Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 89

Flight 105 UFO sighting
Is this really a "Good" article? It doesn't say much of anything.... but I guess that is par for the course with UFO sightings of this nature. jps (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * From a cursory glance, it looks like it meets the bare minimum criteria, and the review did entail changes. I would have to look closer at it to know more, but nothing stands out as unusual. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * My concern is that it lacks context. Pilots and a stewardess reportedly saw lights in the plane. Why do we have an article about that? I don't see the overall notability claim or the WP:N justification from my read. jps (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Look at it as documenting the spread of mass hysteria, or a meme, or a new religion. If a reader wants to know how UFO hysteria spread and developed, Flight 105 is an important datapoint in the story.  UFOs tells us nothing about aliens but they tell us a LOT about humans, hysteria, and the start of the Cold War.   Feoffer (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, but to the point of the objection, there is a larger parent topic, 1947 flying disc craze, of which this is a daughter subtopic. Pursuing this argument further, is there enough to sustain a separate page? It looks like there could be, but the original writer didn’t expand all that much on the subject before nominating it. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If a reader wants to know how UFO hysteria spread and developed, Flight 105 is an important datapoint in the story. Have any third party sources expressed this, or wrote of Flight 105 as culturally significant? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep! 21st-century third-party RS covering the 1947 craze discuss Flight 105 immediately after the Arnold sighting.  Random example from March 2021.  Feoffer (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It's included as an item in a list in that article, essentially. Two sentences devoted to describing it as part of the saucer craze. Where is the justification for an article to stand on its own? jps (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's included as an item in a list in that article, essentially. Come on now, J.  That's not a fair characterization, ppllease try to dial down the battleground if possible.  Louie asked if any third party RSes mention 105 -- they do.  It's not our idea to list Flight 105 after Kenneth Arnold in 1947 flying disc craze.  Feoffer (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to ask if there are a reasonable number of sources that discuss the significance of Flight 105 as an important datapoint in the saucer craze in depth rather than mentioning it as one among many. The entry at 1947 flying disc craze already does a good job putting it in its place. I'm not sure we need a standalone article that duplicates the content and pads it out with random details. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ppllease try to dial down the battleground if possible. Please try to dial down the gaslighting if possible. But back to the topic...Being just one of a great many UFO sightings during that period for which the supporting evidence is solely "We saw somethin'!", the significance of the event seems suspect. I am also not seeing any sources that identify this particular event as an "important datapoint" for understanding the spread and development of UFO hysteria interest in UFOs. Is this a WP Good Article? No. I do think, however, the article can be retained and improved by removing the padding and, if possible, expanding the on-topic content with FRIND sources (as opposed to, for example, expanding the list of credulous ufologists who have mentioned the event). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a good distillation of my concern. I like having somewhat comprehensive coverage of UFO sightings that received notice. I don't think we have the ability at this point to properly contextualize them outside of the broader craze. Taken as a whole, it becomes obvious that there was self-reinforcing attention being paid to these claims which ebbs and flows throughout the decades. Detailing the big picture view of the 1947 craze is useful and there are plenty of sources which take the bird's eye view to explain the social dynamics and the severe problems with claimed evidence that gets established as a pattern throughout. If you start siloing these sightings to their own articles, it becomes something of a synth game. I compare it to doing something like taking each creationist claim and writing an article about it. Not a tenable enterprise. jps (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I compare it to doing something like taking each creationist claim and writing an article about it. GOOD communicating, jps.   I understand your concern now....   If we keep Flight 105 as a standalone, I'll need to add more context about mass hysteria and such.   Now that I understand your concern, I do think there's lots to be said for moving 105 into the parent article.     But that won't work for all the sub-articles --  some of them have to be split off or the parent article will become unreadable.   Flight 105 is literally inseparable from the craze, and it would be the best candidate for merging back into parent article.
 * If I understand your objection, it wouldn't apply to hoaxed recovered discs, right?  Those are explicitly labeled hoaxes, so they include context right in the article?   I'm thinking of the 100% obvious hoaxes Twin Falls hoax and the Hollywood hoax etc.  (not Rhodes, I gotta think more on how to improve that one).   But the obvious hoaxes (of which there were many) should be safe to split, right?    Feoffer (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It all depends. An obscure hoax is still difficult to contextualize on its own sometimes. I'm thinking more that things like Kenneth Arnold and Roswell which are part of the craze and perhaps overly discussed in the literature are the most obvious candidates for standalone articles. But most of the rest of the 1947 craze articles seem to be too obscure for independent curation. This is the same concern I have with the Rhodes UFO photographs. jps (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I shall think on this.  There's just too much detail put it all in one article, and we have a duty to cover this material somewhere -- and per summary style, it can't all fit into one monolithic, unreadable 'block of text' article.     Based on your feedback, I'm thinking your original observation is best -- the child articles need more context.   I've started added that context, and will continue.    I hear ya on Rhodes, it's def the most challenging event of 1947, and I'll continue to think about how to best structure that one.  I feel like twin falls is ideal for its own article because it's so obvious a hoax, there's zero reason to go into the details on the main article -- nobody's gonna mistake that for a FRINGE topic, it's obviously a hoax.  Feoffer (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

One thing I worry about is that we don't really have a clear standard for the notability of UFO sightings. Over the course of years LuckyLouie and I have been going through sightings articles to see which ones we had decent sources for and which ones we did not. Often the conclusions were pretty deflating. Most UFO sightings are attested to in simply awful sources that mix credulity with all sorts of weird armchair commentary and irrelevant discourse to the extent that it can become untenable to do much more than just say that it is a story that is included in the MUFON database. I once had a student in a data science class who thought that it would be interesting to see what could be done with that database, only to throw his hands up in despair when he realized that the data was so poorly organized, accounted for, and cleaned that he had an easier time handling the used car market in the US than the UFO sightings database. It's just not a very well accounted-for set of events. jps (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the data was so poorly organized, accounted for, and cleaned that he had an easier time handling the used car market in the US than the UFO sightings database :hahaha!  Some people have to learn the hard way.   Can't any idiot submit a report?   That's like asking someone to plot someone's daydreams as if they real objects --  the result is gonna be art, not data.
 * we don't really have a clear standard for the notability of UFO sightings
 * That's a good point -- we'd never want to take UFO_sightings_in_the_United_States and write an article on every possible entry.  One thing I look for is historians describing the incident as having a causal relationship with subsequent folklore, such that it stops be one mere incident but instead becomes an important chapter in the larger narrative of how the folklore came to be.
 * Another criteria I look for is 21st-century discussion -- if nobody's talking about an incident anymore, maybe we don't need to cover it, but if still under discussion after decades, we should probably help readers separate fact from fiction. Time being what it is,  a report from 1947 may be far more historically important than a comparable report    from 1997 or 2017.  We don't need an article on every airline pilot to report a UFO, but the FIRST airline pilot to see one has a special importance.    Ditto for the first photographic hoax, the first recovered disc hoaxes, etc.   Feoffer (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 21st-century discussion Yeah, but being talked about by whom? UFO enthusiasts will discuss all sorts of claims that range from the truly notable to the truly obscure and sometimes bring them up in their grey literature again and again and again. One approach might be to look at which sightings have been subject to ongoing WP:FRIND coverage, but even that gets a bit confused as there is a spectrum of credulity within the UFOlogy community. Some debunking happens in-house, as it were. Often it is due to petty rivalries and the like: to-bolster-my-claim-I-deflate-yours style. jps (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * by whom My view is that even 21st century fiction can make it more important for us to cover topics. When I heard about the fictional work Moonfall (film), it became a little more important that we have a good article on the Hollow Moon theory, so that new readers could easily learn how science proved the moon is not hollow.   But of course, I'm talking about how I personally prioritize which articles to work on, not making a new standard for others to follow.  Feoffer (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thiomersal


Talk page, section "Why Thiomersal was removed in the U.S.". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Grand Paradi Towers


Newly created article is a good example of a topic for which notability is claimed using WP:SENSATIONAL coverage by multiple sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

American Family Association used as a source
American Family Association is listed as an anti-LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for the "propagation of known falsehoods" and the use of "demonizing propaganda" against LGBT people. AFA is currently used in the article about the 2022 film Lightyear.

Here is the following material:


 * The American Family Association called for Christians to boycott the movie over the same-sex kiss scene.

Should this fringe source, whose argument is based on fringe theories about religion and homosexuality, be used in the article? If not, should I remove the statement? Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't a WP:FRINGE question, this is a WP:DUE question. Do reliable sources like newspapers cover the AFA announcement? If not, then it's undue and can be removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it can be both fringe and due, which is why I asked here. The AFA and other groups like it promote fringe theories about religion and homosexuality.  They are not a reliable source by themselves and have a history of fabricating controversy and promoting pseudoscience. So even if reliable secondary sources covered this (not sure if they do, I checked and didn’t find anything in the current article), I’m arguing that even if it is given due weight (which is unknown), should Wikipedia be presenting fringe organizations promoting fringe ideas? Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly here is a "fringe theory"? This is a self-sourced announcement from an organisation. Again, do reliable sources cover this anouncement? If so, replace the AFA self-source with that one. If not, then just delete the sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should visit the AFA page linked above? It’s a fringe group that promotes fringe theories.  Their most famous theory is that homosexuality leads to Nazism.  In this instance, they are asking Christians to boycott a film based on their fringe theories about gay people kissing.  This isn’t rocket science. They aren’t considered a reliable source, their theories are classified as fringe, and their manufactured controversies about American cultural wars depend on their fringe theories about sexuality and religion. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Talking to you is like banging my head repeatedly into a brick wall, so this will be my last comment on the matter. Just because an organisation is fringe doesn't necessarily mean that it's announcements shouldn't be covered if RS deem it significant. Having actually gone and done a search, I can't find any RS coverage at all of the annoucement. As such it's undue and can be removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "Just because an organisation is fringe doesn't necessarily mean that it's announcements shouldn't be covered if RS deem it significant.". What is significant about a fringe hate group making an announcement about a film they dislike because it shows two gay people kissing, an announcement based solely on their fringe theories? I don’t think they should be used as a source anywhere on Wikipedia.  I agree to disagree with your position. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If and only if the efforts by a fringe group get significant coverage by reliable sources, then and only then could they be mentioned in the article, in a manner that makes it clear that the extraordinary claims made by the fringe group are not coming from Wikipedia nor from reliable sources. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hemiauchenia that this isn't a FRINGE question. That said, I do think AFA's overall fringiness makes their opinion less weighty standing on its own. I would support removal unless someone digs up coverage in secondary sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's not fringe to call for a boycott -- but it's undue unless covered in RSes. Feoffer (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Planck mythology
[Moved from WP:Villagepump (technical):]

Various claims relating to effects at the Planck scale have been included in WP over the last years, often vociferously defended, but never reliably sourced. This mythology seems to have permeated to where it is mentioned in print outside WP, and that WP editors seem to accept it as a given. An example that I came across recently where apparently reasonable editors simply fail to understand this effect because it is: In neither case could the restored source be checked: the link is dead and neither the ISBN nor the author/title combination appears to exist. The statement "it is thought that the short wavelength limit is in the vicinity of the Planck length" is given undue prominence, given that it can be, at best, described as pseudoscientific speculation (that may even have gained visibility through WP). How should we deal with this kind of self-perpetuating topic that draws its strength from WP folklore? —Quondum 11:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "If reliable sources make that speculation then it's perfectly in order for Wikipedia to report it. Many sources state it as fact." by.
 * "This is a widely known speculation. If you think that there is a problem with the source, than add a cn template." by.


 * For most physical quantities, the Planck unit is either too small or too large for there to be any experimental or observational evidence concerning it. In this case, we should refrain from speculating or repeating the speculation of others about it. If reported at all, it should clearly be labelled as fringe. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a wavelength scale at which the gravitational potential energy of the photon would equal its momentum energy. But that doesn't mean that it is the smallest possible wavelength. I'm sure there are some quantum gravity treatments which would have it that way, but there are others I'm sure where there is no smallest scale or where the scale is considerably larger or smaller. jps (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Partly, we have to keep on requiring appropriate WP:RS. For example, that source is an undergraduate electronics textbook, produced with varying titles for different university courses, such as Basic Electronics Engineering for SPPU 19 Course (FE - I/II - Common - 104010)(END SEM) (Decode), for a course at Savitribai Phule Pune University covering number systems, logic gates, instrumentation and so on (the business model may be to produce retitled required textbooks so students can't buy secondhand). It's not a reliable source for theories about Planck scale.
 * It's not d D irectly citing Wikipedia so WP:CIRCULAR probably won't help, but sometimes it's worth pointing to WP:CITOGENESIS and remarking that the earliest errors and fabrications in Wikipedia have now had 21 years to propagate, especially as factoids that are peripheral to the main subject for which a source might be reliable. NebY (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that it is often difficult to convince editors that something like this is not a WP:RS. I think the solution might be to do a bit of digging and to see whether we can add an entry on this particular one to WP:CITOGENESIS – thanks for pointing that one out.  I'm not sure I'll get to this, but it is certainly interesting, as it would give us something direct to point to.  —Quondum 23:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It would make an interesting addition to WP:CITOGENESIS! Meanwhile I wonder if it would help to quote WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (aka WP:RSCONTEXT): Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible, perhaps alonside the publisher's list of contents for Basic Electronics Egineering. NebY (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, these links are very helpful; I have made a note for future use. That last link is applicable to the additional source that was given at Talk:Electromagnetic spectrum, and it will come in handy in the future, I'm sure.
 * On looking more, this particular problem does not seem to be as pervasive as it once was on WP, or as pervasive as I assumed it was due to this coming up early in my recent searches for "Planck length" and "Planck time": the vast majority of these are reasonable assertions about these quantities. One weird one that I remember was a claim that wavelength is quantised to exact multiples of the Planck length, which supposedly affected the spectral peak of Planck temperature black-body radiation, but I forget where other than that it was an order-of-magnitude article.  —Quondum 13:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We merged all the articles for the different Planck units into the Planck units page itself a while ago (angering a sock-puppeteer in the process), because they really couldn't stand on their own. Lots of redundancy, many speculative claims, even a paragraph that was an unmarked line-by-line translation from a Russian textbook. I entertained the thought of making a good article &mdash; even a Good Article &mdash; out of Planck units, but I didn't have the energy then, and I've got even less now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I imagine that doing so would entail quite a bit of work, even if it was worth it. This topic is so limited that a Good Article would be a challenge.  It can be written better with the history and modern use filled out a bit, and some trivia removed like the hidden table that basically says "equations that in include these constants look simpler when these are dropped".  Having a coherent single article on this (such as the current article) does have value, though: it acts as a reference point to keep the topic real.  —Quondum 13:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that table being removed. The point can be explained by giving one or two examples in prose. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One person made this observation in 2015:, though the author is a biophysicist, not a quantum gravity theorist. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 00:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A fairly sensible account. I wonder what the author of  would say if asked where they sourced the statement about "the shortest wavelength (highest frequency) photon that can exist" (they do not seem to have referenced it).  I wouldn't be surprised if it was Wikipedia, given the date of publication.  The xkcd strip linked from WP:CITOGENESIS seems apt.  —Quondum 19:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Demonology
Edits from today added "Demonology as a career path", with examples such as Ed and Lorraine Warren. I would delete it myself, with a comment such as "Wizards of the Coast may be another place to start a career path as a demonologist", but maybe it belongs there... --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Our careers advisers at school only seemed to be interested in boring stuff like engineering and accountancy. If only they had told me about the exciting and lucrative opportunities offered by demonology, I could by now be heading a national agency advising governments about how to get rid of…
 * Nope, not appropriate; removed. Brunton (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That looked like a straight-up copy and paste from their article. However, there is no denying they did make it a paying career. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Uyghurs
Can someone with experience dealing with racial pseudoscience review the recent edits at Uyghurs and History of the Uyghur people? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I love the edit summary "Dont change this,because i added real facts". --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol, you are totally right about the edit summaries... "Althought stay this. Because its true information about uyghur ethnogenesis" is one of the most unintentionally poetic things I've ever seen. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been twice too late today. The only thing left for me to revert was the completely useless talk page edit by a link-"fixing" LTA. –Austronesier (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How we have ever seen a more beautiful edit summary? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Socionics
More eyes are needed at Socionics. Crossroads -talk- 17:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Any particular things to look out for? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Canaanite religion
Someone is inserting crappy sources and removing good ones, see. To sum up, their church does not like that God was originally a Pagan deity, so they deny that Yahweh is worthy of worship, they deny that God=Yahweh. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

