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I would suggest doing another notability check, and checking every single reference, and AFD if warranted - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I put him in Category:Historical revisionism, and put that category in Category:Pseudohistory (before, it was the other way around), so the categorization is OK now. People who look for pseudohistorians can find him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't that confusing Historical revisionism with Historical negationism? Grover Furr aside, revisionism isn't necessarily pseudohistory signed,Rosguill talk 02:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It seemed right to me at the time. Are there any historians here who know the right relation between those terms? Is historical negationism a subset of historical revisionism? --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first line of Historical negationism says Historical negationism, also called denialism, is a distortion of the historical record. It is often imprecisely referred to as historical revisionism, but that term also applies to legitimate academic reinterpretations of the historical record that diverge from previously accepted views. signed,Rosguill talk 03:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Furr's a Holodomor denialist, so definitely belongs in some combination of both of these if he's to be in Wikipedia at all - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Holodomor denialist" is not what Furr is, he simply denies it was genocide. This is a very common opinion among historians as there is no historical consensus on the matter.Jorge1777 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Minimisation - which he does, hard - counts as denial. Compare holocaust minimisation as a variety of holocaust denial, to which holodomor denial is very closely analogous. Furr's track record on this score is extensive. He's well into the fringe - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Use whatever word you want but the pertinent point is that you're either not very familiar with Soviet historiography, not familiar with Furr's work or a combination of both. All Furr has actually done is deny that the famine was intentional which is a widely accepted and mainstream historical opinion.Jorge1777 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The “Holodomor” is a myth. Never happened. But if you don't want to believe Furr's own statements of his own views, there you go - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Being unfamiliar with the literature you are confusing 'Ukrainian famine' with 'Holodomor'. The etymology of the term 'Holodomor' suggests the famine was intentional (it means to kill by starvation) so when Furr calls it a myth he's simply saying it was not intentional.Jorge1777 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Right now those two categories are a mess; at a glance, few if any of the articles listed in Category:Historical revisionism are not examples of Category:Historical negationism. I feel a bit out of my depth trying to fix up categories as I've done very little work in this area, but part of me wonders whether we even need a separate category for Historical revisionism––anecdotally, academics who do productive revisionist work are just known as historians, not "revisionist historians" or "historical revisionists". It could be that the only articles that truly belong in that category are Historical revisionism and Historical negationism. signed,Rosguill talk 22:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

New editor at Daniel Estulin
has made 2 edits, increasingly NPOV (see ). I've reverted the first. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Odd as in fact they have has an account for 10 years, just not active.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Abhigya Anand
knew it all last year, say sources from this year. I guess this sort of thing happens a lot now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources seem unusually credulous. Claims that someone used psychic powers to predict the current pandemic would fall under WP:EXTRAORDINARY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In all fairness they are not all that credulous a few just say he predicted some event. The real problem it seems to me is the puffery in the article. But I do wonder at how many of them are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually created this article after seeing one of his YouTube video which was dated back in 2019 where he predicted some of the things but he didn't mention exactly the term coronavirus. I believe I maintained WP:NPOV and I never used terms with the intention of praising the child for his predictions in the article. I agree some sources raise potential doubts of whether they are abide by WP:RS. Abishe (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought it was standard in these types of articles to at least mention the entire topic is fringe? Are there any sources reporting on this that address the fact that astrology is hogwash? Also I am intrigued by the concept of "Ayurvedic microbiology"... JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And there is the problem, he did not mention what is was (just some vague event), and gave a fairly big date range.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sigh... And here I had hoped earlier this year that we weren't going to need to discuss whether we need a WP:PRODIGY guideline. Should we start an RfC about those draft rules? I think they may have helped in this scenario. WP:SENSATION seems at work here as well. jps (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)