Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 90

Is David Gorski 'a self-described anti-vaxxer'?
It has been recently claimed at Talk:Acupuncture. Does WP:BLP apply to talk page posts like that one? - MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Note that the user is describing him as "a self-described anti-vaxxer critic" (as if that somehow hurts his credibility). With that said, it's clear that this user is attempting to promote pseudo-science and has been corrected by multiple users; I think the best response at this point is to WP:DENY recognition. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * EC: It does, however my best guess based on context is that what the IP meant/wrote was anti-anti-vaxxer and they got autocorrected. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It is charitable of you guys to read it that way, but that's not the quote. And from elsewhere (an anti-vaccination proponent) I don't think that is what they mean. - MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm reading back through that discussion and I'm genuinely not sure where the IP gets that from, having a hard time wrapping my head around how someone could be both anti-vaccine and anti-alternative medicine... What is that position? Pro-disease? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember that he ironically called himself an anti-vaxxer once, at the time when there was no COVID vaccine and Trump claimed he would very soon have one made. Gorski said he would not trust that vaccine. Maybe I remember wrong, and it was Steven Novella. (It is difficult to find that one by googling Gorski and anti-vax, given that that is one of his main subjects and that not every article of his contains his name.) If propagated and distorted in the quackery subculture, that could be the source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

List of acupuncture points


Seems legit. No hint that these are all fantasy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)



is related. "Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine" is a reliable source? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * One issue I am finding is that there is very little documentation as to what standard considerations are in acupuncture. I guess there is a WHO summary document, but what we could really use would be some source that says, "this approach is the most common" with actual evidence to back up the claim. jps (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Liver King
New article which probably needs expanding and fixing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * poseur. fiveby(zero) 19:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately i can't find any of Nathan E. Bender's articles to clean that up, besides his Crow Killer introduction. fiveby(zero) 01:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Does this guy even meet WP:ANYBIO? The overwhelming majority of coverage is around him taking steroids—blindlynx 23:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the sourcing on the article is not good, I think it would be a delete. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This source is actually quite good . It might be a case of expanding the article. I will leave it for now as I have other stuff to do. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * True but that's pretty much the only one though, there rest are about him taking steroid and claiming it was liver. I would support deleting—blindlynx 20:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car


Could use more improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * AfD for NOTNEWS? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Kensington Runestone
Looks like the source of the runes may have been discovered.  Doug Weller  talk 15:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I saw that! Fascinating.  And Jason Colavito has a write up (in English) here.  The original piece comes from a blog of the national antiquities office, which I am a bit ambivalent about as a source.  Maybe add it as a brief attributed note for now and hope more scholarship follows?  Happy holidays. Dumuzid (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Garrett G. Fagan needs rescue as it’s going to be deleted for copyvio
See Talk:Garrett G. Fagan. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * After clicking around a bit, I may nominate that page and it's consequent stuff as the most terminally obfuscatory thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Nice to see you doing so well, Doug. - Roxy the dog 19:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * By "that page", I'm assuming you're referring to Template:Copyvio/core, ? Because, if yes, please do. It is a totally useless wall of text template that gives no indication of what anyone's supposed to do to deal with the issue. Especially since no actual indication of copyvio is given, just the presumption of it. I'm not sure how someone is supposed to prove a negative in regards to such a presumption. Silver  seren C 05:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In such cases, the correct step is to write a new article from scratch, I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How would the resulting article be any different than the current one? Silver  seren C 13:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed yes, the template. I've never seen anything like it. -Roxy the dog 11:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like one can replace any random article by that template if one feels like it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, my incompetence is showing again, I meant this page. - Roxy the dog 17:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Steven Gundry
Single purpose account edit warring on Steven Gundry and his talk-page and related articles (Lectin-free diet). Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Incorrect accusation here. I don't edit much and don't edit often. I am not an experienced editor. I've editted other things that have nothing to do with Alternative Medicine.  User making accusation has not been polite or welcoming.  Judging from their edits they are liking part of the vegitarian/vegan backlash around lectin restriction and Steven Gundry.
 * I'm just someone who's disappointed with the state of how lectin restriction, and tangential topics, is being portrayed on Wikipedia currently. Will likely be filing something around WP:NPOV and trying to figure out how to get a missing information banner on the page for lectin-free diet and it clearly ignores the topic of gut microbiota on page.
 * In addition to WP:NPOV, the pages for Steven Gundry and lectin-free diet need better attention paid in regard to WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:BLPBALANCE. Tonytopper (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As Bon Courage and I have said to you on the talk-page, we have reliable sources telling us that the lectin-free diet is a scam . It's nonsense, pseudoscience, making people lose money. That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of all the reliable sources (dietitians and physicians). You are wasting time trying to push this fad diet on Wikipedia. It has no scientific basis. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Dietary Guidelines for Americans
There are some current disputes at Dietary Guidelines for Americans that have spilled out onto red meat. User Sbelknap on Dietary Guidelines for Americans has been adding low-carb advocates Nina Teicholz, James DiNicolantonio, Gary Taubes, Zoe Harcombe, Mark Hyman as references on the article. The same user has said on talk-page that they are reliable sources and I am doing original research by saying they are not reliable. Gary Taubes, reliable? Really? Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * See long discussions now at the red meat talk-page, the same user is claiming "Nina Teicholz's work has undergone withering criticism and yet has stood up. Gary Taubes has made some useful contributions to nutrition science"... also "There is no consensus (and no good evidence) that processed meat increases the risk of heart disease or cancer or mortality". There is blatant ignorance of scientific consensus here and a poor understanding of evidence-based medicine. I am tired of debating Atkins fanbois. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Mount Sinai (Bible)
Looking at the contributions of a new fringe editor I noticed this section which could use some work. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Polonnaruwa (meteorite) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Polonnaruwa (meteorite) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Polonnaruwa (meteorite) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. The subject is an alleged meteorite, described in fringe journals, whose status is disputed. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 10:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the highlights of my life was visiting this place. Sorry. -Roxy the dog 00:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * If the thing (whatever it is) meets Wikipedia notability standards, then the article title needs changing. 'Polonnaruwa (supposed meteorite)' Maybe? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest the name Polonnaruwa stone(s). That is a an appropriate nongeneric name for them and the article. Paul H. (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Antonio Zamora
At the very least the lead needs revising. See. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the 2019 "no consensus" AfD deserves revisiting> Articles for deletion/Antonio Zamora (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Zamora's support of Graham Hancock in the video that Doug links to is expected because Hancock cites and strongly supports Zamora's 2017 "Geomorphology" paper about the origin of the Carolina Bays in "America Before". Paul H. (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Get'im, Doug! Doing God's work!--Animalparty! (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Compound Media topics
Some more eyes may be needed on various pages associated with Compound Media, which has ties to Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes; there have been large additions of poorly sourced content to a number of the articles in the last month, generally cherrypicked, self sourced or unsourced. An indeffed paid account made some of the large edits about Compound topics, though not the Compound Media page itself. I have been involved in some disputes over the additions and NPOV questions, so new editors could be helpful. Llll5032 (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Acupuncture page dispute

 * Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Acupuncture discussion has escalated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops! I did not notice that, I thought that was just one of the 57 standard Wikipedia drama boards. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Follow-Up Questions
A case request was opened about 48 hours ago at DRN concerning acupuncture, and I closed it for various reasons, one of which is that there is a consensus in Wikipedia that acupuncture is not medically effective. The filing editor is continuing to ask questions, and so I will ask questions here. Just to be clear, I am a skeptic about forms of so-called alternative medicine, including acupuncture, and I know that Wikipedia is skeptical about so-called alternative medicine, but I would like to be directed to where that consensus has been established. So, first, will someone please point me to where the consensus has been established that Wikipedia considers acupuncture to be pseudoscience? Second, if an editor wants to challenge the existing Wikipedia consensus that acupuncture is pseudoscience, what is the correct forum for that purpose? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia considers nothing to be anything. Wikipedia merely reports on what has been reliably identified. As far as I can tell, there are a lot of reliable sources which identify the underlying claims of acupuncture as being pseudoscientific. While I have seen mealy-mouthed rejoinders by acupuncturists trying to explain that qi and meridians may be allegories for something real, that something has remained so elusive and so underdeveloped as a claim that I am forced to throw the question back: what is the scientific evidence that qi or meridians exist? Once I get a satisfying reliable source that identifies these supposed things as existing in the empirical sense, I think we can look at changing the framing in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I recently filed for dispute resolution regarding the acupuncture page. I am requesting neutrality and an unbiased editor to ascertain the credibility of sources used to make claims regarding acupuncture's classification as quackery and pseudoscientific.
 * I shared high quality MEDRS source, which are recently published (11/4/22) CDC guidelines that recommend physicians prescribe acupuncture for a number of chronic pain conditions (low back pain, neck pain, fibromyalgia) in lieu of opioids.. " The American College of Physicians (ACP) recommends nonpharmacologic treatment with superficial heat, massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation as a cornerstone of treatment for acute low back pain" The question I raised based on this source is if the CDC and the ACP endorse and recommend the use of acupuncture, how can the wikipedia page claim that it is not of medical benefit or that the medical consensus is that it is quackery?
 * The most recent citation being discussed on this talk page by @Hob Gadling (citation 17 on acupuncture page) is a literature review published on a blog, rather than published in an academic journal. This blog is the only source used to justify the claim on the acupuncture page that states: "The conclusions of trials and systematic reviews of acupuncture generally provide no good evidence of benefit, which suggests that it is not an effective method of healthcare." I have requested that this line is either removed, or that high-quality sources are used to support this claim. Per WP:SBM, Science-Based Medicine is "not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant." It thus cannot be referenced as a meta-analysis or as the only source to make a claim that invalidates a body of scientific literature. Per Wikipedia, Science-Based Medicine is '"owned and operated by the New England Skeptical society", so when using these blogs, in-text attribution is appropriate, given these sources are not published in peer-reviewed academic journals.
 * Conversely, on the acupuncture talk page, I shared two meta-analyses that demonstrate high confidence that acupuncture is beneficial to the treatment of headaches, migraines and chronic pain. I also shared a 50 page evidence map published by the VA in 2014 that similarly concludes acupuncture benefits a number of medical conditions. My request was for balance and NPOV rather than citing exclusively non peer-reviewed blogs.
 * Further, I am requesting review of citations 4-8 on the acupuncture page, which are the sources used as evidence to support the claim that acupuncture is classifiable as quackery or pseudoscientific. These sources are blogs, vaguely mention acupuncture or have a thesis counter to the claim that acupuncture is pseudoscience. Per Wikipedia:MEDRS, these are all low-quality sources. Source 7 (Wang SM et al 2013) clearly states "Although >40 disorders have been recognized by the World Health Organization as conditions that can benefit from acupuncture treatment, many within the field of science view acupuncture as “quackery” and “pseudoscience,” and its effect as “theatrical placebo.” It seems somewhat naive to totally condemn the practice of acupuncture, while accepting orthodox medicine as the basis for treating all medical conditions. Herein, we describe evidence supporting the thesis that acupuncture, as part of anesthesia practice, can provide clinically meaningful benefits for patients." This clearly cannot be cited as evidence that supports the claim that acupuncture is pseudoscientific.
 * Medicare now covers acupuncture for low back pain. MDs and DOs train in acupuncture and have an American Academy of Medical Acupuncture. The NIH endorses acupuncture in cancer care.
 * I think there is an important distinction to make between theoretical frameworks like qi and meridians and whether acupuncture is of medical benefit. The underlying framework can be pseudoscientific, or magical thinking, while the mechanism (the use of filiform needles to stimulate muscle tissue and the peripheral nervous system) can be scientifically validated to be of medical benefit. Hence, why MDs, DOs and PTs now utilize acupuncture and refer patients to acupuncturists.
 * Please assume good faith in my questions and sharing of sources. Thank you. Jvsthere (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jvsthere, I assume you are the same IP editor who was blocked from Talk:Acupuncture for disruption. If your intention is to spread the same disruptive walls of text across Wikipedia, I would imagine that you will soon be blocked from the whole encyclopedia. Please reconsider your approach. MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @MrOllie I was referred here by @Robert McClenon. I am asking questions and sharing credible sources. I have zero intention of sharing disruptive text. Jvsthere (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A theatrical placebo is preferable to real medicines&mdash;this is a sad day for US medical practice, through the cynicism of that conclusion.
 * About the societies of rational skeptics: are there electricity skeptics, microwave skeptics, or LED lamps skeptic, i.e. people who deny that these even exist? By and large such denialists are loons, stupid, or uneducated. According to Mertonian norms scientists have to convince the skeptics. If they don't convince the organized skepticism, their attempt to do science has failed. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Another possible conclusion is that the CDC guidelines are a viable response to the opioid crisis. Where in wikipedia rules/guidelines does it state that the skeptics have to be convinced? I have shared reliable independent sources from the CDC, NIH, ACP, VA and Medicare that endorse and recommend acupuncture. This space is meant to discuss material that can be useful for improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories.. and to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained. If the CDC currently recommends acupuncture, is the wikipedia page neutral or accurate as it is written? Jvsthere (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Romanian law stipulates that "the profession of lawyer is free and independent". The dean of the Romanian Constitutional Bar interprets this to mean that if he and his associates are not allowed to call themselves "lawyers", then the profession of lawyer is not free and independent.
 * At this level of intellectual brilliance lies your own understanding of WP:MEDRS and of epistemology (it's not Wikipedia which says scientists have to convince organized skepticism, it's epistemology and the sociology of science which say it). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Current recommendations by the CDC, NIH, ACP, VA and Medicare are clearly within the scope of high quality, reliable independent data delineated by WP:MEDRS. I do not want to have an epistemological debate. The CDC and the NIH are medical bodies whose endorsements are adequate to convince organized skepticism, or at the very least, whose recommendations need to be included in a neutral representation on the medical benefits of acupuncture. Jvsthere (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Quackademics are nothing new: there always were and will always be scientists who support quackery. We are speaking of the medical consensus, as in evidence-based medicine. We are not talking about whether there are quacks and cranks inside medical institutes.
 * Hint for the above: perhaps the word "free and independent" have a meaning which depends upon the context of that law, in the general context of other Romanian laws and Constitution.
 * I'm just saying that pushing the POV that acupuncture isn't quackery is a waste of time, both yours and ours.
 * Even if I were fully persuaded that acupuncture isn't quackery, my advice to you would be the same: don't waste your time arguing against Wikipedia. By its nature, this encyclopedia will never agree with your position.