What the heck is wendag.com? It does not remotely look like a WP:RS. And you have replaced Amsterdam University Press with MDPI, which made it to Beall's List. At the same time you have removed fas.harvard.edu and the book of a winner of the Dan David Prize. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I have to qualify my previous statement about their church: on one hand, they claim that the Bible is a work of fiction, on the other hand, they speak of demonic entities. So, this leaves me puzzled about their own religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If you are so puzzled it might be better to edit topics that do not puzzle you. Happy to help you find some. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Digit ratio


Digit ratio Seems to be a chaotic mess of cherry picked primary sources some of which don't even agree with whats being said in the article. The few non primary ones also decidedly call it pseudoscience. I'm not familiar enough with medical literature or WP:medrs to know where to even begin with this. Any help or eyes on this would be good.—blindlynx 14:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yikes, agreed that this is exactly the kind of fringey pseudoscience MEDRS is meant to address. Going to need to take quite a hatchet to the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a first stab, removing a 42k character table of all the suggested correlations. I expect that's only the start, and we'll basically get down to a handful of notable claims (gender and prenatal hormone ratios), with the associated secondary sources that seem to show a lack of evidence. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to find some secondary sources—blindlynx 14:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Scientific American


I wasn't aware Scientific American has been criticized for "claiming that spiritual treatment of mental illness is more successful than conventional medicine, publishing misinformation about evolution denialism ". A SPA added the material and is edit-warring over it (and much more), but I expect some mention may be DUE. It could use work from someone more familiar that myself with proper referencing and presentation of such FRINGE issues. --Hipal (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "Pop-science" magazines like Scientific American and New Scientist are generally questionable, and dubious articles tend to get published in them from time to time. That said, I agree that Jerry Coyne's blog is not an adequate source here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Coyne has been on a tear for some years now in a few different directions and I think this is just more of him generally now seeing leftwing ideology behind every tree. He is still occasionally true to what I consider to be his past form as a parser of point of fact empirical evidence especially when it comes to religion. But as he does not accept many (most?) social science let alone humanities research results, his arguments around these subjects seem to skew somewhat parochial and have landed him more-or-less in the IDW. If we are to include any of Coyne's complaints, I think they need to be attributed to him directly rather than implying that there is a sort of caucus that agrees with his general disgust for SciAm and their editorial team. This requires looking at which of these critiques have actually been noticed by others. My guess is the E.O. Wilson arguments are probably the most WP:PROMINENT of the three stories. jps (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd guess that you're probably right about the relative prominence, but I'm also skeptical that Coyne's comments would have been picked up by any secondary sources we'd deem reliable (or, if they were, the flash-in-the-pan nature of all these incidents would still lead to due-weight and recentism concerns). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, those additions are dreadful. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Vilhjalmur Stefansson on exclusive meat diets
There is a section on this article that cites a lot of primary sources, "Advocacy of exclusively meat diet". The section had previously been deleted by RandomCanadian who had raised concerns about it here last year. I don't thing the entire section should be removed but there clearly is some pro-fringe material there. I plan on working on it, but any help would be appreciated. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you still want help with it? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I will be busy working on other articles for a week but plan on getting round to this by the end of the week. I would like to re-write the entire section but it may take me a while to do this. If any other user like yourself wants to step in and help out, that would be helpful. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Tessy María López Goerne
Article has been the subject of recent edit warring. Looks to be some PROFRINGE issues regarding the subject's promotion of "nanogel" as a treatment for COVID among other ailments. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * More context in this infobae (yes, this is a legit Argentine newspaper) story. apparently she's also pretended to be a nobel prize nominee? I've nominated this for deletion Articles for deletion/Tessy María López Goerne, though I wouldn't be suprised if the article is ultimately kept. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Crank (person)
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Shadow government (conspiracy theory)
[Shadow government (conspiracy theory)] - why all the quotes? Looks like this needs some work. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thegotics
Thegotics is an interesting one. It's been sitting in the NPP queue for a while. The article states that it is the field of study concerned with the morphological, functional, evolutionary and behavioural elements of thegosis and the treatment of its related physical, emotional, and social disorders. "Thegosis" refers to the sharpening of teeth through tooth-grinding, and the sources discuss this phenomenon. However, the idea of "thegotics" as a field of study and a medical treatment seems to go beyond what the sources claim. The concept of thegotics seems to mostly be promoted by two researchers, R.G. Every and K.B. Scally - the article is quite closely paraphrased from the latter's website. The claim that There has been general acceptance of the phenomenon in some scientific disciplines but in the medical science disciplines, there has been strong criticism (sourced to an editorial by K.B. Scally) is a bit of a red flag. I think this could use more eyes from this noticeboard. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Not Rupert Sheldrake (Bret Weinstein)
It's maybe a question similar to the one in the Sheldrake case. Some recent editing in the lede around the question of whether Wikipedia should be describing Weinstein as an "evolutionary biologist". More eyes welcome. Bon courage (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * What was the Sheldrake case for those of us who are not aware? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_19 has several discussions about whether Sheldrake should be called a biologist in the lede. Also, several other of those archives including 10, 12, 13, 20 and 21. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Edzard Ernst copies from Wikipedia
According to this diff from user:Aliveness Cascade, a seven year veteran editor, yesterday. They made the same claims on the same Talk page in January, but that slipped past me at the time. After I stopped laughing, I remembered that a number of fellow FTN frequentors actually know Eddy, and I wondered what his reaction is? Thanks, - Roxy the dog 13:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

World Council for Health
I created this recently (it's just notable I think) as one of the many pseudo-bodies in the UK lobbying with health misinformation, particularly wrt COVID/vaccines. It's started attracting more attention and could definitely uses some eye from fringe-savvy editors. Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Liberal Fascism


Article on a book by conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg. The lead accurately notes that this book presents a view that contradicts the mainstream view among historians and political scientists that maintains fascism is a far-right ideology. However the Reception section is carefully weighted to provide the reader with a WP:FALSEBALANCE on the matter. It's also a WP:QUOTEFARM, but that's a lesser concern. I'll be doing a clean-up when I am able to find the time, but if others are inclined, help would be greatly appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the framing w.r.t "mainstream history" is a bit off. The book is a paleoconservative jeremiad meant to muddy the waters since the right-wing provenance of fascism is so painfully obvious. Looking at excerpts from the book, I don't see much in the way of a rejection of mainstream history, just an ignoring of it. And authoritarianism, of course, can have any number of ideologies behind it. So it seems that Goldberg got excited when H. G. Wells said he wanted a leftwing Hitler. Sure, George Carlin reimagined the (perhaps apocryphal) Sinclair Lewis remark that if fascism came to America it would come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross in terms of a corporatized, neoliberal approach which is just as much the bugbear of the right as it is left. This is a lazy political work in the same vein as many written by Coulter, D'Souza, PregerU, Candace Owens etc. It's not really a fringe theory, per se. Framing it as such seems to perhaps be missing the real context. jps (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Alex Epstein (American writer)
I saw concerns about the editing of this article on WP:BLPN, and thought I would cross post it here as it may be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Summers
I suspect that the article of conspiracy theorist Anthony Summers and the pages that mention him should be given a closer look. His article is a listing of his books in WP:PROMO tone, and many articles reference his theories (and his JFK conspiracy theories in particular) with varying levels of authority. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I converted it to a simple bibliography list. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And that was reverted. Now being discussed on the Talk Page. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See [ Special:WhatLinksHere/Anthony Summers]. He seems to have a lot of promotion in our articles. Doug Weller  talk 19:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be great if there could be some consensus building about whether the current format of the books section is appropriate, or if it should be a bibliography only, or perhaps a brief prose summary. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Summers often gets a break because he is supposedly one of the "honest" JFK conspiracy theorists who eschews some of the wilder claims. I think I may have added some reliable secondary sources for his book reviews a number of years ago. Personally, I would rather see one article that contains a discussion about his books rather than separate articles about all of them. It's easier to pull weeds from one article than 15 or 20 articles. - Location (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a prose section about his career than the current list format, but since I'm the only one banging this drum, I'm going to drop it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * His bio of Hoover is slammed here. but used in a lot of articles.. Doug Weller  talk 12:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This thread caught my eye because I'm currently reading a new two-volume book on the ties between organized crime and intelligence agencies, and it mentions Summers a number of times. The NYT review does disparage Summers' Hoover bio on one level but it also acknowledges "In researching his book on Hoover, the author conducted more than 800 interviews and consulted much previously concealed documentation" and "the case that "Official and Confidential" makes is so overwhelming in its detail and extensiveness that it has to be acknowledged as ... impressive ...". Does anyone really think JEH was a paragon of integrity and sanity? I wouldn't be too quick to throw it out as a source, unless the wikitext is just prurient garbage or unprovable theories. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding "prurient garbage or unprovable theories", Bugliosi called Summers the "chief peddler" of the Hoover-was-gay rumors and said his book on Hoover is filled with "scurrilous trash". Knowing what we know about Summers cherry-picking with his JFK conspiracy theories, I think using him as a source for anything or anyone remotely controversial should be used with extreme caution. - Location (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is Hoover was a gay crossdresser controversial at this stage? As far as I recall even PBS has documentaries that mention this. Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WaPo: Cross-dressing J. Edgar Hoover story dismissed by historians.
 * FWIW: Not sure what you might have seen on PBS, but I've seen Frontline documentaries on JFK, Waco, and CIA/Contra/crack cocaine conspiracy theories that seem to give equal (read "undue") weight to various views. - Location (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Ghouta chemical attack
I am having a dispute on consensus on reverting the edit these edits in Ghouta chemical attack as I am being told the Syrian government and U.N investigation are fringe and shouldn’t be in the infobox, I don’t think the U.N or Syria accusations are fringe figures in the war as the U.N investigation is what government accusations of both sides are based on and the Syrian government is one of two being accused which makes it a key figure in the attack, the accusation and investigation have been reported on by mainstream media below https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2013/8/28/syria-denies-chemical-weapons-claim

and the u.n investigation, which can be found here https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/politics/syria-civil-war

I don’t think the accusation of Syrian government opposition using chemical weapons is fringe as mainstream media has mentioned accusations of notable Syrian opposition using chemical weapons multiple times by Al Nusra Front, ISIS and the FSA which can be found below https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/middleeast/isis-chemical-weapons-syria-iraq-mosul.html https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2013/5/6/syria-rebels-reject-un-chemical-weapons-claim https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/syria-says-it-did-not-and-will-not-use-chemical-weapons/

I think the controversial nature of the Wikipedia page is leading to a bias in consensus on the balance/neutrality of the page and that the Syrian government accusations and U.N investigation links should be relisted in the infobox due to their notability in the attack Bobisland (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confusing different things. I don't see anyone saying the UN investigating is fringe. I do see editors saying the Russian and Syrian government's claims are fringe, which is likely a fair assessment. The other things editors are saying and the reason there is a dispute about inclusion of links is there is often no need to include any sources in the lead since the lead should only cover details which are already covered in more depth in the article. Note that while we occasionally include URLs in info boxes see e.g. TikTok or Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, these are only for official websites or similar things of the subject of the article. References in the infobox are not intended to be used because they are "notabl"e or of interest to the reader, they are only used as with any references, to support some claim being made. The external link section is where URLs which may be of interest to the reader are listed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the assessment that the Russian and Syrian claims are fringe and should be properly attributed and couched in a lot of careful language, and do not belong in the infobox. Andre🚐 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Both the U.N and Syrian government accusations and investigations are references to support claims being made and yes they are also not wanting to include the U.N investigation and only including one claim in something that’s disputed rather than both and the U.N investigation which is based on evidence Bobisland (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense since the UN investigation is discussed in detail and I see no evidence on the talk page or edit history anyone has suggested the should be removed. In particular, it's discussed in the Ghouta chemical attack, Ghouta chemical attack, and finally in fair depth in the Ghouta chemical attack section. Your comment also makes no sense for another reason. There is zero mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead. (There is brief mention in a footnote in the infobox.) Frankly, I don't think there should be any mention of the Syrian or Russian government claims in the lead, but in any case, until and unless there is mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead there is absolutely no reason to include references for it in the lead. If you want to propose we include mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead, or some details of the UN report, please concentrate on that aspect rather than getting distracted by whether we should include references for these two things in the lead. You're putting the cart before the horse. We include references for things we say, not for things you think we should say but we don't. (The Syrian government and Russian government claims are discussed in the body of the article, with references.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Since they aren’t directly mentioning re-adding the U.N investigation it doesn’t mean they aren’t against it as they’ve repeatedly disputed my claim that the U.N investigation isn’t fringe by calling the edit a improvement that shouldn’t be reverted when I mention it (or they ignore it) and I never said the Syrian government claim was in the lead only the accusation against the Syrian government which was placed in the same edit that removed all accusations into a note in which later edits removed the disputes altogether and editorialized the 3rd party accusations as a fact

“If you want to propose we include mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead, or some details of the UN report, please concentrate on that aspect rather than getting distracted by whether we should include references for these two things in the lead.”

I already disputed that the Syrian government accusations being stated as fact in the lead and all the other accusations links including the U.N investigation being removed, regardless the dispute of perpetrators doesn’t have to be in the lead to be in the perpetrators infobox Bobisland (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Mike Baillie
Stumbled across this article while reading Worlds in Collision, in which the author is quoted criticising the book. However, the section Mike_Baillie seems to affirmitively support Baillie's comet catastrophism claims in wikivoice. I am aware this is a BLP, but the section should be heavily modified/cut down. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

CO2 Coalition‎ and Oregon Petition‎


New user edit-warring WP:PROFRINGE text into articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sweatman is back
defending Allen West. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably emboldened by this . jps (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting comments there about West dodging his lack of credentials. Doug Weller  talk 18:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking of YDIH, the recently active user appears to be a member of CRG, going by their userpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Book of Daniel
WP:FRINGE POV being advocated at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Please reply there.

DRN has been closed at premature. I was speaking of edits like and. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion is now taking place at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)



That division is obscured by the articles opening "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse..." and buried later in Book_of_Daniel. fiveby(zero) 04:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The second-century date for the visions of Danial (caps. 7-12) is accepted as beyond reasonable doubt by critical scholarship. The dating of the tales in chaps. 1-6 is less evident and is keenly debated.
 * Modern scholarship now judges that the book had a long process of development. Although oral traditions concerning Daniel may indeed go back to the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (mid-6th century BCE), the story collection appears to have taken shape during the Persian period and to have reached its final form in the early Hellenistic era (3rd century BCE). The apocalypses, however, can be closely dated to the time of the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes (168–164 BCE).

Attack on Paul Pelosi


Lot of fringe- and fringe-adjacent edits emanating from mostly infrequent editors. More eyeballs may be helpful. Neutralitytalk 21:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Most were a bot I think. Doug Weller  talk 10:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Martin Kulldorff


Persistent IP edit-wars fringe stuff in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Pam Reynolds case


Can there be “scientific consensus” among near-death researchers? - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are they scientists? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes. The idea that we should decide who is or is not a scientist is more-or-less a distraction. The better question is one of looking at whether their claims pass a basic baloney detection kit test. Publishing in JDNS is almost always a WP:REDFLAG in this area. jps (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The issue isn't deciding if a person is a scientist, but rather if FRIND sources support their claims as being scientific. As far as I can tell (for whatever that is worth), all of the near-death experience "researchers" base their claims - and ultimately their in-group consensus - upon some combination of intuition, personal experience, and personal belief/desire, none of which are scientific. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My point was "how can it be “scientific consensus” if they are not even scientists?". Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, sure. But technically a group of non-scientists could engage in research that is valid scientifically. That isn't the case here, at least not according to any FRIND sources I can find, but rather that wading into a distracting (and unnecessary) "Am too! Are Not! Am too!" debate/determination of who is or isn't a "scientist," we can just stick with what is available to us from reliable sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @JoJo Anthrax @Slatersteven @LuckyLouie @ජපස this article (from a journal published by the Missouri State Medical Association) provides a summary of the major lines of evidence considered by such researchers; I suppose you could classify "observational data gathered by the researcher" as "personal experience" but that doesn't seem like an accurate characterization of their work. To summarize a few points:
 * (1) Patients who report an out-of-body experience are significantly more accurate in describing their resuscitation procedures compared to those who don't
 * (2) They report lucid, organized experiences while under conditions of oxygen deprivation, which is inconsistent with what we know of how the brain operates under such conditions
 * (3) Cross-cultural consistency in the accounts of what happens during these experiences. If near-death experiences were considerably influenced by pre-existing religious and cultural beliefs, one would expect significant differences in the content of NDEs from different cultures around the world.
 * As an aside: there is currently no theory of physics that deals with the formation of awareness (except perhaps quantum mechanics, where the observer plays a crucial rule in collapsing the state of the system). Incidentally, very recent studies suggest the brain does quantum computing . No honest scientist will claim that our current knowledge of physics rules out the possibility that awareness is tied to physics operating at very large or very small scales, under which scenarios information can be communicated in unusual ways. As an example of theories of consciousness that leverage the physics of the very large/very small, Roger Penrose (Nobel laureate in physics) in collaboration with Stuart Hameroff (an anaesthesiologist) put forth Orchestrated Objective Reduction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Consciousness), in which consciousness is proposed to arise from quantum gravity effects in microtubules, and it looks like the theory has survived various attempts to poke holes in it (several of which involved misrepresenting the original theory, which is disheartening but also par for the course given what academia is like today based on my experiences during my PhD; being right and gaining status have become secondary to truth). AvantiShri (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that you think an obscure paper in a state medical association journal (not even clear what the relevance to Missouri is except that I think one of the authors may be on the editorial board) which has not been cited by mainstream researchers is something on which to base Wikipedia content. This kind of primary source is not really good enough for us here at WP. As for your speculations about physical models of awareness, this strikes me as being original research and, as such, is not allowed for inclusion in articles either. Orch-OR is well known to this board. Criticisms of it are well known as well. jps (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @LuckyLouie @Slatersteven @ජපස if the phrase "scientific consensus" is replaced with "researchers of near-death phenomena have stated...", is there still an issue? Because this was what was in the last version of the article before LuckyLouie's second reversion. Wikipedia's policy states "views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth)". Even if you believe that flat earth claims are in the same category as the idea that the formation of awareness (a long-standing open problem in physics) is linked to a phenomenon that involves distortions in spacetime (literally all that you'd need to postulate to allow for an explanation of these events; no need to involve the "paranormal", physics at very large and very small scales is weird enough to make room for this), wikipedia's own policy states that we should make room for those views in articles devoted to those claims. AvantiShri (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that "researchers of near-death phenomena..." tacitly assumes credulity on the part of the researchers and is a so-called WP:WEASEL. Direct attribution to the actual people who are making the claim is okay as long as third parties have noticed this. Wikipedia is not allowed per its own rules to offer that kind of analysis. We only make room for ideas that have been noticed by expert third parties. I'm pretty sure no one has noticed your claim that spacetime distortions cause awareness. jps (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

. Welcome to Wikipedia! We have been working on these kinds of topics for a long time. jps (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tag AvantiShri (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the issue here more than anything is that the label "researchers" lends credulity, as @ජපස has said above. I think my needle-threading on this would be to call them proponents of NDEs or NDE advocates. We should not afford them terminology which suggests they have bona fides from a WP:FRINGE point of view. The determination would be what is included in scholarly publications in neuroscience, psychology, and modern anthropology journals. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Galileo Project
Just alerted to this one where it’s basically a “we’re looking for UFOs project” that seems to be focused on sourcing from the research group itself. Didn’t have time to really delve into it since I’m just heading out, but it definitely set off some red flags for me at a glance. Hopefully someone more familiar with this area can take a look. KoA (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a terrible article, but it suffers from some of the same problems in style that we've identified before coming from this editor. In any case, I've notified them that we're discussing it and I've culled some of the more problematic aspects out of the text. jps (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your concern. It's definitely not "sourcing from the research group itself", especially not "focused" on that. There are also no red flags, it's WP:N and WP:RS etc – strange that I have to point that out. To me it seems you "identify" whatever doesn't fit your views (see WP:NPOV) and/or is anyhow related to UFOs as problematic. If you have concerns post them on the respective talk page, and name/explain them explicitly. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take this criticism seriously. We've already caught you coordinating off-wiki and explaining to others your goal of skewing UFO coverage here. I'm not okay with you returning to this patterned behavior. jps (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was alerted to this off-wiki when someone with the same username was bragging about just making the article today. UFO stuff aside, it did come across as WP:PUFFERY. On mobile, so can't really do much right now to help. KoA (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a short note, read this just now: I do take this criticism seriously. I'm not "coordinating" off-wiki and it's not my "goal [to] skew[] UFO coverage here". I only created a new well-written policy-compliant article about a notable subject with lots of WP:RS. I did so because I found the article was missing despite being significant and notable. I'm not "bragging" either, don't think it's okay to accuse me of that but I don't mind. I refer to WP:AGF.
 * Thanks for your efforts of keeping pseudoscience, charlatane-content, policy-incompliant content etc out and the site high-quality, neutral and reliable.
 * Btw especially the latter is a main intention of mine – not related to any particular topic – too along with helping make sure what I think are globally-highly-notable topics² are covered and so with high-quality.
 * ²(mainly not related to UFOs but that too; if these days it's often related to UFOs, it's mainly/partly because it appears that the topic is somewhat getting more activity / news coverage recently) Prototyperspective (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This particular article is much better than the last one you wrote, but writing about WP:FRINGE and WP:FRINGE-adjacent ideas is delicate and sometimes sourcing needs to be more carefully done, writing needs to be more carefully considered, and problematic WP:PROFRINGE subtext should be addressed to make an article better. This is not the same thing as your typical "Science News" piece. jps (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This particular article is much better than the last one you wrote, but writing about WP:FRINGE and WP:FRINGE-adjacent ideas is delicate and sometimes sourcing needs to be more carefully done, writing needs to be more carefully considered, and problematic WP:PROFRINGE subtext should be addressed to make an article better. This is not the same thing as your typical "Science News" piece. jps (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Padre Pio


Are stigmata "real"? Is it fringe to describe them as such? See also Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Any external opinion is welcome. Unfortunately you are missing the point. The discussion is not about whether the stigmata are "real" or not. The wounds are real as there were many witnesses confirming the presence of such wounds. Then regarding the question of the origin of the wounds, whether self-inflicted or else, it's not up to you to decide. Some people think it was deliberately self-inflicted, others believe otherwise. Writing that "the stigmata are false/fake/artificial" is definitely not in line with the policy. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * About 60% of the content in the "stigmata" section on that article is massively undue weight and should be deleted. For example, a huge quote is cited after the text "In a letter to Padre Benedetto, his superior and spiritual advisor from San Marco in Lamis, dated 22 October 1918, Pio described his experience of receiving the stigmata", this is primary sourced material. The section also cites material from Pio's friends and loyal supporters. In total about 5 or 6 physicians examined Pio's wounds. It's clear the physicians conclusions should be cited over the opinion of bishops and non-medical men. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't that kinda what he's known for though? The stigmata accounts? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Gemma Galgani article the stigmata section is more balanced with just a few accounts and then some skeptical examination. Maybe we can cite one or two accounts on the Padre Pio article but currently the stigmata section is very unbalanced. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is written quite “reverently” compared to Gemma Galgani. Not exactly encyclopedic prose. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any meaningful "discussion" on the "origins" of the wounds. Religious cultists believe they were caused by God just as you would expect. The rest of the world including all of those who are the literal experts in such proposals is unimpressed with this assertion. We can leave it at that. jps (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The followers of Pio claim not only the authenticity of his stigmata, but also the authenticity of levitation (!), miracles, healings, prophecies etc.. This is all nonsense, of course, and is based on the "reports" of affect-laden followers. The user SanctumRosarium (nomen est omen!) now wants to press a Catholic summary into the introduction of the article. This is certainly not possible, because all the criticized things never happened, of course. In addition, extremely long quotations from followers are put into the article, which do not contain any encyclopedically meaningful information. They should be massively shortened, and in some cases deleted. A WP-article can present faith content, but it certainly cannot pretend that the view of believers and often fanatical followers is equivalent to an ideologically neutral orientation.

Catholic POV is what both users Rafaelosornio and SanctumRosarium in particular are trying to set. Both are believers in an ultra-conservative form of Catholicism. Their contributions are not suitable for a neutral encyclopedia. I ask for support to let the article remain reasonable. Mr. bobby (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The article desperately needs the addition of independent critique of a number of supernatural claims, e.g. Joe Nickell, J. Gordon Melton. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Religious belief in and of itself is not fringe, but empirical claims such as the ones being discussed here (e.g. literal miracles for which physical evidence is claimed to exist) are definitely in the remit of this board and always have been. Thus I have reverted your "procedural close". I did not know whether to add your closing comment back as a regular comment or not, but it's not okay for you to close this discussion when it is ongoing about how to handle this matter. jps (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ජපස I have replied on my talk page to the comment you left there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. This is not about religion. If Wikipedia accepts people's crazy beliefs about hovering people and lets them stand as facts, we could just as well close shop and leave the field to Conservapedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a reason why WP:PSCI and WP:RNPOV are distinct sections. Have you read them? SanctumRosarium (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Never heard of RNPOV before, but I have probably long ago read it as part of the whole, and it fit my impression of it. It does not seem to support treating flying people as a real "phenomenon". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect to @ජපස's reversion of my close, I believe their objection is within the bounds of reason though I am unsure that there is a community consensus treating belief in alleged religious phenomena as fringe. It is a sufficiently gray area that I agree this should remain open. That said, this is fundamentally a dispute over content and tone, and that should almost always be resolved on the article talk page. As there is already a discussion going on there, I would suggest this discussion be migrated to the talk page and future comments be left there. As I noted in my closing statement, additional input can be requested via an RfC or by leaving a neutrally worded request on the talk pages of relevant wiki-projects, taking care to avoid Canvassing. Lastly, I would gently remind anyone concerned that when disagreeing with an admin action, in all but the rarest of cases, common courtesy if nothing else, would suggest you should try discussing the matter before reverting it. We don't always get it right. But reverting admin actions without discussion and leaving messages that might reasonably be interpreted as implying bad faith are not generally conducive to a collegial discussion. In extreme cases, such behavior could be seen as disruptive. Based on a comment left on my talk page, I believe ජපස did not understand I was acting as an admin. Still, let's all try to remember to AGF and behave courteously with one another, especially when dealing with potentially contentious issues or subject matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. I will be away from my computer for a good deal of the day. If anyone needs to discuss this with me further, I will be checking in later this evening. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think closing a noticeboard thread should be considered an admin action and I object strenuously to that kind of officiousness. Admin action is needed when special tools are required to effect a specific change to the database. That was manifestly not the case here. In some circumstances, admins may be called upon to close difficult or contentious discussions as a pro forma approach to consensus reading with the assumption that admins are better versed in WP policy and culture and thus are able to make judgement calls appropriate to such scenarios. That does not apply here either. Thus, I'm very concerned that you have adopted a kind of authoritarian view of Wikipedia that is counter to the way the community really is. You are no better at deciding what is or is not appropriate discussion matters here on this board. Anyone is allowed to close a discussion here if they think consensus will support it. Contrariwise, anyone is allowed to reopen a discussion if they think that judgement is wrong. There is no need to have some sort of drawn out metadiscussion just because the person who closed the discussion went through a successful WP:RfA. jps (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just checked how long I have been on this board (surprisingly, it is only 5 years), but that was the first time I am aware of that a discussion here was admin-closed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Me too. And yet...I'd welcome an admin close of this tiresome discussion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Aseem Malhotra
Last paragraph of the lede: "His views on diet and health have been criticized by the British Heart Foundation as 'misleading and wrong', and his public questioning of the need ever to use statins has been condemned as a danger to public health.[10] His 'Pioppi diet' was named by the British Dietetic Association as one of the 'top 5 worst celeb diets to avoid in 2018'.[4] During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malhotra published a book called The 21-Day Immunity Plan,[11] which claims that following the diet can quickly help people reduce their risk from the virus; such claims are not backed by medical research evidence.[1] He has also campaigned against the use of COVID mRNA vaccines.[12]"

Dispute over how much background info to present on (mostly nutritional) health, for which he has notable fringe viewpoints. --Hipal (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Leave it to me. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