 * Insiders will sometimes give diplomatic answers that that can change if you show them your sources, but, to put it bluntly, some POVs are indefensible inside Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * NIH's NCCAM has been explicitly addressed here: WP:MEDFAQ: Can I cite NCCAM (now NCCIH)? Yes, but again only with WP:DUE weight. Unlike other branches of the National Institutes of Health, which are generally accepted as authoritative in their fields, NCCAM has been the focus of significant criticism from within the scientific community. Whenever possible, you should cite the established literature directly.FAQ pages and other public-facing "popular" materials from such places are also described in WP:MEDRS as not as valuable as other sources: The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.The highest quality best-available sources (systematic reviews in Cochrane, for example) do not support what you have said above. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not want to have an epistemological debate. But the point is that the pseudoscience label is at the level of epistemology. Sure, there are plenty of groups which have commented with rather bland pronouncements about acupuncture for this or that intractable ailment, but this is also true of nearly any anodyne intervention. That does not make such ideas any less pseudoscientific when relevant experts identify them as such. So far, I have seen no source which contradicts this demarcation. No, a remark about studies that show acupuncture has helped people with nausea or whatever doesn't count. To escape the label, one needs to have something more than just an empirical claim of efficacy. One needs a coherent and mechanistic rejoinder which acupuncturists are downright embarrassed to defend in the context of medical science (except for about a decade ago when there was a lot of excitement about certain bizarre papers which claimed to discover physiological basis for meridians -- papers which went exactly nowhere). jps (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I see your point here, however, there are many medical treatments by which mechanism of action is unknown, which does not then justify their classification as pseudoscientific. See this wikipedia page that lists drugs with unknown mechanism of action, which is skimming the surface on this topic. The acupuncture page currently claims that acupuncture is without medical benefit and asserts that claim as if it is medical consensus (citing a blog that is not peer-reviewed as its source). As I have demonstrated with the sources above, the medical consensus is that acupuncture is of benefit for a number of conditions, which is why there are CDC and NIH guidelines for physicians to recommend it. Jvsthere (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Only SBM is cited in the introduction to the Efficacy section, but the section has lots of citations that say the same thing, e.g. the majority of research suggests that acupuncture's effects are mainly due to placebo. Please do not ping me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please direct me to one peer-reviewed article cited on the acupuncture page that supports that conclusion? I do not see any. The blog SBM is also cited in the first sentence of the third paragraph of the introduction as the only source (without in-text attribution) to support the claim "The conclusions of trials and systematic reviews of acupuncture generally provide no good evidence of benefit, which suggests that it is not an effective method of healthcare". Contrary to NPOV, the acupuncture page does not mention that acupuncture is recommended by current guidelines from the CDC, covered by medicare or endorsed by the NIH as an effective method of healthcare for a number of acute and chronic pain conditions. The acupuncture page also does not cite the meta-analysis from a reputable journal  that demonstrates with high confidence that acupuncture's effect is greater than placebo or medication in the treatment of headache. Why do the conclusions of a blog get cited, but a meta-analysis shared on the talk page does not? Jvsthere (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * &mdash;this only shows that you have no WP:CLUE about what WP:NPOV means. It means WP:DUE and WP:PSCI. In practice, this means that Wikipedia conservatively endorses the medical orthodoxy, i.e. the evidence-based medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * SBM is a reliable source. Of course you don't like it, because it contradicts your beliefs, but WP:IDLI is not a reason to reject it.
 * acupuncture is recommended by current guidelines from the CDC What are those?
 * covered by medicare has nothing to do with whether it works.
 * endorsed by the NIH You probably mean the NCCIH, which started out as the quackery branch of the NIH, manufactured by quackery-fan politicians.
 * Sun and Gan again? Didn't I already link Gorski? It seem we are going in circles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's kind of fascinating that people objecting to the SBM piece we cite about evidence in the lede, haven't even noticed it's not by Gorski. Bon courage (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Many just want their boogeyman.... — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely possible that some of those drugs on that page are based in some pseudoscientific concept. However, in order for Wikipedia to declaim that, we would need a source. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS indeed. That doesn't mean that acupuncture is therefore absolved of the sources which have criticized it. jps (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's almost like this is the umpteenth time we've had this exact same discussion — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If we would let prevail, it would mean that Wikipedia as a mainstream encyclopedia has been mortally wounded and will have to close shop anytime soon.
 * I'm not joking: if we would create such precedent, Wikipedia would become sitting duck for all quacks and pseudoscientists. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If we would let prevail, it would mean that Wikipedia as a mainstream encyclopedia has been mortally wounded and will have to close shop anytime soon.
 * I'm not joking: if we would create such precedent, Wikipedia would become sitting duck for all quacks and pseudoscientists. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Fringe connoisseurs, here is your gift: Bon courage (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Paleolithic Cave Art in Għar Dalam Cave, Malta
There is a paragraph about Paleolithic cave art in the Għar Dalam Cave article, whose sole reference is a popular tourist guide article, "Ghar Dalam Cave." The tourist guide lacks any reference to a reliable, or any other, source and I cannot find any reliable sources for the existence of this Paleolithic cave art. However, I did find reference to this Paleolithic art in fringe article, “Cover Up: Very Early Human Presence in Malta Has Been Intentionally Hidden" on the blacklisted “Ancient Origin” web site. If nobody either can suggest a reliable source or objects, I will remove this paragraph because it lacks a reliable source documenting the Paleolithic art and its removal. Also, it looks like the tourist guide repeats fringe material as fact. Paul H. (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything about "Għar Dalam" and Anati. Searching on "Għar Dalam" and art, I found only this: Not sufficient to support the details in the article.  Schazjmd   (talk)  17:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Mariko Aoki phenomenon
Slightly left field, but I wondered if this is worthy of the attention of editors here. - Roxy the dog 16:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, bookstores make me want to fart. Maybe I have a variant syndrome. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Onions. - Roxy the dog 00:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Panspermia paper
Just a reliability check: Is this an appropriate source to use to discuss panspermia, or is it another crank source? Since I remember that the panspermia hypothesis has some undue promotion here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty level-headed review. Astrobiology has improved as a journal, I have to say. jps (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Astrobiology as a field has become more mainstream with the increased discovery of exoplanets and plans to use space telescopes to detect life. I'd imagine that this leads to fields hitherto dominated by cranks getting more participation by mainstream scientists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Cyberbiosecurity
User:Travsap has been pushing fringe theory such as "DNA sequences have been mined, databased and networked to enable the wireless computer-assisted design of plant and animal evolution" and "Biosynethic software developed by virally-introduced gene edits and the wireless devices pulsing light to interface with them are manipulating natural thought and behavior for the sake of warfare, intelligence and national security." in Cyberbiosecurity. Neither are in the supposed source. Also there is a paragraph shilling for a NFT for some reason. -Mys_721tx (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * User does not take Wikipedia rules in a very reasonable way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I blocked the user (they were already globally locked) and reset the article to where it was on December 11th. The article still does need some work, though I'm not sure it falls under fringe theories generally. Legoktm (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Dec 11th version (Special:PermaLink/1129818340) does not fall under fringe theory. The added content however, is not backed by the source. Mys_721tx (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The miracle in Joshua 10:12–13 as a solar eclipse in 1207 BC
A pair of physicists, Colin Humphreys and Graeme Waddington, have put forward an argument that the event described in the Book of Joshua, 10:12–13, in which the sun and moon miraculously stand still in the sky, should be interpreted as an annular solar eclipse in 1207 BC and that the Israelite attack on Gibeon that is described in that passage can be fixed in time on that basis. Furthermore, they argue that Merneptah's campaign in Canaan, which produced the first contemporary reference to "Israel" in the Merneptah Stele, must postdate this event and that it can be used to work out the exact dates of Merneptah's reign. Their argument was published in Astronomy & Geophysics a few years back:

This claim has been inserted at Merneptah, where I have removed it twice (the second time after a discussion at WT:WikiProject Ancient Egypt). It's also present at solar eclipse and at Gibeon (ancient city).

At least one other paper has made the same argument, a 2020 paper in Vetus Testamentum. But it's my understanding that most biblical scholars are skeptical that there's much historical basis to the events in Joshua, and the historicity of many related biblical events, including the Exodus, is very much open to question. Are these claims significant enough to be worth mentioning in our articles? A. Parrot (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't think so. The paper is couched in hypothetical terms, neither of the authors has any apparent biblical or linguistic bona fides, and I don't see any pick up in the scholarly literature (though I am happy to be proven wrong on any front).  Moreover, we have to believe that the authors believed an eclipse was a completely unprecedented and unrepeated event (I find that dubious), and it completely seems to me to stretch the narrative to silly places: it's pretty evident to me that Joshua orders the sun to stay in the sky so that the Israelites could merrily kill the Amorites with plenty of daylight.  An eclipse would hardly help with the Amorite-slaying optics.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Joshua was a skilled commander of night fighting. However, it doesn't get that dark in an annular eclipse, or even in a total eclipse, for night fighting to become important.  The side that would win a battle during an eclipse would probably be the side that was less distracted and frightened by the eclipse.  It happens to be a reasonable date for Joshua, if one accepts the historicity of the Book of Joshua, which is in question.  The Book of Judges, on the other hand, is an account of a period of maybe two centuries of anarchy, which is well attested as the Late Bronze Age collapse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My own opinion is that the problem with dating events in the Book of Joshua is that the real question is not when they happened but whether they happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Robert, I mean this with all due respect, but saying that the Bronze Age Collapse establishes the historicity of Judges is a bit like saying that evidence for the Victorian Era means we should accept Sherlock Holmes as fact. That doesn't mean, of course, that Judges is fiction, or anything of the sort.  Just that it cannot be validated that way.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Dumuzid - I didn't mean that anything specific in the Book of Judges is historical. The overall tone of the Book of Judges is consistent with the historical period.  So history isn't inconsistent with Judges.  That's all I meant.  I don't mean that any of the events described in Judges happened.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * In the Vetus Testamentum paper, some Israeli researchers reached the same conclusion as Humphreys and Waddington independently. The idea is discussed seriously in Frank Close, Eclipses: What Everyone Needs to Know. Note too that the passage in Joshua in question is a piece of a poem cited to the lost Book of Jashar. This does not strike me as a fringe theory. Srnec (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The paper is poorly attested to. It was first published five years ago and has garnered a mere four citations since then, only three peer-reviewed, and all three in the second-tier RAS journal Astronomy & Geophysics. I say remove it until third-party peer-reviewed sources make more complete mention of its relevance. jps (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should use Humphreys at all, anywhere. The review of his book dating the last supper by Telford  cv in  his Wikipedia article was pretty damming. And in this case if we have other sources with clear expertise we should use them. I see Close's book was published by the OUP.  Humphries is used a lot.[ https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Humphreys%2C+Colin%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&rlz=1C1CHZN_enGB955GB955&oq=%22Humphreys%2C+Colin%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&aqs=chrome..69i57.932j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 ]  Doug Weller  talk 14:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, let me just express my qualms about all this seeming to come from physical science types. Happy of course to go with consensus, but one would really want some input from experts with a more linguistic/cultural bent.  Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's my feeling, too. There's no doubt that the eclipse took place, but that's all that the physical scientists are qualified to support. The real question is whether it's probable that the Book of Joshua reflects a memory of that event. Two of the three authors of the 2020 paper, Daniel Vainstub and Uzi Avner, have qualifications in biblical history and archaeology, but I don't think that alone is enough to qualify this as a significant minority position in those fields. Unless we find evidence that other authorities in biblical history support the hypothesis, I say we leave it out. A. Parrot (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ooh, thank you. I missed that paper in the welter.  Vetus Testamentum is pretty good, by my lights, and that is indeed what I'd like to see.  That moves it a lot closer to a significant minority view for me, but I still think I would say leave it out, for the time being.  I will note my personal grumbles again that none of this seems to really reckon with the text as we have it--but that's just one curmudgeon's opinion.  Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of the many astronomers who've come up with (incompatible) astronomical explanations for the Star of Bethlehem, when the whole virgin-birth story was a later addition and almost certainly fictional. We need something better than "something happened to the Sun within several centuries of the likely date" to connect the two. — kwami (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we know exactly what longitudes the annular eclipse was observable at, anyway? Actual reports of ancient eclipses of the Sun are useful in reporting that the eclipse was seen at a particular longitude, because they synchronize the exact amount of decrease in the rate of the Earth's rotation due to tidal friction.  So is there a calculation that there was an annular eclipse visible somewhere, or is it attested by comparison with other ancient observations?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

As is typical in ancient eclipse observations, the authors created their own novel code for determining eclipse visibility. There is no other record of this particular eclipse according to their paper. jps (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The three Stephenson et al. papers 200420082016 lead me to believe they are way out on a limb extrapolating back 500 years. fiveby(zero) 22:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * NASA's map of this eclipse is consistent with the cited paper. Srnec (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, pre-1950's: ΔT calculated from empirical fits to historical records derived by Morrison and Stephenson (2004) which states: In out experience, extreme caution needs to be exercised when investigating allusion to eclipses and other celestial phenomena at more remote epochs. That is, prior to 700 B.C. They admit as much in the paper it may be considered unwise to extrapolate these back prior to 1000 BC and then cite Stephenson (2008) a little deceptively in my opinion. fiveby(zero) 23:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All highly speculative, but fringe? This is not about whether we (any of us) is convinced by the arguments or considers the conclusion sound, but about whether it is "fringe". Let's remember that the actual fact the paper in question is based around and which it was being used to cite is a proposed dating of a pharaoh's reign that differs by ~2 years from the conventional one in our article. I do not think this departs significantly from the prevailing views. Nor do I think it was made to appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. It was one sentence at Merneptah that began "Alternatively, ..." The information in the lead and the infobox was untouched. This isn't the New Chronology being imposed. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It's still pretty fringe as, for example, most of the relevant scholars of this particular text have not paid attention to this claim. jps (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I've removed the section at Gibeon (ancient city) dedicated to this hypothesis, and I've adjusted the language about the hypothesis at solar eclipse. A. Parrot (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The IP editor has re-added the claim to Merneptah: "Alternatively, astronomical calculation of a potentially reported annular eclipse (Joshua 10:10-14) that precedes Merneptah's Canaanite campaign against the Israelites places the beginning of his reign in 1209 or 1210 BC."


 * Please discuss the issue here, where it will attract more attention than on the Merneptah talk page. Sorry if I'm being annoying, but I would appreciate your input once again. A. Parrot (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @A. Parrot you can't ping IP addresses.  Doug Weller  talk 09:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Rats. The editor is refusing to discuss here, so input may be needed at Talk:Merneptah. A. Parrot (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a single sentence added to the 'Chronology' section of Merneptah violates neither FRINGE nor UNDUE, for the reasons I gave above. Of course, that article is not the place for any extended discussion of Joshua. Note, too, that Humphreys and Waddington are not proposing an original reading of Joshua, but only identifying a different eclipse than that proposed by Sawyer . The eclipse reading is not a consensus reading, but there is no consensus reading. To quote Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, who cites Sawyer but rejects his reading: "A range of interpretations of the independent poem is possible." So long as the sentence at Merneptah makes clear that this is based only on one possible meaning of Joshua, I don't see a problem. I agree with the removal from Gibeon (ancient city), by the way, but I would leave it in at solar eclipse, as you have. —Srnec (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It is still mentioned at solar eclipse. Don't think it belongs there. (Please do not add me to your ping list. I live here.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hallwang Clinic is up for AfD ...
...here for anybody who is interested. - Roxy the dog 20:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Saturated fat and Red meat


Past FTN reports: 2011, 2017 (no discussion), 2021, 2021 (no discussion)

Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy was moved to Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease which was redirected to Saturated fat. Since then, Saturated fat has been a main target of FRINGE theory advocates. --Hipal (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Red meat is a target as well. --Hipal (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Noah’s Ark and someone we use as a source
This is from July but I just saw it. Klenck seems to be a respected archaeologist at first[ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joel-Klenck ] and we use him several times as a source. Also see [ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9491099-the-genesis-model-for-the-origin-variation-and-continuation-of-human-p ]. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Also found and [ https://ahotcupofjoe.net/2020/12/the-pseudoarchaeology-of-noahs-ark/ ]  Doug Weller  talk 20:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Judging from the first text you posted, this is not exactly groundbreaking material. Klenck is expanding on the claims of the Noah's Ark Ministries International that they discovered the Ark back in 2004. We already mention in our article: "Joel Klenck, formerly associated with NAMI, has continued to promote NAMI's claims as recently as December 2020." Dimadick (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dimadick the problem is that’s he’s used as a source in the first three articles here.. Should he be given the above? Doug Weller  talk 16:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like he is the author of only one other source that is for articles referencing Poloa Defensive Fortifications. Seems innocuous. The identity of authors may be of concern, but I think this is a case of fringe in one area does not necessarily imply fringe in another. jps (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Miracle of Lanciano


Scientific tests! Real blood! --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The user recently removed a large chunk of the article, which, as explained in detail by an anonymous user at the talk page, is based on Christian fundamentalist publications and non-peer-reviewed studies. Similar concerns date as far back as 2010. This is related to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, where a user has repeatedly restored the deleted content.