M Sweatman publishing a blog attacking Wikipedia and two editors
Some editors may recall discussions of Sweatman and Göbekli Tepe, eg Talk:Göbekli Tepe/Archive 4 Pinging a few:. The attacked editors are me and User:Hoopes. The blog, evidently the first of several, is here.. Among other things it says that someone, probably me, deleted an article he created about Coherent Catastrophism. See Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism and Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination). SPI about the creator of the article, MystifiedCitizen, is here Sockpuppet investigations/FireDrake/Archive. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * What worries me is how much of Younger Dryas impact hypothesis he considers "correct". That article really needs a close look from someone who knows the sources well to see whether WP:DUE is being followed. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of what he considers "correct" is the basic self description of the ideas of YDIH proponents. I don't think that's a big deal, because we would have to include those anyway in order to rebut them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I still am not clear how Clube and Napier came to be the sanguine catastrophists in the context of the Velikovsky affair. This is the bizarre aftermath a generation later. jps (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Interested editors should check out Comet Research Group. I just removed material sourced to the dubious journal "Science Progress". jps (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Re: Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: That WP:PROSELINEy mess that is the "The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis " section needs a total rewrite. It also screams "cherry picking! cherry picking!". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Wikipedia page needs some serious help to clean out the nonsense. I don't have enough confidence on the topic to push back. I would hope someone else would. I'm told that another one of these pseudoscience archeological shows is on Netflix in a week, a lot of people will be checking out the page. Please someone take care of it, I'll happily work on a page in return if it's something I understand in trade. Sgerbic (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there's pretty much nobody with enough expertise on the topic to really take the article to task. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Their group does not pass the smell test. com/projects/killer-comets-are-coming/#/ The problem is that they seem to be able to collect enough interest from certain sectors that they have ended up with a higher visibility than they should. The argument that seems to be made by the up-and-up is as nefarious as those I used to read coming from plasma cosmology proponents who claimed on the one side of their mouths not to be cavorting with Velikovsky, but then always seemed to end up at their conferences with honoraria and trips to their favorite petroglyphs. jps (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So I guess we just allow them full reign? There are experts on this topic, I'm sure some would be happy to help. We can't count on them to know how to do the editing though. I care, but would be eaten alive within 15-minutes of trying to fix this page. Sgerbic (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that pocket journals exist. The question really is one of trying to decide how much of the idea has been discussed by truly independent sources. What I suggest is contacting relevant experts in paleoclimatology and asking them what they think. After they stop yelling, try to gather some indication of where the best debunking may be. Some of it is already present in the article, no doubt. jps (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I tried to raise the issue of a source written by Sweatman being used several times in the article, and was just met with months of stonewalling from the main editor of the article, whose rationale for keeping it in basically boiled down to "it was published in a journal". But the YDIH isn't the kind of blatant pseudoscience that sits entirely outside of academia. It's a fringe view held by a small number of legitimate scientists (and a large number of wackos besides), and so it does appear in reliable sources. The difficulty is assessing whether those are given due weight. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a new editor with very little WP editing experience but a lot of relevant subject matter knowledge. I would be happy to assist anyone who wants to deal with the aforementioned pages which I agree have serious problems from a scientific perspective. Proxy data (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest being bold especially with an eye towards removing poorly-attested to claims in the article. One approach is to WP:STUBIFY the thing and rebuild from scratch. Also pinging who seems to have some experience with this work. jps (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words Proxy, go for it. The other editors here will fix the issues related to coding. Just make your changes with a strong reason in the edit summary so we can understand. Lets see if we can get this fixed. Sgerbic (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this vote of confidence but I don't think I have the skills or experience to lead this effort, not to mention the time. Even though I do think this page needs a complete rewrite I would have to spend a lot of time learning about Wikipedia editing, the do's and don'ts etc before I could even start. Sweeping it clean and starting from scratch as I think jps is suggesting would probably be the best approach, but in my opinion would be a full time job that would be life dominating and my life is already pretty full with commitments. Normally when I start a writing project, I start with an outline, but WP is a community project so that outline would be a community project too. I wouldn't even know where to begin. Proxy data (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy Armistice Day to you as well. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia is a community project, it is fine for someone to do all the work themselves. One technique if you are nervous is to WP:SANDBOX your ideas. Don't worry about formatting, style, community building, etc. The oldtimers can shepherd that through. We are happy just to have the data dump, as it were. jps (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sweatman's blog that precipitated this thread has disappeared (probably because of this thread). Did anyone think to archive it? If not, please check to see if you still have it in an open tab or a cached copy for the record. Proxy data (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No archive on archive.ph or internet archive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, some things are better left forgotten. I don't have any record of the page in any case. jps (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It really is disgusting to see how you people are talking about well-respected scientists whose collective works have been cited more than 200,000 times, just because they promote a legitimate scientific hypothesis that has had over 100 peer reviewed scientific papers published supporting it since 2007.
 * You may not like it, but you're acting like a bunch of high school kids talking smack about the unpopular kid.
 * That a theory is on the fringe of science does not make it akin to pseudoscience or pseudoarchaeology, and you may not like the fact that pseudoarchaeologists latch on to the legitimate science and use it to promote their theories, but that has nothing to do with the people publishing the data. By the very definition of being called fringe it is validated as legitimate science, just not well accepted.
 * If you actually cared about the truth, you would dig into the data and find that the early studies that failed to replicate evidence were so disgustingly poor it verges on malpractice, and one study discrediting the hypothesis contains straight up fraudulent data that has been manipulated to suit the conclusions of the paper. If what they did was public the paper would be retracted and it would probably mean the end of their careers.
 * Not that any of you give a rats, you'd rather sit here and gossip like high school kids wielding your misplaced power to suppress and denigrate legitimate scientific inquiry that you don't like because of how OTHER PEOPLE have used conclusions made based on rock solid physical and geochemical evidence to advance their own agendas.
 * You guys honestly make me sick. Incendiex90 (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Drilling deep into the article structure
Do we really need sentences like this? "Proponents of the hypothesis have responded to defend their findings, disputing the accusation of irreproducibility or replicating their findings, and have published further research. Critics of the hypothesis have addressed the claims,   and have published counterarguments." This essentially says nothing of substance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we don't. When there is so much disagreement about every individual paper, I just look for a source that summarizes the entire debate. Listing every possible source has its uses, but in these cases it just invites cherrypicking and undue weight (not just by design but also by accident). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and just straight up removed the sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the entire structure needs to be revamped. It is currently written with a block structure which starts with “Evidence” and “Consequences” and then a huge “History” section that goes through the development of the hypothesis and its chronology. It really isn’t until deep into the article that we arrive at section 4: “Criticism”. The block structure creates the impression that the burden of proof is on the skeptics, which turns the scientific method on its head. It doesn’t really make it clear that the YDIH contradicts the basic and well-established understandings of every single field of science that it intersects with. In my opinion it should be presented with a tightly coupled parallel structure focused on the current version of the YDIH (even though it remains self contradictory and ambiguously defined). I’m guessing that most people who will be coming to read the YDIH page are not interested in immediately drilling down to the details of the claimed geochemical, mineralogical, geochronological, and stratigraphic evidence or the supposed paleoclimatological, paleoecological, paleontological, and archaeological consequences. They are going to want to know, up front, in general and nontechnical terms, what the idea is right now, who is promoting it, why it matters, why it has been so broadly and thoroughly rejected by the mainstream scientific community from the beginning, and why it is widely considered by skeptics to be a fringe theory and/or pathological science. I propose a more parallel presentation of information in which every element of the hypothesis is immediately followed by an explanation of how it contradicts mainstream accepted science. Likewise, every claim of evidence should immediately be followed by a factual statement about why that evidence is considered by mainstream subject matter experts to be flawed, irreproducible, misinterpreted, or contradicted in all cases where it is. Every assumption, explicit and implicit, should be accompanied by the fact-based statement backed by conventional science, whether it agrees or disagrees. In this way, both sides can be presented in a way that is completely fair, balanced, and factual, but would be much easier to read and digest for non-experts. The historical development and chronology is useful as background information, but I think it belongs at the bottom, maybe just before the popular culture and a section in which Comet Research Group spinoff ideas (both indirect and direct) of Hancock, Carlson, Sweatman (Gobekli Tepe decoded), Bunch (Tall el-Hammam is Sodom), and Tankersley (Hopewell comet) are discussed. Also, it is impossible to talk about the YDIH and all the associated knock-off pseudoarcheology without referring to the influence of the Comet Research Group, which was not formally incorporated until 2016 but came into existence as an un-named entity in May, 2007 with the first public announcement of the YDIH in its current form at the AGU joint assembly meeting in Acapulco with public statements to the media by Firestone, West, Kennett, and Becker (three of whom went on to be co-founders of the CRG for the sole purpose of funding, promotional, and media work on the 2007 version of the YDIH and its related spinoffs). The CRG and the YDIH are inseparable and the YDIH page should make this clear from the beginning of the page. Proxy data (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is very much in line with how we usually try to handle critical views (long story short: siloing them in one section is not a good idea). I've had a go at restructuring the article along these lines and I think it's already better, even though I haven't really added or removed any material. What seems to be missing now is a proper statement of what the hypothesis is, as well as more information on the mainstream view. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent work on framing, Proxy data. I think this is doable. We'll need to dig up sources for these points, but I think it is much better to approach framing this way. One thing I noticed when "drilling down" in the sources is that Allen West is not well-attested to. In fact, the author links from Google Books and Amazon go to the politician which, I assume, is not the same Allen West. Anyone know who the correct Allen West is? jps (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @ජපස Allen West is actually Allen Whitt, "who, in 2002, was fined by California and convicted for masquerading as a state-licensed geologist when he charged small-town officials fat fees for water studies. After completing probation in 2003 in San Bernardino County, he began work on the comet theory, legally adopting his new name in 2006 as he promoted it in a popular book. Only when questioned by this reporter last year did his co-authors learn his original identity and legal history. Since then, they have not disclosed it to the scientific community." Wikidata also identifies him as Whitt, but it's not an RS..  More on his alleged PhD here from Mark Boslough.[ https://www.unm.edu/~mbeb/Publications/Boslough_Skeptical_Inquirer_Sodom_2022.pdf ]  Doug Weller  talk 14:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that you've provided that information, I recall reading about it before, but this connection has been pretty thoroughly buried in the search results. Allen Whitt, probably, does not deserve as standalone article, I'm guessing. jps (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Another questionable sentence: "In January 2022, James L. Powell compared the hesitancy in accepting the hypothesis to other initially controversial ideas such as continental drift, lunar impact cratering, and anthropogenic global warming and suggested that a kind of groupthink had set in amongst critics." Is Powell's opinion really due here? What does this sentence add to the article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just the usual Galileo gambit, now extra crunchy with bits of Wegener. One can probably add that to every article about a pseudoscience since it has definitely been used to defend every pseudoscience. Just like one could add that there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, to all those articles. Weightless fluff, sweep it away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Expect problems with Graham Hancock fans when his Netflix series launches
Starts November 11. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I used to enjoy his appearances with Art Bell, because he seemed at that time (a quarter century ago or so) to be a "safe" sort of fringe nonsense. Suffice it to say, that is no longer my opinion.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles worth watching include Graham Hancock, Orion correlation theory, The Sign and the Seal, Fingerprints of the Gods, Keeper of Genesis, Magicians of the Gods, and Robert Bauval. Any others? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A bit more removed, but I have also added Robert M. Schoch to my watchlist. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also see this search Also will be worth searching for "Hancock, Graham". He shows up at really unlikely places. See Food and Agriculture Organization which I haven't touched yet.  Doug Weller  talk 10:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably the series is going to feature at least some of Hancock's old favourites: Atlantis, Göbekli Tepe, Karahan Tepe, Baalbek, Tiwanaku, the Pyramids of Giza, the Great Sphinx and the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis, the Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis, and the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect that it will include another of Hancock's old favourites, the Missoula floods. A recent paper argues that the Missoula Floods might have been 80 percent smaller than are currently estimated. Go see:
 * Dzombak, R. (2022), Western U.S. “megafloods” might not have been so mega, Eos, 103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EO220069. Published on 3 February 2022.
 * Lehnigk, K.E. and Larsen, I.J., 2022. Pleistocene Megaflood Discharge in Grand Coulee, Channeled Scabland, USA. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 127(1), no. e2021JF006135. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JF006135
 * David, S.R., Larsen, I.J. and Lamb, M.P., 2022. Narrower Paleocanyons Downsize Megafloods. Geophysical Research Letters, no. e2022GL097861. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL097861 Paul H. (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Jason Colavito’s review mentions some other related articles. I did some work on Gunung Padang before the big C hit me. Doug Weller  talk 11:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Harold Saxton Burr


Never heard of him before, found his name in a stupid book by Wikipedia-article-less David Ash and Peter Hewitt, who mention his "L-field" and put him in a line with Hans Driesch, Semyon Kirlian and Rupert Sheldrake. The article about him could possibly use improving. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of him either, but while he may have been off the mark on "L-fields", his overall contributions seem to be well-regarded, according to an article by Michael Levin. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Rosen Method Bodywork
Article about a form of alternative medicine. A few months ago the article was massively expanded by SPA, who also significantly expanded the article about the its creator Marion Rosen. Needs cleanup to comply with WP:MEDRS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Vabbing
The brand new article vabbing could use some attention. First two sentences: "Vabbing is a term coined to describe the process of rubbing vaginal juice as a perfume. It has been described as being a very effective way to attract individuals of the opposite gender." Surely pseudoscience, right? – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Citation used in article: Professor Elgar says there's no research that vabbing works. "I think the whole idea of vabbing is hilarious, and I hope no one takes it too seriously." Text sourced to that citation: There has been some science to support vabbing as per Dr. Marc Elberg of the University of Melbourne. Lol. Endwise (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Why the itch to label every bizarre fad or speculation "pseudoscience"? Is wearing makeup or torn jeans pseudoscience? Is there a prize for inserting the word "pseudoscience" the most often, as close as possible to the first sentence in an article? --Animalparty! (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think people just want to be able to "TOLD YA SO!" their woo woo family members at Thanksgiving dinner, when they tell them to Google it. Earlier it appears, the easier it is for woo woo family members to be "gotcha'd!" when they Google it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The important thing is that you've found a way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote from the article says There has been some science to support vabbing as per Dr. Marc Elberg of the University of Melbourne., and then goes on to mention some junk studies. Seems pseudoscientific to me. I can't say the same for the "lipstick on jeans" example though. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely pseudoscience to claim that humans have pheromone receptors. But the easy solution is to just excise that poorly attributed idea entirely. The sources used are fine. We just need to focus on the facts rather than the wild speculations of the true believers. jps (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I know there's similar belief in scent cues from sweat, might need a check on Body odor as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that section gives too much weight to human pheromones, and virtually none to evidence against. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Politely but directly—how are the sources "fine" when the thesis of the in-article text relies on a source reference wherein the the thesis of the reference does not harmonise with the thesis of the in-article text?
 * See:
 * Citation used in article: Professor Elgar says there's no research that vabbing works. "I think the whole idea of vabbing is hilarious, and I hope no one takes it too seriously."[1] Text sourced to that citation: There has been some science to support vabbing as per Dr. Marc Elberg of the University of Melbourne. Lol. Endwise (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents Jondvdsn1 (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Ron DeSantis


His COVID politics is described as "vindicated", higher death rates in Florida are deleted for no reason, and the criticism of it is described as "initially". Is that how it should be? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

David Berlinski


"The pseudoscience of intelligent design" - that is in several ledes of ID cranks. The usual dance is "IP deletes the word pseudoscience, regular reverts that - repeat until FALSE". Now, User:Emir of Wikipedia has deleted it and, for the first time, someone gave a valid reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In the future, to save people time searching for it specific edit is Latest revision as of 09:20, 12 November 2022. Paul H. (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So revert him. Intelligent design is a pseudoscience as recognized by Wikipedia. 2601:199:447F:DE90:955:B296:8CBA:CDAC (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that a valid formal reason for a revert? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the absence of the exact word "pseudoscience" from one particular reference is grounds for removal, and have reverted accordingly. Call a spade a spade, and all that. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Two reviews, Touchstone and reasonsforgod.org get you an article for your book? fiveby(zero) 02:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "the pseudoscience of intelligent design" is kind of a weird way to phrase it, IMO. Just saying intelligent design, with a wl for context, seems like cleaner prose. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The phrasing sounds natural to me, and I'm reluctant to put so much weight on a wiki-link to make it clear that the article is talking about the creationist pseudoscience and not a school of industrial design or something like that. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If we wouldn't (or shouldn't) routinely append "the science of..." every time we mention entomology or astronomy, then we shouldn't routinely append "the pseudoscience of..." to every mention of a pseudoscientific concept. It's often redundant, and may be undue labeling. Wikipedia's disproportionate infatuation with the word "pseudoscience" doesn't mean it should get disproportionately emphasized. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When a pseudoscience tries to pass itself off as a genuine science, labeling it as pseudoscience is due. Three words ("...the pseudoscience of...") are hardly disproportionate. Nor do we append those words to every mention of intelligent design. See, for example, Stephen C. Meyer, which says "the pseudoscience of intelligent design" exactly once and then uses just "intelligent design" the other 44 times. Likewise, Michael Behe says "the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design" in the opening and then saying just "intelligent design" 67 times, in the course of explaining why his work is pseudoscientific. Since the scientific community's rejection of the work of any ID advocate will be a significant part of their article, not including "pseudoscience" up front would be a violation of MOS:LEDE. We do, incidentally, say "the science of astronomy" when warranted; e.g., in Cosmology, Astronomical League, Amateur astronomy, etc. The phrasing "the science of entomology" occurs in, e.g., Royal Entomological Society and International Congress of Entomology. I wouldn't say "the science of" is obligatory in all the places it does appear, but sometimes it does improve the flow, I think. I haven't combed through every instance of "the science of" in our encyclopedia, but it also strikes me that the phrasing could help when distinguishing, say, "the science of X from the art of Y" (chemistry and perfume-making, for example). The point being, the slightly longer phrasing has its uses, both when talking about sciences and when identifying pseudosciences. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've never argued the word "pseudoscience of X" should never be appended, nor that "the science of X" should never be appended. There are indeed cases where both may be editorially warranted, i.e. to improve clarity. But it should not be a boilerplate addition used merely to hammer home the fact X is, in fact, a pseudoscientific pseudoscience practiced by pseudoscientists. Intelligent design is a pseudoscience regardless of how it's labelled. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One problem here is that Berlinksi is so "polymathic" that it is plausible to me that a reader interested in him may not know whether intelligent design refers to the pseudoscience or, for example, some principle of engineering or architecture. jps (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette and nicotine addiction
See this talk page section

An editor at this page (joined by a brand new SPA) is attempting to remove the text "nicotine is highly addictive" based on research reports from Public Health England and the National Academies  which say, in effect "more research is needed to understand if the delivery system affects how addictive a nicotine product is". These sources also say that it could be more addictive based on the added flavorings and delivery mechanisms, or less addictive if limited in delivery and without other tobacco ingredients etc. These same sources say that trading smoking for e-cigarette use is preferable given the much lower health risks of e-cigarettes. Which is pretty undisputed at this point, but does not mean that it helps them quit vaping as well, so much as trading one for the other:

And then we have reports, clinical practice guidelines, and systematic reviews from the NIH/Surgeon General/CDC/American Academy of Pediatrics/Cochrane/US PSTF/American Thoracic Society which say that nicotine in e-cigs is still highly addictive. And we have systematic reviews from other very trustworthy publications which say that it may not actually help people quit smoking (let alone quit nicotine), if done outside of a medical therapeutic relationship or otherwise supervised "quit" program:

Would be great to get some other eyes on this. Thanks all — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeesh. On my watchlist now. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Same user is now trying to remove any mention of the 2014 AHA policy statement that nicotine could be bad for cardiovascular reasons. And remove any mention that there is disagreement among public health researchers about whether or not nicotine is harmful. They appear to be taking their preferred sources and using those and ignoring all the sources which disagree (as described on the talk page). — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Relevant to this discussion is the pretty well-understood fact among public health researchers that the United Kingdom has a very different perspective on tobacco research. It's a cultural thing, that the UK is more lax and permissive about tobacco, extending to e-cigarettes:
 * Smoking in the United Kingdom
 * @Bon courage, as a noted limey and (I always assumed) prolific tea-drinker, any thoughts? I don't think this is anything to put in the article yet, but it sheds light on why the UK's public health guidance is so much at odds with what we say here on the west side of the pond. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage, as a noted limey and (I always assumed) prolific tea-drinker, any thoughts? I don't think this is anything to put in the article yet, but it sheds light on why the UK's public health guidance is so much at odds with what we say here on the west side of the pond. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage, as a noted limey and (I always assumed) prolific tea-drinker, any thoughts? I don't think this is anything to put in the article yet, but it sheds light on why the UK's public health guidance is so much at odds with what we say here on the west side of the pond. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage, as a noted limey and (I always assumed) prolific tea-drinker, any thoughts? I don't think this is anything to put in the article yet, but it sheds light on why the UK's public health guidance is so much at odds with what we say here on the west side of the pond. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage, as a noted limey and (I always assumed) prolific tea-drinker, any thoughts? I don't think this is anything to put in the article yet, but it sheds light on why the UK's public health guidance is so much at odds with what we say here on the west side of the pond. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage, as a noted limey and (I always assumed) prolific tea-drinker, any thoughts? I don't think this is anything to put in the article yet, but it sheds light on why the UK's public health guidance is so much at odds with what we say here on the west side of the pond. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage, as a noted limey and (I always assumed) prolific tea-drinker, any thoughts? I don't think this is anything to put in the article yet, but it sheds light on why the UK's public health guidance is so much at odds with what we say here on the west side of the pond. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage, as a noted limey and (I always assumed) prolific tea-drinker, any thoughts? I don't think this is anything to put in the article yet, but it sheds light on why the UK's public health guidance is so much at odds with what we say here on the west side of the pond. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Telegony (theory)
This is about. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Question: Who directly characterizes Telegony (theory) as "pseudoscience"? Is it unfalsifiable, or incompatible with the scientific method? It appears to be closer to a superseded historical idea like Lamarckism (which does not have "pseudosientific" shoehorned into the lead sentence). Recent literature and reference works variously refers to Telogny as "hypothetical", "unsubstantiated", "long-ago discredited", but not pseudoscience, and the purported case in flies suggests that there may be different "flavors" of telegony theory, not all based strictly on genetic contributions of the first mate. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be good question for the article Talk page, where such discussions should take place. I will ask it there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Source coming soon, as I'm sure the editors of The Huffington Skeptic will publish an article with that label as soon as they see this thread. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Before the discussion, we need to define the terminology first. Scientific terminology must be defined in the way scientists use in scientific literatures. Telegony is not a theory. The term is used to call an observed phenomenon by scientists. The definition of telegony written in the latest scientific research papers.

Please reply if you have any objections. --Trusci (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh joy, we can add Darwin to the ever-expanding list of pseudoscientists. Seriously though, people need to learn the difference between 'wrong' and 'pseudoscientific'. And then base articles on what sources have to say, rather arguing the toss ourselves. Telegony is a very old idea (which is probably why Darwin chose not to simply reject it to keep 21st-century online encyclopaedists happy Wink.png), pre-dating any science relevant to the subject. If modern scientists are still looking into the topic, assess that as science, in the usual Wikipedia way. And then apply the appropriate label (from appropriate sources) to their research, if it merits discussion at all. To their research, not to the entire history of something going back to Aristotle, and probably further. Retroactive application of labels like 'pseudoscience' in anachronistic contexts is nonsense. Pseudohistoric nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's a somewhat disappointing misapplication of the WP:FRINGE/PS guideline to what's clearly very old WP:FRINGE/ALT. As the current state of the lead does a good job of describing: it was a valid theoretical explanation, and it was superseded once we had a better theoretical underpinning of the mechanisms of inheritance that was incompatible. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful for the participants to refer the recent talks such as Revision Required and Pearson's Article. Trusci (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be more helpful if people didn't conflate two different questions when starting discussions. Labelling telegony as 'pseudoscientific' is absurd. It was the subject of investigation - by scientists. Science disproving things doesn't make them pseudoscience. That however has no bearing either way on whether recent research is right or wrong - or pseudoscientific. Or even whether it merits discussion in the article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that Tgeorgescu is the only remaining opponent to my contributions, having tried to have a constructive talk based on evidences. But he is uncooperative, not answering the questions that I think are necessary. So I, as a newbie here, am not sure what an appropriate action is in this situation. I would really appreciate it if you suggest effective things or express objections to the content of the contributions, if exist, with reasons explicitly. --Trusci (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If you think the WP:CONSENSUS is against me, go ahead with your edits. But don't be surprised if someone else reverts your edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tgeorgescu. I accept that you have admitted my edits anyway. Trusci (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has 'admitted your edits'. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. We don't 'admit' content we haven't seen. I have reverted your recent edit, per WP:BRD (amongst other things), and I'd advise you to familiarise yourself with how article ledes are written before commenting further. And then find evidence that the primary studies you have been pushing have been taken seriously by the relevant scientific community. We don't rewrite articles based on single primary studies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The lede is written based on the secondary sources (refer to the related talk). And the primary studies are being cited still without an objection. Are there any other problems? --Trusci (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Meaning: rules for thee, but not for me. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Tgeorgescu, you have completed academic degrees. I assume you are rational enough to have productive and constructive talks. I would really appreciate if you could stop being sarcastic and try to have constructive talks. Trusci (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I am not the only one who opposes your edits. You try to insinuate that I would behave unconstructively simply because I apply website policies and guidelines. You call "unconstructive" whatever does not agree with you.
 * We can make allowance for "It has been observed in a species of fly" or something to that extent, but we do not overturn 100 years of science based upon scant evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * NO. NOT because you apply website policies and guidelines. I do not call "unconstructive" whatever does not agree with me. I simply want you to write more specific details. I have not agreed your opinion that my contributions breach the policies and guidelines you have only linked. Then, I think you need to specify the reasons you think to talk constructively.
 * The last sentence is constructive because you mentioned specific sentence you can allow. And, we can talk whether the contribution is actually overturning 100 years of science. Trusci (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Just taken a look at this. Fringe ideas with poor sourcing. Have breathed on it a bit. Will hunt some hopefully better sourcing! Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Animalparty's argument that absent unfalsifiability or other lack of attempt of scientific validity, we should not view Telegony as a pseudoscience. There are many disproven theories. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 November 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 Lab Leak
A new RfC which should be of interest to WP:FRINGE-savvy editors. Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

Hancock's Ancient Apocalypse
As predicted, we're seeing some disruptive edits to articles on topics related to or mentioned in Graham Hancock's new Netflix documentary. Additional eyes on these articles would be appreciated:


 * Graham Hancock
 * His books The Sign and the Seal, Fingerprints of the Gods, The Message of the Sphinx, Magicians of the Gods
 * Gunung Padang (Ep1)
 * Cholula (Mesoamerican site), Great Pyramid of Cholula (Ep2)
 * Megalithic Temples of Malta, Għar Dalam (Ep3)
 * Bimini Road (Ep4)
 * Göbekli Tepe, Karahan Tepe (Ep5)
 * Poverty Point, Serpent Mound, Mound Builders, Clovis culture (Ep6)
 * Derinkuyu, Kaymakli Underground City, Nevşehir (Ep7)
 * Younger Dryas, Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, Comet Research Group, Channeled Scablands, Wallula Gap, Camas prairie, Lake Missoula, Murray Springs Clovis Site (Ep8)

Please feel free to add things to the list. And here's some early critical reviews of the series, for those interested: Jason Colavito, Carl Feagans, Flint Dibble. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See also this Reddit thread.. Doug Weller  talk 15:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Skyerise is going though his book articles adding cn tags to the term pseudoarchaeology  Doug Weller  talk 17:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, because it needs to be cited. As always, the Wikipedia article on Graham Hancock is not WP:RS. Certainly such a claim needs to be properly cited wherever it occurs, though I don't doubt that it can be (so I haven't removed the word), it has yet to be done. Skyerise (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * the Wikipedia article on Graham Hancock is not WP:RS It is new to me that any WP article could be a RS. And the term pseudoarcheology is sourced in that article. But admittedly, the proper source was not placed where it should be. –Austronesier (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm completely neutral on the matter. I'm just interested in ensuring that claims one way or the other are cited, and that sources which are actually WP:RS aren't improperly excluded by the pseudoscience contingent. Specifically, someone removed the word from one of the articles, and another editor returned it claiming that it being mentioned in the author's article was sufficient. It isn't. You are correct that no WP article is RS. Skyerise (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No WP article is a reliable source, but many are reliably sourced. –Austronesier (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise you’re focussing on Hancock.  Doug Weller  talk 18:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Today I am. That's a problem why? My only interest is improvement of the articles and citations. Unlike the random newbies who try to whitewash the article by removing the term, I only want to see it cited. Skyerise (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not every instance of a word needs a footnote immediately adjacent to it in order to justify it, if the applicability of that word is clear thanks to material elsewhere in the article. For example, footnotes in the introductory paragraphs are often seen as overkill. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The guideline for that is WP:LEDECITE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, counterintuitively the applicable guideline is WP:WHENNOTCITE: "quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead." This means that material in the lead that keeps getting challenged must be cited. This follows the guideline you posted which says "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." Skyerise (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

How is the pseudoscience provenance of Hancock's claims at all controversial? jps (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'd have thought that WP:SKYBLUE applies. Still, if we can locate a RS that's always nice to have. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Some readers find it controversial, therefore they remove it or request citations. That's exactly the situation where strong and clear citations ease article maintenance. Skyerise (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The argument that "some readers find it controversial" is not good enough. Surely, some readers may find literally anything in Wikipedia controversial. My go-to example is the mass of the electron. You have to do better than just assert that "some" readers find it controversial. Do we have a single reliable source which disputes that Hancock's ideas are pseudoscientific? If so, I think you have a case. If not, you are essentially acting the WP:PROFRINGE role. jps (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with this; the argument is approaching heckler's veto territory. While I certainly think such sources should be included, my personal preference would be to keep them out of the lead, but as ever, reasonable minds may differ on the issue.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a new editor adding unsourced text to the Bimini road article. Paul H. (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

John Anthony West fringe?
Specifically should the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis be described as fringe in the lead? Doug Weller talk 16:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I will defer to the more geologically-minded among us, but this is one where I would sort of split the baby (apology to babies). That is, I don't think saying the Sphinx looks water-weathered is, in and of itself, a fringe claim, but the idea that this is a result of the Sphinx being over 10,000 years old is absolutely a fringe claim.  Not quite sure if or how to draw that distinction, but as I say, I'd like to hear from those with more expertise.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And should it and associated articles have the pseudoscience DS tag? Doug Weller  talk 16:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to find any source that calls it a fringe claim. Could you point me to that? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that the Sphinx is thousands of years older than ancient egyptian culture itself is definitely fringe, as are the water erosion claims themselves. As to whether or note the world is used in the lead. Meh. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I only know about the climate aspects, which I've detailed at African humid period. The way it ended is somewhat contested, but there is some evidence that until 4.2-2 ka the desert there wasn't as dry as it was today and the mainstream view of Sphinx dates it to about 4.5ka. I think one important point is that few sources describe the Sphinx as older than Egyptian civilization. I think this absence of sources is really the reason why this theory is fringe and should be called as such. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * | Interesting article I was just pointed to; not sure if the source is reliable or not. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja new article relating to Gunung Padang
No mention of his fringe views, and should we call him an expert in the lead? Seems related to the Graham Hancock issue. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * He is an expert in his field, which is geology, not carbon-dating. Just because he made a speculative dating claim doesn't negate his geological expertise. Have you checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Danny Hilman Natawidjaja for all the articles on earthquakes where he is cited? We don't get to tar & feather scientists simply because they have spoken with or been referred to by Graham Hancock! Like notability, notoriety isn't transferred by association. Skyerise (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Source for his being an expert? Doug Weller  talk 17:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to barge in, but in the links I can see, a profile on his institution's site and a news report both use the term "expert," although even in combination, I am not sure I would say this in wikivoice. Also feels weird to not mention the fringe claims, which seem to be pretty much the entire source of his notability in English sources.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) Dumuzid (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A newspaper isn’t an rs to call him an expert. Doug Weller  talk 18:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The sourcing strikes me as a bit dicey; of course the Indonesian context does not make things easy for someone coming from a different cultural milieu. That said, several of the links appear to be from his own institution, which I would take with at least a grain of salt.  A couple of others are general news reports, which strike me as usable, though not terribly convincing.  Some of the links are unavailable to me (perhaps based on my location).  He does seem to have received a prize, but again, I believe from his own institution.  The lack of true academic sourcing strikes me as troubling, but I would be eager to hear from those with more direct academic or cultural expertise.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I just translated the Indonesian Wikipedia article (id:Danny Hilman Natawidjaja) using the same sources used there. Of course, newly translated articles may have shortcomings which subsequent edits may address. Skyerise (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You also need to comply with Translation. Doug Weller  talk 17:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that an WP:ASPERSION? In what way did I not follow the guideline? I've translated articles before. The creation credits the original article and the fact that it is a translation, from what article, and the specific revision number were posted to the talk page. Skyerise (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t exactly show good faith. I didn’t expect that to be tucked in the corner and missed it, probably because I wasn’t on my PC. Doug Weller  talk 18:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that when you go on dates with mythological beings like elves and eskimos? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know about elves, but aren't Eskimos real? Skyerise (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Opinions are divided on the subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think any of the awards should be there. Awards should generally have their own article.
 * You mean your biases prevented you from looking up the awards on Indonesian Wikipedia? Skyerise (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This again shows a lack of good faith and is a personal attack. This is the English Wikipedia, other Wikipedias don’t have the same policies and guidelines. Doug Weller  talk 19:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And even there 4 didn’t have articles. Doug Weller  talk 19:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Says the man who wrote "I'm not going to show good faith here." just three days ago at WP:RSN. Skyerise (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Due to this sort of behaviour. If you don’t show good faith you can’t expect others to show it to you. Stick to discussing policies and guidelines. Doug Weller  talk 19:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that the academic merits of Danny Hilman are much of relevance here. Many reknowned experts occasionally have their unlucky moments of dubious fame, especially when it comes to bold statements that have not been proposed in scholarly publications, but rather in non-academic contexts such as interviews etc. The dating hype was an ephemeral storm in a teapot, and the article was expanded in 2012/2013 around this hype, with the usual poor sources inapt for a topic like this. I'm against making too much of this by construing a "Pseudoarcheaology" or "Fringe" section; this is why I've initially dumped this under the heading "Media coverage". Megalithic sites in Indonesia are cool enough without weird stories of lost continents etc.