I have filed my own ANI immediately above, which concerns a user ranting at WP:ORN and Talk:Western world about the history of the Western world, and which involves historical revisionism. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology described as a Non-standard cosmology
This may be a correct use of the term, I simply don't know. I see we have Non-standard cosmology. I'm not clear how this differs from fringe. Doug Weller talk 10:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We have had some discussion about this topic in the past. While everyone can agree that the cosmologies that were inspired by Alfven are not standard, there is a range of opinions as to how seriously they should or should not be taken. This has been something we've happened upon as the best description per the sourcing we've got. jps (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Doug Weller  talk 12:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Astrology
is getting more recognition in the sense of religion ?Jonote22 (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC) ... how is this to be understood


 * You're not quoting the article, and it's unclear to me what you mean. If you're not asking about WP-content, Reference desk may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * OP CU blocked. Doug Weller  talk 12:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone else think Out-of-place artifacts is a mess?
Starting with the section headings which I think are confusing and inappropriate. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Paul H. (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the list so much, but the commentary feels weird to me. By definition, OOPs are entirely separate artifacts each with their own story, their own circumstances, and their own credibility.  But the intro makes it sound as though they're a class of things you can either believe in, or be skeptical of. Like ghosts. ApLundell (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Do we really need an article about Ooparts? Aside from Forteana, does anyone actually use this goofy term? jps (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And see also Category:Out-of-place artifacts.  Doug Weller  talk 13:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to confess, I am with jps here. Being the old weirdo I am, I am of course familiar with many of these claims, but a casual check has not revealed much in the way of coverage outside of the hallowed halls of weird shitology.  I of course mean this as to OOParts as a class of phenomena--many would obviously be notable enough for their own article. As ever, happy to defer to collective wisdom.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Popular culture does. Manhwa, bands and so on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say we don't need the article. All the artefacts mentioned have their own articles and adding short entries accompanied by abbreviated, subjective comments is not of any value that I can see. Deb (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jerry Sabloff in his Oxford Bibliographies for "Pseudoarcheology" describes the concept and lists:
 * There should be some concept similar to WP:PARITY that these are the WP:BESTSOURCES and even though the do not use the term 'out-of-place artifact' are in scope and it isn't WP:OR to use them. Or maybe that is just an argument for merge to Pseudoarcheology. fiveby(zero) 15:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there RS that agree on which OOP belongs in which category? (Erroneously dated, questionable interpretations, etc.) If not, it’s a big, fat WP:OR indulgence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @LuckyLouie I'm nor sure I even understand the first three categories, "Unusual artifacts", "Questionable interpretations" and "Alternative interpretations". Doug Weller  talk 15:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking back over its history, there were well-meaning attempts to apply common-sense categorizations that grouped debunked examples, documented hoaxes, etc. together. But somewhere along the line it got out of hand, and became an article where any editor could reinterpret, undo or expand what belonged in what heading, and even revise the headings themselves. Unless there are non-circular RS that document the existing OOP categorization, I'd support WP:BLOWITUP and strip it down to a generalized description and discussion per RS. Let the individual OOP articles cover how expert RSs have interpreted and categorized each example. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could the list be renamed and follow William R. Corliss' "Archeological Anomalies" series which might be slightly more respectable? I can't find online copies or any reviews tho. The best parity source gives him some space and at least does not warn us off. The only other sources that use "out-of-place object" are a sentence in Slate and a footnote, both a little disparaging of the term.fiveby(zero) 11:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure about “anomalies. And should any of the natural objects misinterpreted as artifacts be in the list. Or a clearly in its appropriate place sarcophagus be on the list just because a fringe writer was clueless. Doug Weller  talk 11:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure about "anomalies" either. I'm just flailing around trying to take a best sources approach. fiveby(zero) 12:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT seems the better idea. "Slightly more respectable" is still not very respectable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pseudoarchaeology? Doesn't TNT mean you are going to recreate the article? Oops, i misread your earlier comment. I don't think there is a real basis to have a generalized description and discussion per RS, i tried to find soemthing in Sabloff, Williams, and Feder, but from them this is just examples of pseudoarchaeology. If you don't accept Corliss as a source probably redirect? fiveby(zero) 12:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure about "anomalies" either. I'm just flailing around trying to take a best sources approach. fiveby(zero) 12:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT seems the better idea. "Slightly more respectable" is still not very respectable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pseudoarchaeology? Doesn't TNT mean you are going to recreate the article? Oops, i misread your earlier comment. I don't think there is a real basis to have a generalized description and discussion per RS, i tried to find soemthing in Sabloff, Williams, and Feder, but from them this is just examples of pseudoarchaeology. If you don't accept Corliss as a source probably redirect? fiveby(zero) 12:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think anybody is saying OOPArts as a topic isn’t notable. What most (me included) are saying is that the categories are obvious WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, with a little WP:GEVAL thrown in -- a result of years of article neglect and accumulated cruft. For example, “alternative explanations”? How is this defined? How does an artifact qualify for definition as an "alternative" explanation, and who says it does? By WP:BLOWITUP I mean to suggest a rewrite to remove all the categorization and extensively detailed examples. The article can be pared down to some number of paragraphs that describe the concept, who believes in it, what experts say, etc. Such a rewrite could be easily assembled and cited to a mixture of WP:FRIND media, , , and WP:PARITY skeptical sources ,. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Note that it says "an artifact of historical, archaeological, or paleontological interest" but artifacts are of human construction, not paleontological. Doug Weller  talk 15:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, everyone, why is this entire section being discussed and replied to here and not at the talk page of the article in question? Have seen this many times at this noticeboard and it limits participation of editors to those who know of the discussion and not those who edit the page. Maybe a copy/paste of this section to the talk page? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've put a link there, that should be enough to bring people here. I disagree strongly with your comment that it seems fine.  Doug Weller  talk 15:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The link is kind of lost within a larger discussion started by LuckyLouie (who didn't mention that this large discussion was occuring elsewhere). I'd suggest this entire section be copy/pasted on the article's talk page, and that further discussions of this magnitude always occur or be moved to the article's talk page and then a link be placed here (instead of there). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Somethings discussed here are relevant to one article's talkpage, but not everything. For example, I think the category is just as if not more problematic. No objection to referring people back and forth, but I appreciate that the discussion is happening here in a way that is a bit broader than just a discussion about one article. jps (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point about the category. I wonder how many of these articles actually say, with a source. The subject is an oopart. Doug Weller  talk 09:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, somewhere it was once decided that "notable" was the way to collect and organize the "sum of all human knowledge". I think bibliographies, literature surveys, introductory texts, reference works, reviews, etc. are a better way to do that in many cases. fiveby(zero) 16:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

CfD OOPARTS
How's that for a weird assemblage of letters.