Btw, Doug and I would be happy to see an English version of the article about Harry Truman Simanjuntak :) It is rather telling that Indonesia's top archaeologist remained quite in the background during this hype. –Austronesier (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not that hard to translate articles. Doug seems to have the free time (or rather would if he'd stay off of talk pages). Skyerise (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to build articles from scratch, especially BLPs. Sourcing in WP (in any language) can be dreadful. –Austronesier (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cancer operations and chemo have sapped my energy to be creative and I seem to have more of both coming up, but perhaps we could start one on draftspace? Doug Weller  talk 21:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you like other users to tell you where to put your focus and where not? I am sure people would have ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this is what Google Scholar shows about him. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Ron Johnson (Wisconsin politician)


Person says stupid thing about climate science, person repeats same stupid thing years later, editor wants to document stupid thing twice. Yeah, let's hammer it in that climate has always been changing and that climate has always been changing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

YDIH: Powell's review.
There is an ongoing dispute at Younger Dryas impact hypothesis over how to present the recent "extensive literature review" by James L. Powell a longtime advocate of the hypothesis, which unsuprisingly, concludes that the YDIH was "prematurely rejected". Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program
On the talkpage, I brought up a pretty good deep dive into the question as to whether this program even existed. Now tagged as factually disputed. jps (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It appears _literally everyone_ connected to the AATIP claims were up to their eyeballs in FRINGE.  The supposed insider was a "remote viewer", some of them were chasing werewolves, even the journalist behind the story has covered life after death and shaken the hand of her dead relative who was conjured up by a spiritualist medium. Feoffer (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I mean, yeah, I could have told you that from the beginning as soon as I saw Hal Puthoff. This wasn't impressive investigative reporting, mind you. This is just connecting the obvious dots. jps (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The New York Post is not a reliable source, though. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we actually have to use the podcast as a source as he helpfully provides the sources himself. jps (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Evidently the "pseudoscience crew" is upsetting Graham Hancok
See WP:BLPN. The crew is being naughty by removing "best known for his pseudoscientific theories" from the lead. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This comment is so charged it had to file for bankruptcy. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just took it as a light hearted take on the thread at BLP starting with a comment complaining about the "anti-pseudoscience crew". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sir, if people are being naughty, why do you not ask a moderator to come? Ghost of Kiev  (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Martin Sweatman's deleted blog
Is here Doug Weller  talk 15:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph can be condensed to, "I am right. I am right. I am right. I am right. I wrote a book about how right I am." Very convincing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Just ran into this student project on fake archaeology
Obviously no good as a source, but loads of reliable sources.. But it looks as though it might have been inactive this year. (Also I may have mentioned this before, if so, apologies.) Doug Weller  talk 17:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Fertility and intelligence
A user with 5 edits, 3 of them edit warring over this article, insists on reverting my removal of material I believe to be WP:PROFRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:SYNTH. I've begun a discussion here: Talk:Fertility and intelligence. More eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Is this just a case of WP:NOTHERE? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, given their editing history I would be very surprised if this were their first rodeo. Generalrelative (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've blocked them from the article for one week for edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Donny Frost" seems like a classic Mikemikev sockpuppet name to me, but who knows, given the number of sockmasters in the topic area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Has this been reported at ANI/AIV as requested in Long-term abuse/Mikemikev? Bakkster Man (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, but is an expert at detecting Mikemikev socks. Doug, if you have a moment, maybe take a look at ? Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked. Generalrelative (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Temple of Set

 * Temple of Set
 * Temple of Set

Ooo, mind control by electromagnetic radiation. I think some people believed that sort of thing in the 1970s. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Joseph of Cupertino
I've had this biography of an allegedly levitating Saint on my watchlist for some time, after removing Wikipedia-voice claims to the effect that he actually flew, and note that despite my efforts it is still in need of much work. Is there anyone here that could take a look, and maybe do something about the way it describes those who find said Saint's aeronautic adventures less than plausible as being 'skeptics'? I'm rather engaged in dealing with other articles at the moment, and maybe fresh eyes on it would be better anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Fixed, but probably not what you wanted. I can never get enthusiastic about subjects like that. - Roxy the dog 08:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Roxy, and to the others who have tweaked the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comet Research Group
Articles for deletion/Comet Research Group

Please comment. I was somewhat surprised to come to this conclusion, but there really is not much of anything written about the group per se. It's all about individual members, teams, and associated beliefs, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Now relisted. I think the strongest arguments are for a merge to YDIH, but perhaps there could be a more brilliant line to be found from one of the regulars here who has yet to comment? jps (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Gustave Whitehead's alleged 1901 machine in a list in our article on 'flying cars'
See Flying car, and Talk:Flying car/Archive 1.

In brief, the Flying cars article includes in its list of such vehicles, Gustave Whitehead's alleged 1901 machine, claimed by his supporters to have successfully flown that year, two years prior to the Wright brothers first flights. Though the description given in our list is somewhat equivocal ("Believed not to have flown, although this has been challenged") any inclusion in the list at all appears to me to be undue per WP:FALSEBALANCE etc, given the lack of credibility given to the claims by academic historians of aviation. Am I right in my assessment? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a correction to the above. The 1901 machine is not "alleged", its existence is not disputed. Nor is there any dispute that its inclusion of a road engine and folding wings lead it to be classed as a flying car. The only fringe allegation is that it actually flew. The rest is expanded on in the linked discussion. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Aircraft WikiProject notified. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the claim that it was a 'flying car' (or any kind of flying machine) is the issue under dispute. Given that the list purports to be one of things that fly, or have flown, that would appear to be the relevant criteria for inclusion. Or at least, the primary one, since 'car' is somewhat ambiguous, while 'flying' generally isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Another correction or two. The list is no such thing as just suggested. It is a list of flying car types, many of which never left the promotional brochure or static model workshop, let alone flew; it even has a special Status column to make this crystal clear to the reader. In the present discussion, one also needs to keep a clear distinction between what is in dispute in the real world and what is in dispute here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are supposed to describe the real world. A world where historians appear to agree that Whitehead's claims (and/or claims made about him) were fabrications. If the list includes more recent non-flying 'flying cars', they should be removed too. Or at least moved into a 'promotions' section. Wikipedia needs to distinguish between things kept aloft by fluid dynamics, and those supported by hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "If the list includes more recent non-flying 'flying cars', they should be removed too." Really? That proposal should be made at WT:WikiProject Aircraft, as it affects a large number of aircraft lists, built up over the years under an established consensus to the opposite. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a 'proposal', it was a statement concerning the list on the 'flying cars' article, which appears to describe things that haven't flown (at least according to RS) as 'flying'. I find it hard to believe that a Wikiproject would reach a consensus to intentionally misrepresent such things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's exactly why you need to ask the WikiProject itself what we all think. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikiprojects cannot override Wikipedia policy. Including not-X-things in a list of X-things would appear to do so, regardless of which project X came under. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's exactly why you need to ask the WikiProject itself what we all think. Maybe we are not violating policy and the confusion is yours. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your continuing attempts to drag this thread off-topic duly noted. Since this thread isn't about your entirely evidence-free claims regarding a supposed Wikiproject 'consensus', I shall wait until someone prepared to actually address the inclusion of fringe claims regarding Whitehead in the list responds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that the list contains a lot more than just literal "flying cars". Some of the things included are just plans. jps (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The current text reads American immigrant Gustave Whitehead believed that a practical aeroplane would have to be roadable, so that it could be taken from its storage shed to a suitable takeoff point. In 1901 he equipped his No. 21 aeroplane with a road engine. Although mainstream consensus is that it never flew (the claim remains controversial), the machine was reported to have driven satisfactorily. which seems to be accurate and acceptable. Whiteheads' #21 was built as a flying car, although perhaps not a successful one, so it should be included. If this article excluded unsuccessful flying cars, ones that were only prototypes or very short production runs that never made full production, then we could just delete the whole article, as there has not been one produced in any significant numbers to date. - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The 'controversy' seems to only exist amongst Whitehead's promoters, who it would appear have been (ab)using Wikipedia as a platform to continue the campaign to rewrite history they have been engaging in elsewhere (and yes, I can provide direct evidence for this). AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If that is the only contentious part, I would be fine with just removing (the claim remains controversial). - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If a statement that something is controversial is itself controversial here, then it is not serving its intended purpose of clarification and can go. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am more immediately concerned with the inclusion of Whitehead's machine in the list, since that amounts to a Wikivoice claim that it was a 'flying car', contrary to established historical consensus. The exact wording of any text relating to it in the article (if it merits inclusion at all) can be addressed separately. As can be what appears at face value to undue weight being put on Whitehead's claims elsewhere on Wikipedia. Text can be nuanced. A list-of-X should not, in my opinion, be 'nuanced' to include examples of not-X to suit the wishes of fringe historical perspectives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Given that Steelpillow has chosen to attempt to retain an intentionally-misleading list title in the article (see ) I'll now provide the evidence backing up my earlier comment regarding abuse of Wikipedia by a contributor engaging in a campaign to rewrite history elsewhere  All this talk of 'Wikiproject consensus' etc is clearly a smokescreen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I invoked BRD and started the relevant discussion, while merely earned himself this warning against personal abuse. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * BRD is an essay. Not deliberately misleading readers is policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * An aircraft can still be an aircraft if it hasn't flown, or is incapable of flight (like the Rockwell XFV-12). From the description in a contemporary edition of Scientific American here, Whitehead's flying machine had both powered wheels for propelling it on the ground, and propellers (driven by a separate engine) to propel (and steer) it in the air. What should be the question is whether the powered wheels were intended to allow it to be driven on the roads rather than just to get the aircraft up to flying speed - the Scientific American article suggests the latter function, and does not mention an intent to use as an automobile. What sources refer to the device as an automobile? And please keep this about the subject, not about other editors!Nigel Ish (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nigel Ish@undefined there are a couple of citations to the Whitehead entry, which is the last one in the table at Flying car. I may be able to find more if needed, as Jackson must have got his information from somewhere. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * An aircraft can still be an aircraft if it hasn't flown, or is incapable of flight...? Really? So Wikipedia should describe things that can't fly as 'flying cars'? I'd like to see a policy-based justification for that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider the Rockwell XFV-12 - intended to fly and built by a reputable manufacturer but was incapable of flight - was that an aircraft? How about the Dewoitine HD.780 - which never flew - was that an aircraft - if not aircraft what were they? While the Langley Aerodrome did not fly, and wasn't capable of flying in its original form, no-one said it wasn't a flying machine. An aircraft does not become an aircraft on the occasion of its first flight.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Putting aside whether it flew or not, do any sources refer to Whitehead's invention as a "flying car"? The flying car article describes a flying car as "a vehicle which can function both as a personal car or automobile and as an aircraft" - was there any indication that Whitehead's invention functioned as "a personal car or automobile" or was it just an "aircraft" with a novel way of taxiing? -M.nelson (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * M.nelson@undefined there are a couple of citations to the Whitehead entry, which is the last one in the table at Flying car. I may be able to find more if needed, as Jackson must have got his information from somewhere. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are more citations at Claims to the first powered flight, where the mainstream perspective is more accurately reflected. Citations including direct rebuttals of the major sources being cited in the 'Flying cars' article - see the subsection entitled Jane's renews controversy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Those citations do not address whether the No.21 was intended to be a flying car. Please stay on topic. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the fringe theories noticeboard. The topic here is whether the promotion of fringe claims regarding Whitehead is in agreement with Wikipedia policy. Please address the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. The topic here is whether listing a flying car that probably never flew is permissible in a list including many types that never flew. You titled this discussion yourself. If this is not a fringe issue, you have only yourself to blame for posting it here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The title of this thread is "Inclusion of Gustave Whitehead's alleged 1901 machine in a list in our article on 'flying cars'". Please give a clear, policy-based explanation as to why Whitehead's non-flying (per WP:RS) machine should be included in a list of 'flying cars'. Policy-based. Not according to some imaginary 'consensus'. Based on policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that forbids it, no case to answer. Your arguments amount to nothing more than an opinionated, uncivil and error-riddled personal crusade against some irrelevant claim that the article doesn't make anyway. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are seriously suggesting that there is no policy against describing something that didn't fly as a 'flying car'? How about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOPV for a start? And as for 'personal crusades', you are the one using Wikipedia to promote the same revisionist history you have been engaging in elsewhere, not me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If somebody designs an aeroplane, we call it an aeroplane even if it never flies. If somebody designs a submarine, we call it a submarine even if it sinks on its first launch. If an architect designs a house that is never built, we still call it a house. So it goes with flying cars. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If lying through our teeth to promote fringe historical revisionism is compatible with policy, heaven help Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (NB the above response was posted in reply to :Steelpillow's original comment, since amended ). 20:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just segregate the list into "Models with recorded flight", "Designs that never flew", and "Still under development" — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That would seem an entirely sensible suggestion. Though I'd still think it advisable to look carefully at the sources that describe the Whitehead machine as a 'flying car'. This phrase seems to originate with 1901 newspaper reports since dismissed as unreliable, and suggestions that the device was intended to be a 'flying car' as the term is now generally understood would seem very much open to question. Which might well lead us to the conclusion that his machine doesn't belong on the list at all. We have a biography on Whitehead and his endeavours. We describe them further at Claims to the first powered flight. Inclusion of one of his machines in a list which otherwise seems to be describing other things entirely purely on the basis of a phrase in a questionable newspaper article seems undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if we have any sourcing from reliable places which says he even intended it to fly, then it would belong on a "designs that never flew" list. If we don't have that, and we have no reason en face to believe he intended it to fly, then yes, I would agree it does not belong on the page at all. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much room for doubt that Whitehead intended to build a flying machine. He had already successfully built a Lilienthal-style glider, and continued to build further powered designs for some time afterwards, though again without success, per mainstream RS. My last point was more aimed at whether he intended a 'flying car' in the sense that our article otherwise describes - something designed to mimic both an automobile and an aircraft. His 1901 machine was claimed to have engine-driven wheels, but this seems to have been intended for launching purposes rather than for long-distance travel on roads. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is where you guys really do need to grasp the wider impact of your arguments, stop discussing the aircraft list guidelines as if they were a fringe issue relating to a single list, and engage with the Aircraft WikiProject. This related discussion provides some pointers to how we moved away from multiple lists to sortable tables. Before undoing that, you will have to convince the WikiProject to change those guidelines. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We are under no obligation whatsoever to convince any Wikiproject of anything. WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While I understand the personality type of those who think that every Wikipedia article needs to be consistent, there really is no imperative that this is the case. We can deal with the list in one article while other articles do completely different things. We don't need to rewrite any rules to WP:SOFIXIT. jps (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems obviously misleading to include on a list of "flying cars" entries that were never cars that flew. The list split suggestion above could work, but it should be quite clear which sub-lists are made up of entries that are not actually cars that could fly. CMD (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a Status column with a sorting widget, explicitly to indicate which flew and which did not. It is intended to address exactly this issue. In what way does it fail to do so? Should the article title not also be modified accordingly? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The 'status' for Whitehead's machine is given as 'prototype'. Which isn't an indication of whether it flew or not. This is however beside the point, since the debate was whether Whitehead's 'car' merited inclusion on the list at all, given the rejection by mainstream historians of the claims surrounding it. Or at least, that was what the debate was about as far as I was concerned. If we'd stuck to actually discussing that, rather than being dragged of into conspiratorial claims about "WP:FRINGE police... wanting to turn our aircraft list style guide on its head", it would no doubt have gone more smoothly. Style guides are, on the whole, a good thing. Even those on Wikipedia. The best style guides (which aren't generally found on Wikipedia) will however make it clear that 'style' should not be enforced at the expense of accuracy, and that they aren't a means to avoid actually thinking about what you are doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump@undefined So really, the issue was that you disagreed with the practice of including both flown and unflown types in the same list? Settle that and you will be happy? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue was what I said it was in the thread I started on the article talk page: the inclusion of Whitehead's 1901 machine in a list of 'flying cars'. Historical consensus is that it didn't fly. There appear to be no explicit inclusion criteria for that list, but whatever they are, they cannot, per Wikipedia policy, be used to promote fringe historical perspectives, which an implication that Whitehead was flying it in 1901 clearly does. Furthermore, as has already been noted, the description of the machine as even an attempted 'flying car' seems little supported in RS. It was described in those words, certainly, in a newspaper report of the time, but that doesn't necessarily make it an attempted 'flying car' as the terminology has since been used. The engine-driven wheels appear to have been intended to assist launching, rather than as a means of long-distance travel, and the very limited ground clearance would surely have been limiting on 1901 roads. Which mainstream sources actually support claims that this device was intended to be driven long distances on road? Come to that, do even Whitehead's supporters claim that? They generally seem more concerned with its attributes as an aircraft than as an automobile. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet until we can agree on what 'flying car' implies, we cannot settle your concern. But then again, you also said here that "the core issue is whether Wikipedia should be including fringe claims in the list at all". I think the question has to be, are you muddling things up through ignorance or design? Is it the meaning of 'flying car', the inclusion of Whitehead in the existing mixed list or the Whitehead fringe issue that is core to your concern? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 'We' don't have to agree on anything. Wikipedia operates according to consensus, which need not always be universal. And I'm sure other people are capable of seeing what my concerns are. I have just explained them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, how does a status of "Prototype" say anything about whether something can fly? Secondly, having the status is insufficient if the status ends up being "not a flying car". I have also just noticed that the list considers a person, Mr. Bel Geddes, to be a conceptual flying car. CMD (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have realised that both the Status and Notes need to be taken into account. Shows how long it is since I checked my own handiwork. :( A proposal to modify the Flying car list has been put here, and I have expanded on the issues there. As with the closed subtopic below, there is nothing fringe about this issue. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A claim of Whitehead’s machine flying in 1901 would certainly be fringe as it is rejected by mainstream scholarship. Hopefully the discussion now taking place on the article talk page will resolve the issue of Wikipedia potentially implying this claim. Now that this board has been fully alerted perhaps the discussion can continue there. Brunton (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of failed and unbuilt designs in articles on aircraft
A wider issue has emerged from this discussion. Many articles on aircraft discuss and/or list both types which have flown and types which have not and/or never left the drawing board. An illustrative selection include; List of de Havilland aircraft, Variable-sweep wing, the overarching multi-page List of aircraft and of course Flying car; there are dozens, if not hundreds more. This follows the standard practice of the thousands of reference works which these articles draw on as reliable sources. (There are exceptions, of course. For example there are works dedicated to unbuilt projects under one theme or another, and no doubt some of those will have sufficient coverage here to merit their own articles. But these are the relatively rare exceptions that prove the rule.)

However some editors here, who are not familiar with mainstream aviation literature, feel that this is confusing. Should all these articles and lists be: &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Retitled to make the distinction explicit, as for example "Variable-sweep aircraft which have flown and designs which have not flown" or "Flying cars which have flown and designs which have not flown".
 * 2) Split into multiple articles and lists, titled accordingly.
 * 3) Left to follow mainstream practice.
 * The inclusion criteria and titles of lists has nothing to do with Fringe theories. The Fringe Theories Noticeboard is not a general forum about article content so this part of the discussion is on the wrong board.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Here you said that "This discussion started at WP:FTN. It should have stayed there." Were you referring to this subtopic or to the FTN issue which you yourself had taken over there? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The reply I made to ZLEA was a reply to his last post, obviously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that was part of the above FTN discussion you had spilled over there and suddenly wished you hadn't. We can safely discount it here, fair enough. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How about we 'safely discount' your attempts at mind-reading, and at dragging this discussion off-topic once again, instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * some editors here, who are not familiar with mainstream aviation literature - This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia for everyone. Sorry you have to deal with us plebeians. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, had I not taken your view seriously I would not have asked the question. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that this discussion has veered well away from the scope of FTN. It is not “fringe” to classify a prototype aircraft as “an aircraft”. It is not “fringe” to classify an aircraft that never left the design stage as “an aircraft”. I suppose one can argue that such classification is inaccurate (or perhaps incomplete) … but that isn’t an issue for FTN. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with blueboar, more or less. It's a question of inclusion criteria. The fringe claim is that it flew. If the inclusion criteria for that page requires reliable sourcing that the vehicle was not only built or intended to fly but that it did fly, then it shouldn't be included. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

More of the same, on Talk:Gustave Whitehead
Give the obvious issues with the Gustave Whitehead biography - the same boosterism of Whiteheads discredited claims to flight - I started a thread on the talk page. With much the same results as noted elsewhere. Including this gem of an argument: Whitehead's supporters may not have provided sufficient evidence that it flew, but it's also true that no one has been able to definitively prove that it did not fly. Sure, some have speculated that the aircraft could not have achieved flight due to various reasons, but even those are based on photos or drawings which may or may not have accurately depicted the aircraft in its final configuration for the alleged 1901 flight. Your failure or refusal to recognize these factors leads me to believe that you are unable to contribute neutrally to this topic. 'Neutrality' on this topic thus appears to revolve around vacuous unsourced speculation about things Whitehead might possibly have done with his machines to make them fly being given equal weight with the opinions of those qualified to actually discuss the matter. This is fringe POV-pushing of the most blatant kind, and needs serious attention from anyone not wishing Wikipedia to be a platform for pseudohistorical fan-fiction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This plaintive cry of "much the same results as noted elsewhere" says it all; see the main discussion above. There is no value in firing it up all over again (and no, that quote was not me). &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote wasn't you, but you appear to be supporting the fringe making-shit-up POV-pushing behind it. Along with accusing me of being a 'POV troll'. I'm sure people here are capable of deciding for themselves whether arguing in favour of core NPOV policy constitutes 'trolling'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to fall for the bait again. I recognize that I gave false balance to the Whiteheaders' claims.  I will be as clear as I can, I do not support the claims that Whitehead flew before the Wright brothers.  I have no reason to POV push a POV which I do not have.  There simply is not enough evidence that Whitehead flew before the Wrights, if he even flew at all.  But I also recognize that the 1948 Wright-Smithsonian contract renders the Smithsonian a non-independent source.  Any Smithsonian sources used to discredit Whitehead's claims must be backed up with independent secondary sources, which shouldn't be a problem given the overwhelming consensus among experts. -  ZLEA  T \ C 17:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You can 'recognize' whatever you like, since your personal opinion on the subject is of no concern here. As far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, the Smithsonian's views on the subject are as valid as any other source, until we have evidence to the contrary. Any claims about a supposed 'conflict of interest' arising from the Smithsonian/Wright estate agreement are unsubstantiated by anything beyond spin from Whitehead supporters, and Wikipedia contributors' own WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But I also recognize that the 1948 Wright-Smithsonian contract renders the Smithsonian a non-independent source.The idea that a 1948 contract, made before most people involved were even born, in any way invalidates the peer-reviewed opinions of the curator of the exhibit (a respected academic historian who publishes on many things) is ludicrous. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Smithsonian's Tom Crouch published this statement a few years back. He concludes, "Critics have also charged that no Smithsonian staff member would ever be willing to entertain such a possibility and risk losing a national treasure. I can only hope that, should persuasive evidence for a prior flight be presented, my colleagues and I would have the courage and the honesty to admit the new evidence and risk the loss of the Wright Flyer." I would be interested to hear theories as to why he states the need for "courage and honesty", if there is no conflict of interest to overcome. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say admitting ones own preference for established history is far from an admission of guilt. Everyone has inertia. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Our personal 'theories' about what Crouch wrote are irrelevant. It isn't a statement that there is any conflict of interest. It is a speculative comment about a hypothetical future situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Crouch states in the very same statement that "The contract remains in force today, a healthy reminder of a less than exemplary moment in Smithsonian history." It seems to me that the Smithsonian still recognizes the contract as legitimate.  Regardless of what everyone thinks about the contract, does anyone have an objection to adding a non-Smithsonian independent source to back up the Smithsonian's position on the matter? -  ZLEA  T \ C 23:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No source I'm aware of describes the Smithsonian or its curators using any words like "admit", "acknowledge", "confess", "stipulate", "state" or their variants to identify the Institution's own position regarding the agreement/contract as a "conflict of interest". Wikipedia therefore should not ascribe that position to the Smithsonian or its experts. The partisans of Whitehead, Santos Dumont, and probably others like Pearse and Vuia, do make the accusation and, with appropriate sourcing and in proper context, can be described doing so. But it's a form of OR to transmute Crouch comments into a specific description of Smithsonian policy that he never made. DonFB (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I for one have no objection whatsoever to non-Smithsonian sources supporting the consensus scholarly position on Whitehead being added anywhere. At least part of the problem with Wikipedia's coverage of Whitehead has been the way that it has been presented as a dispute between Whitehead's supporters and the Smithsonian, when this is clearly not the case at all. It is, as it has been for many years, a dispute between a minority making questionable use of sources and mainstream aviation historians. The contract has never been recognised as having any real significance to this topic by such historians, regardless of where they work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But do you still hold that the Smithsonian doesn't have a conflict of interest? Thats almost as ridiculous as the claim that Whitehead flew first... They clearly do. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I hold that without an independent reliable source stating there is a conflict of interest, Wikipedia should not assert that there is one. I suspect there may possibly be an element of confusion here as to what a 'conflict of interest' entails, due to the way the term is bandied about in internal Wikipedia discussions. Wikipedia-speak's usage is far broader in scope than that used more generally, and isn't an appropriate standard to apply to in-article descriptions of external bodies and their activities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, it is wikipedia's usage which has the tighter scope... The common usage is much wider and unquestionably covers the situation described here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , do you see any problem with the usage i quoted below with attribution? Or any difference between Crouch published here vs. Journal of Aeronautical History? I don't trust the guy's writing a bit, for a few reasons regardless of the contract (should use the SA article.) But once it's published in a respectable journal don't the editors there have the say as to writing quality or COI? fiveby(zero) 07:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * COI is specific to the author, journal, and content. Stating that Crouch inherently has a COI simply because he works for the smithsonian is akin to saying that a professor at Columbia has an inherent COI when it comes to conversations about Dr. Oz. Or that a white house historian has a COI with respect to the president. We trust academics to be generally independent from their institutions, especially those for which this is their precise area of expertise, without any sign of financial gain (e.g. stocks, paid speaking fees from pharma, etc). It would be one thing if Crouch were paid by the Wright brothers' estate. But this is several levels removed, with academic integrity, job security, and the historical record in the space between. Sure helps that they are writing in line with the academic consensus demonstrated elsewhere, and under the exquisite examination of peer review in academic journals. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this: Tom Crouch, senior curator of aeronautics for the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) of the Smithsonian Institution, studied evidence for the alleged flight and in 2016 he issued a strong rebuttal, noting many other authorities who had already done so. the article content in question? I've looked through Gustave Whitehead, Whitehead No. 21, and Claims to the first powered flight without seeing a usage where we would actually need to worry about a COI. The above quote is in a paragraph discussing Jane's, is clearly attributed and a well-known rebuttal, so what's the problem? Until there some content in wiki-voice to be included but can't be cited to the RAeS statement or Scientific American it's a nonissue. But if that comes up, the 2016 article is not a Smithsonian publication and the journal editors were well aware of the contract. There is an unrelated issue with "The Flight Claims of Gustave Whitehead": there are more than one version 2013-2016 and one unpublished by Gibbs-Smith. It looks like more of a running, updated rebuttal to Whitehead claims so issued in 2016 isn't really correct. Also not sure about the 38 historians and journalists "Statement Regarding The Gustave Whitehead Claims of Flight" because i cannot find where it has been published and can't find a copy.fiveby(zero) 04:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: Statement Regarding The Gustave Whitehead Claims of Flight, I believe it was published on October 24, 2013 in Flight Journal. But the 2013 issues are paywalled . The Wikipedia Library gives me access up to 2006 and my university affiliations give me from December 2022 on, but this falls in the narrow window with no access, unfortunately. It seems it was also originally hosted here at flyingmachines.org, but that site has since gone bust. FORTUNATELY!! We still have the Wayback Machine! They indexed it in 2014 and it appears to be the original statement: We the undersigned are convinced that the evidence now available fails to support the claim that Gustave Whitehead made sustained, powered, controlled flights prior to the Wright brothers. The arguments in favor of such flights are based on a single flawed news article combined with questionable witness testimony gathered more than thirty years after the fact. Whitehead's claims were rejected by local newspapers and by individuals in the best position to judge, including virtually all of those who funded his experiments. Whitehead left no letters, diaries, notebooks, calculations, or drawings recording his experiments, his thoughts, or the details of his craft. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * First, “38 historians and journalists” is an underwhelming and insignificant number of historians and journalists supporting anything. Finally, this statement sounds like the Young Earth creationists’ boast that there are “Modern Day Scientists Who Believe in Creation and therefore, Young Earth creationism must be a significant and mainstrean concept. It seems that a handfull of specialists can always be found, who agree with any idea, fringe or not and the fact that they do is rather meaningless. Paul H. (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed, it is not a very robust source. Fortunately we have so many others which back up the claim that this is the consensus position. And most importantly, it is important who the undersigned are. The difference between this and the Young Earth creationist statements is that 1) these 38 actually have expertise in this question, and 2) they are clearly experts on this content. The same is not true for your example. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What an astonishing comparison to make. Under what circumstances would the suggestion that the Wright brothers were the first to achieve sustained, controlled powered flight be considered 'fringe'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Gurus


To pseudoscience or not to pseudoscience, that is here the question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * He most certainly is a pseudoscience pusher, really no different than Deepak Chopra but more invested in Hindu nationalism. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like the issue extends across a few gurus. Adding Ramdev which seems to have the same issues. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like the issue extends across a few gurus. Adding Ramdev which seems to have the same issues. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I note that Siddha medicine seems to have been... *sanitized*... since we last had dust-ups about it. Or maybe I'm just not remembering. jps (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Stephen Budiansky
I recently tried to fix this article but I was reverted by a single purpose account a few times giving edit summaries that content is biased. I am sure there will be more white-washing on the article. I suspect there is conflict of interest with the account, because the account and IP that have done reverts have only edited material related to Stephen Budiansky going back years.

In a nutshell Stephen Budiansky is a biographer and writer who has written quite a few books about animal cognition, nothing fringe about that but some of his ideas in these books are fringe. Budiansky is one of the few writers in the world on this topic who denies animals have consciousness. Most academics and scholars in the field of animal behaviour accept animal do have consciousness (I know there is a big debate still about how much) but Budiansky is one of the very few who denies it outright. He also speculates in his books that animals feel no pain, he is pretty much alone in that camp. He has also written a bunch of books criticizing conservationism, ecology and the environment. He seems to confuse the animal rights movement with conservationism which is a bad error because they are at odds with each other. He also confuses artificial selection with natural selection. His arguments in his books have been criticized by Jerry Coyne, Niles Eldredge and several other evolutionary biologists for containing inaccuracies. The consensus from academics in the journals is that Budiansky has been making a lot of mistakes in his books. I don't think we should suppress reviews if they happen to offer critical content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Of note, Harkaway now claims to be Budiansky. That account's history is mostly edits to the BLP article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Male expendability
Noticeboard readers may be interested in this ongoing RFC Talk:Male_expendability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

2016 February Tamil Nadu meteorite incident
A user added a fringe-sounding content about an incident being caused by a specific type of strangelet called a magnetized quark nugget. The source used is a paper in Scientific Reports, but is it credible? –Laundry<b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 22:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Frankly, even if the source was impeccable, I'd still have to ask whether it merited inclusion. We generally don't cite primary research unless it has been the subject of secondary comment. And the whole article is a mess anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The paper doesn't even support that they necessarily believe that the incident is connected to strangelets. All it does is mention the Tamil Nadu incident as an example of where they could look for evidence: It says "Terrestrial craters caused by non-meteorite impacts offer larger areas and longer observation times.", then lists Tamil Nadu as 1 of 3 non-meteorite impacts mentioned in the news. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that I cannot find substantial coverage beyond the week of the incident, I have taken the article to AfD. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 04:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Open letter from the Society for American Archaeology to Netflix about Hancock's series
Here. Starts with "This series publicly disparages archaeologists and devalues the archaeological profession on the basis of false claims and disinformation. I write to encourage you to correctly classify the genre of the show, to provide disclaimers about the unfounded suppositions in the show, and ideally to balance the deleterious content in the show with scientifically accurate information about our human past." It notes that "the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists". There's also "Netflix and ITN Productions are actively assaulting our expert knowledge, fostering distrust of our scientific community, diminishing the credibility of our members in the public eye, and undermining our extensive and ongoing efforts at outreach and public education." Well worth reading. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Ivan Katchanovski
Much of the article Ivan Katchanovski is a discussion of the theory that the Euromaidan Massacre in Ukraine was a false flag operation by allies of the protesters. See the section Ivan Katchanovski and the talk page discussion Talk:Ivan_Katchanovski. Readers of this noticeboard are invited to contribute. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Much of this article is taken up with a theory that the 2014 Massacre of Euromaidan protesters in Kyiv was a false flag operation by protesters and their supporters. See Ivan_Katchanovski and Talk:Ivan_Katchanovski. Readers of this board are invited to participate. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hypnotherapy


There is now evidence for its effectiveness, according to the lede. Are the sources good enough? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking at this article, I was surprised to find that its umbrella category Mind–body interventions contains no mention of the fact that it is based on a quasi-religious adherence to Cartesian dualism. There are some great sources that identify this as an obvious issue: . jps (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * From a quick look, there's some bending of WP:V to oversell it. Bon courage (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The classic media claims that hypnotherapy would help with smoking cessation was popular decades ago, but I don't think this is the go-to any longer (we should to look for some more recent metareviews for that). There are far stronger aids for such according to even the sources in the article. The menopause claims are a bit concerning to me as they are sourced to precisely one researcher/practitioner, Gary Elkins:. This strikes me as some really borderline stuff. jps (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Criminal stereotype of African Americans
Brand new account seeks to include the exciting discovery of a gene *proving* that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to violence. Under discussion at Talk:Criminal stereotype of African Americans, where this user is accusing me of censorship for pointing out that they've misread the study. As usual with this sort of thing, more eyes would be helpful. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can someone check this edit by the same user (who looks a lot like a sock, I have to say)? jps (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * With the focus on the pseudo-field of Biosocial criminology, I suspect . Though who the sockmaster for that account is remains unknown. Generalrelative (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See the previous discussion here: Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 88 and cf. Wiki Crazyman's first userbox. Generalrelative (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The study in question can be found here: Stetler, D. A., Davis, C., Leavitt, K., Schriger, I., Benson, K., Bhakta, S., ... & Bortolato, M. (2014). Association of low-activity MAOA allelic variants with violent crime in incarcerated offenders. Journal of psychiatric research, 58, 69-75. Note that the article states, In substantial agreement with previous data on the MAOA allelic distribution in the general population (Sabol et al. 1998), we found a trend (P=0.08) toward a significantly higher frequency of African-American carriers of low-activity MAOA variants, as compared with their Caucasian counterparts (Fig. 1A). Wiki Crazyman (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Göbekli Tepe
There is a dispute at Talk:Göbekli Tepe about whether to include a) a sceptical blog post and/or b) five sources on what I would call fringe views in the further reading section. Third opinions are welcome. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The status of the response to Martin Sweatman has changed. His most recent article was published in peer-reviewed journal Earth-Science Reviews and has been cited 11 times according to Google Scholar:




 * It's also garnered at least one positive response in another peer-reviewed journal, discussing premature rejection in science:
 * Peer-reviewed journal article discussing


 * The skeptical self-published blog post is by Carl Feagans, an author of 3 papers garnering a total of 2 citations, according to Google Scholar. This is not a 'recognized subject-matter expert' and I believe this blog post should be removed.