Well, here you go: Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 22. jps (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a whole lotta activity on this one. Input? Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_30 jps (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories and Topa Inca Yupanqui
Both of these discuss Yupanqui's alleged travels, neither has any sources that suggest this didn't happen. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, both indicate contrary points of view saying there are doubts that the voyage ever happened. Your are allowed to add additional information which adds additional context if you think it is lacking.  I don't see where anyone has tried to stop you from doing so.  -- Jayron 32 15:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32 What source that isn't the proponent of the alleged travel have I missed?  Doug Weller  talk 15:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On the first article "Critics of del Busto have pointed out that Yupanqui's expedition—assuming it ever took place—could have reached the Galapagos Islands or some other part of the Americas instead of Oceania.[168]" On the second article "Many historians are skeptical that the voyage ever took place."  If you find this insufficient, you don't need to seek the permission of this noticeboard to fix it.  Has anyone disputed your additions to these articles?  Where is the text you have added strengthening the case that the voyages likely did not occur?  I'm not claiming the articles are in a sufficient state, quite the contrary, they are not, but you also have not indicated any dispute we are supposed to adjudicate or discuss here.  You're quite allowed to all by yourself make articles better in any way you see fit, and if no one objects, just keep on going.  If someone is objecting, we can use this noticeboard to discuss that.  But what dispute are you trying to ask editors to solve for you?  -- Jayron 32 16:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32 ""Critics of del Busto have pointed out that Yupanqui's expedition—assuming it ever took place—could have reached the Galapagos Islands or some other part of the Americas instead of Oceania" is sourced to del Busto. There's no source for the historians are skeptical. Never mind, if you're going to lecture me as though I'm a child or ignorant of how Wikipedia works, There's no point. But I didn't suggest there was a dispute, just came here to see if anyone had any knowledge or interest enough to find sources that aren't the person pushing the idea. Or had any other useful ideas.  Doug Weller  talk 16:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been unable to find reviews of Doig or Del Busto and unsure how seriously to take Lisardo Pérez Lugones Argumentaban la posibilidad real de que Túpac Yupanqui Inca hubiera llegado a la Polinesia (a symposium paper.) But what is the intention of the section? There is a great deal to say about this voyage legend: Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa, Álvaro de Mendaña de Neira, Clements Markham, Thor Heyerdahl, etc. which predates this latest theory. Would this be important for the reader or outside the scope? Lothrop looks to be the first to "suggest this didn't happen" and i imagine other references would be available in Tupac Yupanqui. Descubridor de Oceanía. Maybe providing more background and history would be a good approach when there is not much available on the latest theory? fiveby(zero) 16:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good start. Interesting that there's so little. Doug Weller  talk 10:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Help finding a Chrome addon or a script that points to comments on peer reviewed articles
I know this isn't a fringe issue but it seems the most likely place to ask (unless someone can help with a better one). I had this until I changed computers. That makes it most likely to be Chrome. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * PubPeer is handy. Bon courage (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage thanks, that’s it! Doug Weller  talk 20:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Niscience
New editor adding promotional material (SPA,3rd edit, first was to talk page). Doug Weller talk 16:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Potential sock or new account of (which you previously warned)? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could be the same person, but not a sock as the older editor wasn’t blocked and there is no overlap. Doug Weller  talk 21:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Pyramid power
See this version and the second section in the lead which suggests it's real(reverted of course). If you want to read the article it's at or a Google scholar search shows the pdf on some sort of religious website, but that's copyvio. I don't know enough to see if the inclusion is warranted, but it seems unlikely. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Finding that the pyramid can scatter and focus eletromagnetic waves is not pertinent to the idea of Pyramid power unless and until a properly conducted study shows that such scattering and focusing has any effect on living things. I suspect that a similar study of any building or of many natural features would show scattering and focusing of electromagnetic waves. Donald Albury 15:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure they've even 'found' that. They've fed data through an algorithm, and got a result. Which may or may not reflect the real world, and may or may not tell us anything of consequence even if it does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just have to say that "Pyramid Power" reminds me of those distant days when I felt nonsensical woo was mostly harmless. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) Dumuzid (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And is it just a pre-print, or was this peer reviewed somewhere? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I find the concept plausible. All electromagnetic waves interact with all substances. The magnitude of the scattering or focusing depends on the wavelength of the radiation and the makeup and structure of the substance the waves are traversing. Air scatters light, and a lens can focus light, but the electromagnetic waves that can penetrate a pyramid will be subject to much smaller scattering and focusing than light in air or glass. So, proper instruments may be able to measure the scattering and focusing of, say, radio waves passing through the Great Pyramid of Giza, but the effect is likely to be very small, and of no measureable effect on living things. So, I agree, this has no consequences for people (other than scientists interested in studying such things or trying to detect unknown chambers in the pyramid), and nothing to do with any concept of "pyramid power". Donald Albury 15:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Edited 15:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Now here I am, contemplating the concept of a 'pyramid of air' and if it might correct my myopia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Only if that pyramid of air had a different index of refraction than the air surrounding it. Donald Albury 20:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Trancey, dancey. Space news and self-help. Sounds from this planet and others. Eye of Horus, eye of the storm of the Great Red Spot. Psych, kraut, new age and electronic beats beamed direct from Orion's Belt to Giza to the Hudson Valley. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But, but, but... it's peer reviewed!! -Roxy the dog 20:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe this is the same paper we discussed briefly before.
 * ApLundell (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Flood myth
Basically all fringe, but a reader might not be clear about that. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Gary Wilson (author)
This is about. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If not for his internet fame, I doubt this person would be notable. I question whether he is properly identified as an "(author)" in the title. I would think he is more of an "(anti-pornography advocate)" jps (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

History of the Shroud of Turin


The section "Prior to the 14th century" should be severely cut down, since the Shroud was created in the 14the century. Every "history" before that is fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * And I see we have Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. two other articles besides the main one covering the history, three on investigations, etc. Do we even need VP8 Image Analyzer? Why is House of Savoy]] included in the template - it doesn't mention the shroud.  Doug Weller  talk 12:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Another one: Relics associated with Jesus is full of WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga, again
Returned to this article recently after unwatching it for a while, and the fringe had regrown (whitewashing of cult allegations, poorly-sourced medical claims, etc.). There also appears to have been a recent uptick in interest from new(ish) accounts. Could use more eyes. Bon courage (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions:
 * Previous discussions:
 * The article is definitely in dire need of scrutiny by practitioners of non-promotional encyclopedic writing. –Austronesier (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't as bad as some articles I've read. I did it a once-over. jps (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For reference, this is the version being pushed. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be worth asking Chiswick Chap, he's written most of the Wikipedia articles on yoga from a scholarly perspective. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He does real yoga, which this is a long way from. - Roxy the dog 19:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Trindade Island UFO hoax
Are there better sources for this article? jps (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The picture on that page is probably a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm by no means a lawyer, but looking at Commons explainer on Brazilian copyright I think it's actually ok. Under the pre-1998 copyright law 'documentary' photographs, those meant to document events or situations, are public domain. The photo seems documentary, the reason it was taken was not artistic expression but to document the event. But if someone can speak authoritatively I'll defer. --(loopback) ping/whereis 04:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Does that clause count if the event is a hoax and the photographs were faked? In that case are they still 'documentary' photos or are they artistic expression?Nigel Ish (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes as works of fiction are also copyrighted. Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Portuguese and have precisely zero knowledge of Brazilian legal precedent, so my knowledge comes entirely from commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Brazil. Since the page is about to be VfD'd I don't think it matters, but you could ask around on commons to satisfy the curiosity. They do have subject matter experts there. --(loopback) ping/whereis 13:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, but the license was wrong. I changed it to PD-Brazil-Photo. Let's see what others on Commons think. Yann (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have AFD'd it, as right now it is wholly unsuitable, and a quick search brought up no better sources. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Voynich manuscript
The first sentence in the lead has called this a writing system since 2013 but the rest of the lead seems to contradict this assertion. Unless I'm missing something I intend to remove that. If I'm wrong, sorry for bringing this here as a a real unknown writing system isn't fringe. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller: I don't see the contradiction. It's written in an unknown writing system, that may be a legitimate but unknown system or a real-but-constructed (i.e. hoax) system, that has not been observed in any other document. Calling it an seems eminently apt to me and the rest of the lead makes clear that it being a writing system does not in itself confer any particular form of authenticity. Even if whoever created it was just making stuff up it's still a pretty impressive system with apparently observable rules and internal logic.There's other stuff in that article (and its revision history) that is far more relevant to WP:FTN than that bit. On the whole, the Voynich is a legitimate area of study (with plenty of reliable mainstream scientists) that just also happens to attract a lot of amateurs, kooks, and conspiracy theorists. The set of amateurs, incidentally, are not by any stretch identical with the "kooks and conspiracy theorists" (though there is probably some overlap) in my experience.The Voynich isn't my field but I did spend some time reading up on it a few years back (due to its obvious mystical allure, heh) and found the field much more well-behaved than I had expected. Skimming the article now it also seems much improved since last I looked, and the biggest problem is probably that it's a bit long and should be split into sub-articles. Xover (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xover So it is definitely a writing system? “ The origins, authorship, and purpose of the manuscript are debated. Various hypotheses have been suggested, including that it is an otherwise unrecorded script for a natural language or constructed language; an unread code, cypher, or other form of cryptography; or simply a meaningless hoax.” inthe lead notwithstanding? Not a code, etc?  Doug Weller  talk 12:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller: To the best of my understanding of the terms, yes. In terms of copy-editing I am sure the lead could be made both clearer and less seemingly-contradictory. But, which definition a code or cypher would fall under. To call it a "script" is just to refer to one part of the system without the other (the "set of rules"), so at worst slightly imprecise. If it is a hoax it may still be a writing system, just one constructed artificially with the intent to deceive. The only thing that is actually contradictory is if it turns out that there is no actual system there, just some madman drawing random pretty pictures that look like writing. But in that case the randomness looks enough like a writing system that it has fooled lots of serious mainstream scholars into investigating it and observing possible features of a writing system (see the rest of the article).But to be clear, if you want to go hog-wild copy-editing it for clarity I have no objection (the locals at Talk:Voynich manuscript might but I don't watch that page often so I don't know how controversial or not that'd be). I am only saying I—as a dabbler and not an expert—see no obvious WP:FRINGE issue in the "writing system" issue. I could be wrong, but that's my take anyway.BTW, one of the theories that have been investigated regarding the Voynich is that it is written in a known human language, just using a made up alphabet (one reason for which might be in order to "encrypt" it). Think of it as Russian written in either the Cyrillic or Latin script, or Arabic written in either Arabic alphabet or in a Romanization of Arabic (Latin script). There are some linguistic statistical features of it that suggest this may be the case (but like everything else about the Voynich the evidence is not conclusive and no real firm consensus exist among scholars, or it didn't back in 2015 or thereabout anyway). It's what makes the Voynich so fun: there are so many tantalising clues, and yet the only real evidence for its providence point so strongly in the direction of a fraud or hoax. Xover (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So, I certainly have my own thoughts regarding the manuscript, but I think Doug's objection is well-taken; to call it a "writing system" is to make an assumption which is currently unproven. I am not sure it had to be produced by a madman to not be a writing system, but that seems to me eminently possible, as would production for simple fraudulent motives.  As such, in my non-expert opinion, the simplest solution would be to add a qualifier -- an "apparent" writing system or some such.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding an "apparent" there would seem reasonable. I don't think it's necessary, and my copy-editing muscles twitch when I see it, but it would be equally accurate as the status quo IMO. But now we're definitely in "discussions that should happen on Talk:Voynich manuscript and not on WP:FTN"-territory. Xover (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

UFO pages
Some additional eyes would be welcome at List of reported UFO sightings, UFO sightings in the United States, and the associated Talk pages. At issue is whether material sourced to confirmed fringe advocates, including Jacques Vallée, Ann Druffel, and Martin Shough, passes WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:FRINGE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to revisit the WP:LISTCRIT. Sourcing to the news, in particular, seems to be poorly attested-to. jps (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is we are getting list entries for “incidents” not covered by WP:FRIND sources — like this cited to Ann Druffel, and  this  cited to Martin Shough — both UFOlogists whose work is claimed to be "scientific" because it has been uploaded to semanticscholar.org or researchgate.net. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The steadfast promotion of non-FRIND material continues (here, here, here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have warnd in two ways to stop with this WP:ADVOCACY. jps (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There you show your true face. You accuse me of spreading fringe theories, but you claim that this is not a real CIA report? Wow! THAT IS a conspiracy theory!
 * Then I repeat what I wrote on Talk:List of reported UFO sightings. I don't think UFOs are extraterrestrial. I have never said that, and I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Most of UFO reports are not even about real objects. Yet they are interesting phenomena. Among thousands of reports, about several hundreds are yet unexplained.
 * I don't think any government hides anything about UFOs. But Ruppelt's book shows very well how the US government (and may be several others), through mismanagement and lack of coordination, could give the impression of hiding something. This is more a lesson on communication and governance than anything else.
 * Then you accuse me of not being competent enough to edit that article. That's quite arrogant. I have read a lot of books and various documents, and not only from supporters of the ET hypothesis. Can you say the same? Nobody is required to prove a qualification to write something here anyway. And BTW I have been here longer than you, and I know these policies very well, but your interpretation of RS is quite nonsense IMO.
 * You accuse me of Advocacy, which read Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas. Again you are wrong. I don't try to promote any personal belief or agenda. I just try to improve some articles on UFOs. Yann (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You reverted all the sourced text I added, but there is a case (Allagash Abductions) there referenced by about.com, which is in WP blacklist. There are many more referenced by unreliable sources ( skepticalinquirer.org, ozarkssentinel.com, virtuallystrange.net, cohenufo.org, etc. ). Why not removing them? Yann (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And how come ufoevidence.org is a reliable source, but the ones I provided are not? They are at least of the same quality, or probably better. Yann (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning two four awful sources that needed to be removed. I have removed them. As for the rest of your rant, I think you may be suffering from the misapprehension that having been active on this site for 20 years must somehow make you an expert in all areas of this site. You clearly do not have experience with matters relating to WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