 * Sweatman's previous article, "Decoding Göbekli Tepe with archaeoastronomy: what does the fox say?" has been cited 37 times. Despite the fact that not all of these responses are positive, it would seem that Sweatman meets the 'recognized subject-matter expert' better than does Feagans. The insistence on the inclusion of Feagans and exclusion of Sweatman would appear to be an example of the premature rejection discussed by Powell. Skyerise (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is jumping the gun. The cites of the Sweatman paper still don't read like widespread acceptance at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's published in a peer-reviewed journal. We are past the point of legitimately excluding this article. It's now time for inclusion along with cited criticisms. Skyerise (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's published in a peer-reviewed journal Complete junk is published in peer-reviewed journals all the time. We are not obligated to include any paper simply because it's peer reviewed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think that peer review is a sufficient reason for including something, you need to read WP:RS again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we are well within the realm of determining this material is WP:UNDUE over-emphasized content and WP:FRINGE. That's my take on this as well. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting we add content to the article, just that there is no reason not to include it as further reading. Skyerise (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed by the journal it's published in, see Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry and [[User:Doug Weller| Doug Weller] talk 15:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry is the journal that published “The flooding of the Mediterranean basin at the Younger–Dryas boundary” by M, Jayre in 2019 Paul H. (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. But what about the more recent article in Earth-Science Reviews. Do you have a problem with that? Skyerise (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that review paper is suitable for "Further Reading", yes. It has some "in-universe" issues as far as FRINGE theories go, but it is suitable for "Further Reading" in my opinion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with that one is more that it doesn't actually say anything of substance about Göbekli Tepe. The Powell paper, which Skyerise added at the same time, doesn't even mention the site at all. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * it doesn't actually say anything of substance about Göbekli Tepe That is an extremely important point, that shows it would be okay as a further reading for a YDH article, but not for GT. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the fact that Sweatman's work on the YDIH is in a completely different field to what we're discussing (much like both are in a completely different field to the one he was trained in, chemical engineering), all these citations evaporate on closer inspection, as discussed here. He has been cited purely within the YDIH/coherent catastrophist walled gardens, and ignored by everyone else. It's also been revealed here that he simply wrote the paper based on a bibliography passed to him by the YDIH-supporting Comet Research Group. And before you go wading into this topic area in support of Sweatman (with an apparently shaky understanding of what this topic area even is), please bear in mind that he is with a history of off-site attacks on editors and attempts to manipulate our articles. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You just violated our WP:OUTING policy: Even if you are right, that's ground for blocking. Skyerise (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've emailed oversight to have your above statement excised. You don't know who the sockpuppeteer is, and even if you did, you're not allowed to say so unless the editor in question has voluntarily identified themselves in writing on Wikipedia. Even then, they could be lying. It's a serious privacy violation and possibly libel. Skyerise (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I had thought what I said had been disclosed on-wiki, but it seems I was mistaken. I've self-redacted and contacted oversight. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You should be more careful. In a British court, you'd have to be able to prove that what you say is true. Could you really do that? Skyerise (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I'd humbly suggest that this comment comes uncomfortably close to being a legal threat. Just a word to the wise. Dumuzid (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. But our outing policy rightly has stricter standards of privacy that a courtroom. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all intended as a threat, as I would have no standing to start a case. Just noting that its not like American courts where the subject of libel has to prove the statement is false. There are many examples of a British libeled party winning in British court because they don't have to prove anything. This would put not only Joe at risk, but possibly Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for belaboring this, but a quick reminder that per the policy, an editor's intention is not controlling; to wit: It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat. I'd highly advise simply using less charged language, as you did with 'outing' above.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reminder is noted and your apology accepted. Thanks for your concern. Skyerise (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion here.[ Fringe theories/Noticeboard]. I don’t think this is outing. Doug Weller  talk 18:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That discussion is about him being back at his own blog, where he publicly identifies himself, posting about Wikipedia. There is no speculation there about his possible Wikipedia user name(s). If there were, it would have to be redacted. What Joe Roe posted and redacted (thank you) was a link to a specific sockpuppet case suggesting Sweatman was operating it, but the case itself did not speculate about the identity of the editor in question. Even blocked sockpuppeteers may not be outed unless they out themselves. Skyerise (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Copying from the thread, “ Among other things it says that someone, probably me, deleted an article he created about Coherent Catastrophism. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination). SPI about the creator of the article, MystifiedCitizen, is here Sockpuppet investigations/FireDrake/Archive”. All of that is fact. I don’t see it as outing.  Doug Weller  talk 21:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From this, it seems to me the accusation/assertion of identity is public info on wikipedia, and therefore not OUTING. Cow's out of the barn. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Skyerise. If this really is a violation of WP:OUTING, Joe and Doug Weller have violated it in other Talk threads where they made the same accusations. I will tag you in them if you feel they should also be redacted. Incendiex90 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not. I think I’ve linked the only thread, which is still on this page in any case.  Doug Weller  talk 21:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is. Any speculation about the real life identity of a Wikipedia user is considered WP:OUTING. But the conversation should not be linked from anywhere. The urls of the pages or rather edits which added the speculative identification should be emailed to WP:OVERSIGHT, here. Posting the links and continuing the speculation only makes the violation worse.In any case I don't have redact permissions. Skyerise (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've emailed the oversight mailing list asking for it to be discussed and suppressed if they agree it's outing.  Doug Weller  talk 10:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note by the mailing list I didn't mean the email address used by non-Oversighters, I meant the list for Oversighters which is private to those of us who have OS. No one there seems so far to see my post as outing. Doug Weller  talk 13:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Although the OP didn't list them, there are several other sources in question here. Excluding the Sweatman articles already discussed, they are:



Anyone have any reasons to exclude any of these? Skyerise (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: Magli 2016 - This is certainly topically relevant, but it's definitely a primary source. It also is in a journal with an impact factor of 0.46 and an SJR of 0.28 (2021) . These things on their own are not enough to know how useful a publication will be, but they certainly make me doubt how well-regarded these would be among scholars. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Back to Carl Feagans, I've also found this publication by Carl Feagans from the Society for American Archaeology. Doug Weller  talk 14:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Student editing on Traditional Chinese Medicine
Noticed some edits from a class project starting to arrive on articles on various spices, fruits and so on. These will probably need review. The course page is Wiki Ed/Siena College/Traditional Chinese Medicine (Fall 2022). - MrOllie (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I contacted the WikiEd expert who was assigned to the class here. jps (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yikes: Not exactly encouraging. jps (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional discussion at User talk:Sdeyrup. I am pretty worried now. I might put the class up for deletion as out-of-scope for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Siena College/Traditional Chinese Medicine (Fall 2022). jps (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * sigh. jps (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ugh. jps (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's concerning that even on this black pepper article, which has a traditional medicine section, neither of these two edits were made in that section. There's at least a hope of reasonable application of WP:FRINGE there. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The WikiEdu people intervened and the student edits were stopped. I think this sets a good precedent for the future. If large-scale issues happen, (cross-)post over at the Education noticeboard and request review. They got right on it pretty rapidly. jps (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for staying on it. Sgerbic (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Shadow banning
This may be a stretch to list here. Suggestions on better venues are appreciated.
 * Shadow_banning

Shadow banning is a main topic of Twitter_Files. Shadow banning has been partial protected, but I expect we'll need more eyes, especially until everyone is distracted by Twitter files part three. --Hipal (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, I can already tell it'll be rational and calm... Perhaps WP:NPOV/N and/or WP:NOR/N would be helpful here. Is there an "online communities/speech/social media" wikiproject? Bakkster Man (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this is controversial. We do a similar thing also on Wikipedia. It's called pending changes protection. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just part of the current ideological battleground. Especially when you can blame your opponent of the exact thing you're doing with a change in terminology. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Part 3 has dropped and has the awesome topic of Trump. So buckle up for a fun ride. As to shadow banning, I don't think the files add much to the existing knowledge. Might be a salient example from it, if an RS does the work but otherwise it's mostly in line with previous understandings. Slywriter (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Miracle of the cruse of oil
Almost all of the sources seem rubbish. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Is this the right noticeboard for this article? It doesn't seem to be portrayed here as any form of pseudoscientific phenomenon. The only fringe concern I see might be the pairing of the description of the miracle itself under the heading "Historical background", potentially implying secular scholarly historicity. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This is typical of the sort of article that appears in the orthodox Jewish press explaining this or that fine point of Haggadah. I would tend towards assessing it as unencyclopedic detail, but in any case whatever is kept of it belongs in the main Hanukkah article rather the fork which it is now. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I’ve fixed it, perhaps I shouldn’t have brought it here. Doug Weller  talk 18:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Richard Freeman (cryptozoologist)
Lots of unreliable sources, the article reads as promotion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Two fringe writers whose articles are a mess
Javier Sierra and Jonathan Black. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Leave the article of Black to me. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Lost in the mall technique


Under attack by IP who misrepresented at least one source (see edit summary of one of my reverts). Could use more watchers, maybe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Set point theory
Hi. I have never used this noticeboard before, but I hope, I am in the right place. This theory is about nutrition and body weight.

I have looked into the following reference books to find information about the set point theory and they don't even mention it:


 * Ross: Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease (11th edition)
 * Medeiros: Advanced Human Nutrition (4th edition)
 * Gropper: Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism (7th edition)
 * Caballero: Encyclopedia of Human Nutrition
 * Patel: Handbook of Nutrition, Diet and Epigenetics

The article should make clear that this is not an established concept, but I am having trouble to find references to do so. The theory seems to be from the 1990 and early 2000s. It never made it's way into the body of evidence of nutritional science. Can someone help to put the article in better context? CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death/Contrary reports about Adolf Hitler's death
A new article, Contrary reports about Adolf Hitler's death, was created in August that seems a watered down version of Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. I haven't had a chance to go over it in detail, but thought it might be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I had a look and this is definitely a POV fork, mostly off topic, and with some suspicious sourcing. However, Hitler's not my thing so I can't be arsed to unweave it. I suspect there's a strand of stuff in here (about body doubles) which could be merged elsewhere. Bon courage (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is being discussed at AfD Articles_for_deletion/Contrary_reports_about_Adolf_Hitler%27s_death—blindlynx 19:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Covid-19, Fauci etc.
Please expect more-than-average disruption. Thanks to Elon Musk. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I guess we'll have a WP-article about that tweet soon: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect all this stuff to Nothingburger? Bon courage (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly not, since Marjorie Taylor Greene has voiced her support. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that's what makes it more likely than not for any congressional inquiry to be a nothingburger... Though I agree we'll probably have notable coverage as a result. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On a broader note, anyone know of any precedent for how we handle similarly notable persons persistent trolling? I suspect Trump tweets came close, but I did my best to avoid that topic area directly when I could. It doesn't seem like this is going to slow down any time soon, so might as well brush up on the game plan. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, now mentioned at Views_of_Elon_Musk, twice. Some sources have seen it as a very succinct trolling of medical science and trans people both. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On a quick click, I can already tell I have no interest in that article. Yikes. Almost a bit surprised that "views of..." articles meet WP:GNG, but I suppose they're better than the alternative of muddying up major articles.
 * I was thinking more in the broader context, when is a troll tweet notable enough for an article, and when does it violate WP:NOTSCANDAL? This is probably more notable in Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk regarding his directed changes in COVID policy there than on COVID-19 pandemic in the United States where it's nothing but a blip. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

A couple of articles to give some perspective. I expect lots more disruption.
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-twitter-far-right-activist/672436/
 * https://www.npr.org/2022/12/14/1142666067/elon-musk-is-using-the-twitter-files-to-discredit-foes-and-push-conspiracy-theor --Hipal (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, it argues that the Twitter Files article will stick around. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe. Only time will tell on the WP:10YT. It may turn out to be just a footnote of Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk if it continues to be mostly cherry-picked nothingburgers. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Sovereign citizen movement and related articles
I've notices that articles related to the Sovereign citizen movement, pseudolaw, tax scam etc.. ecosystem are peppered with sentences not been clearly describing stuff as nonsense or otherwise written in an universe tone, particularly in the history sections. Doesn't seem to serious just something that's worth having a few more eyes on—blindlynx 21:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have had enough run-ins in my offline life that I have consciously tried to avoid this topic, but I added it to my watchlist and will take a general look later--that article seems unwieldy, to say the least! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * there are way more of these than i remember and they're all like that—blindlynx 21:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Having read and Strawman theory a while ago, I don't remember seeing that it was written in an in-universe tone or otherwise written as if their theories were correct. Could you give a couple example sentences you find problematic to explain what you mean? Endwise (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Freeman on the land isn't written in the way described above imho, I've been watching it for ages, but I have never come across them offline. - Roxy the dog 10:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * These were the two edits i've made removing some of it [] and []. We the People Foundation doesn't put any of their action or beliefs in context.  None of it is major stuff but i still feel like they're worth looking at and maybe reorganizing some of the article to be clearer—blindlynx 18:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. These past few months I have been doing a lot of editing on Sovereign citizen movement, and to a lesser extent on Pseudolaw, Freeman on the land, Strawman theory and Redemption theory. So if these articles have a problem, I guess I must be the main culprit. :)
 * I must say that the SovCit article was already a bit "unwieldy" when I found it. I've added a lot of details and info, which was necessary since the movement's organization (or lack thereof), theories and tactics are rather complex. I'm afraid this has made the page even longer, and maybe overstuffed with details (I have a tendency to do that) though I considered that the subject justified it. Please let me know if the page is really too unwieldy.
 * Also, I did my best to explain, in a neutral manner, that sovereign citizen theories (and the like) are, to put it politely, utter nonsense, and that using the movement's tactics will land you in jail. It is I who added to the introduction that "Sovereign citizen arguments have no basis in law and have never been successful in court" and I thought that Theories, Tactics, Legal status of theories and Responses from US authorities made it pretty clear. If not, then I guess I must consider this article a personal failure and hang my head in shame. Please do not hesitate to tell me what is the problem with these articles and how you think they could be improved. Psychloppos (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Psycholoppos -- I hope you took no offense at my description; when the article appeared here, I feared that it would be full of woo, and I do not think that is the case. When I say "unwieldy," I simply means it is in need of some editing (which is something I think we all benefit from!).  Thanks for your efforts! Dumuzid (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks. I precisely tried to avoid all the "woo", as I think pseudolaw is something very dangerous. I know there's quite a lot of details in the sovereign citizen movement page, but I thought they were necessary to give an accurate description of that movement. FYI, since I know that the article is quite long, I do no intend to add more detail unless absolutely necessary. If you think that the grammar can be improved, or that some sections could be reorganized, please feel free to do so. Psychloppos (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if it seemed like i meant your edits were fringe your work in this area has been great! Some of the stray details aren't always contextualized well and admittedly that's not always easy.  I figured a few more editors giving it a look would help—blindlynx 00:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. I didn't write the text you removed in the strawman theory article, and I agree with your edit since it was not properly contextualized and made it appear somewhat legitimate. When I checked that there was a connexion between this concept and the theory I put back a much condensed, contextualized form of that info, hopefully making it clear that it's BS.
 * Likewise, I did my best in the sovereign citizen article to contextualize the theories (i.e. "sovereign citizens believe that..."). However, if you think the page can be improved by fixing the grammar here and there or contextualizing the infos better, please do. I will be glad if what I have done can be improved by other users. Psychloppos (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)