In UFO sightings in the United States, most cases don't even have a reference... Double standard anyone? Yann (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, just too many people not following Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Even ignoring the poor sourcing and dubious use made of such sources, the entire structure of the List of reported UFO sightings seems problematic to me. The conflation of alleged 'fiery disks' from 1440 BC with 'close encounters and abductions' and recent unexplained sightings by civil and military aircrew as 'UFO sightings' appears to me to be synthesis, promoting fringe claims that there is some sort of single explanation for disparate accounts over millennia. It is a list of 'stuff ufologists like to present as evidence for something or other', compiled apparently by Wikipedia contributors who wish to do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with you here. I would start the list only after WW2, and separate obvious hoaxes, clear misinterpretations, etc. from unexplained sightings. Yann (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A list consisting only of 'unexplained sightings' would still be problematic, since it implies a common explanation. And you seem to be advocating subjective inclusion criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, "unexplained sightings" doesn't mean they have a common explanation. They are just unexplained. And no, I don't advocate a subjective inclusion criteria. Yann (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Unexplained" by whom? There are a number of sightings which are claimed to be "unexplained" which are clearly explained. There are obscure sightings which are "unexplained" because they're obscure and no one has bothered to debunk them. There are sightings which have many different plausible mundane explanations, but since no one knows which is correct because the evidence is scant, the sighting remains "unexplained". "Unexplained" is not a reasonable standard by which we can group anything. jps (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At least unexplained by the government bodies which study UFOs reports. That's between 5 to 20%, depending of the country and the group which study them. Note that these do not include reports in a category "lack of data", which represents an additional 20 to 30%. Yann (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Government bodies which study UFOs reports" is a pretty miserable approach. The problem is that there are a variety of governments around the world and within those governments, various bodies have adopted different approaches that range from the absurd to the haphazard to the niggling. There does not seem to be a consistent manner in which such "studies" have taken place and so we are stuck. These percentages you are quoting are largely made up based on arbitrary inclusion criteria and so that's not going to cut it for us. jps (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The conflation of alleged 'fiery disks' from 1440 BC with 'close encounters and abductions' and recent unexplained sightings by civil and military aircrew as 'UFO sightings' appears to me to be synthesis, promoting fringe claims that there is some sort of single explanation for disparate accounts over millennia. It is a list of 'stuff ufologists like to present as evidence for something or other', compiled apparently by Wikipedia contributors who wish to do the same. Agreed. The reason that it is set up like this, however, is that this sort of "synthesis" is one that is seen in some reliable sources. The last time I fought this battle, I was content to include any incident that was mentioned in sources about UFOs that were even vaguely reliable. Skepticial debunkings often mention these "historical" UFO claims in the context of arguing that these compendiums are what make up the entire fringe oeuvre. Whether and how we decide what the best standards for inclusion and sourcing that can be used to do this are is the question I would like to see resolved. When I last tried to do this, I couldn't really get enough people interested to form a consensus, so I just did removal haphazardly based mostly on whether or not I could find a source. Now it may be a good idea to be a bit more discerning in which sources we would use to allow for inclusion. Happy to see this ball rolling. jps (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A fair amount of cruft has been removed and some of the parent articles needed reappraisal, e.g. Articles for deletion/UFO-Memorial Ängelholm. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Confusion between the facts and the interpretation
There is a big confusion here. Sure, claiming that UFOs are from outer space is a fringe theory. But puting the whole subject into FRINGE, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Even the US Air Force acknowledges that some sightings are unexplained. Yann (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Lots of things go unexplained. Expecting an explanation for everything is wishful thinking... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * And "unexplained" according to who? There are plenty of mundane explanations published in reliable sources for notable UFO sightings, yet popular media and UFO enthusiasts prefer the "unexplained" tag because it generates debate and interest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Many things remained unexplained because there simply a lack reliable observations available to base an interpretation. That something is unexplained cannot be used as evidence of any interpretation. Paul H. (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. But we have List of unsolved problems in astronomy (I started this), and even a whole category: Category:Unsolved problems in astronomy. Which means to me that unsolved or unexplained issues have a place in an encyclopedia when backed up by sources. Yann (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is that there are reliable sources which call various problems "unsolved" in the context of astronomy. In contrast, when dealing with a subject that is entirely WP:FRINGE such as this one, individual instances are called "unexplained" when others argue they have been explained and there isn't anything like consensus sourcing to decide who is right and who is wrong. If we went by WP:FRIND, then we would probably have to conclude that there are no "unexplainable" sightings. While there are ones that are so poorly attested to as to permit certain thresholds of ambiguity, the argument that only "conclusive" identifications are what counts ends up just kicking the can towards a question of what constitutes a "conclusive" identification. And, what's worse, fringe advocates tend to muddy the waters when it comes to such conclusive identifications when it suits their interests. See Roswell UFO incident, for example, which is about as "conclusively identified" as any UFO incident you care to name. The idea that we wouldn't include Roswell on a list of UFO sightings because it is "identified" violates, minimally, the principle of least astonishment, as far as I'm concerned. jps (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Alas, it is unmistakeable that the entire subject is inextricably linked to fringe speculation and there is no way we can disambiguate which ideas are not fringe and which ones are. In spite of the breathless reports the have made the rounds in erstwhile reliable sources in recent years, it takes reading only a few sane investigations to identify that the "unexplained" sensationalism is just that. To take just a quick example, your hope to use Jacques Vallée as a source is an immediate WP:REDFLAG. This is a guy who argues with a straight face that the most plausible explanations for most UFOs is that they are interdimensional disembodied spirits. I have found literally no independent sources that take him seriously and this is so disconfirming as to call into question almost any claim he makes including that a particular "incident" is one that should be meaningfully classified as a "UFO". jps (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, there are serious sources which make clear which cases have mundane explanations and which ones do not. Since we should only use these sources, I don't see the issue.
 * I agree that Vallée is not reliable for the interpretation of UFO sightings. However, as I said above, we should separate fact reports and interpretation. I understand your PoV. Let's agree to disagree. Anyway, there are other sources for these cases, as I have shown on Talk:UFO sightings in the United States‎. So I will use these other sources. Yann (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't for facts. It's for knowledge. Stating "facts" without knowledgeable commentary is an excellent way to promote fringe topics. Bon courage (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * More to the point - simply listing “facts” without knowledgeable commentary risks violating WP:NOT. Wikipedia should not simply be a directory of UFO sightings. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly what List of reported UFO sightings‎ is (and many other lists BTW). I don't see any interpretation of what are these sightings (which doesn't mean I advocate there should be). Why keeping the article then? Yann (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Why keep the article? Because those of us who have considered what to do think there are enough sources out there that it probably would survive AfD. Look, if you can come up with a WP:LISTCRIT that would solve some of this mess, have at it. One idea might be to only include incidents for which there is a standalone article (or, at the very least, a section in another article). Another idea might be to only include incidents that have at least one WP:FRIND source covering it. These are all ideas I have had, but up until now there hasn't been enough of a critical mass to really get the editorial consensus to decide exactly how we should proceed, so imperfection has been the name of the game. Let us know what you think, and, if enough people agree, we'll fix it up. jps (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I propose on the talk page there: adding 14 cases, not currently included, all backed up by a reliable source. Yann (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what you've done. "Mere mention" is not the right way forward here. What makes those 14 cases WP:PROMINENT enough for inclusion? Surely it's not their inclusion in a compendium from conference proceedings in 1969?! jps (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Stanislav Grof
This article came to my attention via reference gnoming. I know very little about the subject area, but the latter part of the article gives the appearance of being promotion of a body of fringe theories, supported by "in-universe" references none of which pass the "independent" leg of WP:RS. I am unenthusiastic about this sort of clean-up, but perhaps somebody who frequents this board would like to take a look at the article? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow, in-universe is right! Journeyers in holotropic states of consciousness can also experience meaningful family, ancestral, racial, or collective memories. These experiences from the "historical unconscious" are in basic agreement with C. G. Jung's observations. Another category that Jung did not study or document are past-life experiences. The authenticity of these can sometimes be independently verified. This article needs a serious haircut. Generalrelative (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have culled the article. Some work on the lede may be appropriate where it outlines a bunch of awards he has received from fringe groups. jps (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Transpersonal psychology
After doing the cleanup of Stanislav Grof above, I noticed that this page is suffering from a lot of problems. Can others point to good WP:FRIND sources about this "field of study"? It looks to me to be very WP:FRINGE perhaps to the tune of most relevant experts straight-up ignoring it. jps (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I went through and removed nearly 75K text. I imagine some will not be pleased with this. . jps (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Also Articles for deletion/Transpersonal business studies. jps (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Also Articles for deletion/Transpersonal anthropology. jps (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

James Lindsay and the Cultural marxism conspiracy theory
Should our article on James A. Lindsay mention his support for the Cultural marxism conspiracy theory? It is the subject of his latest book. More eyes and opinions would be very welcome at Talk:James A. Lindsay MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Predicted climate change effects.
I am disputing the use of three refs to source predicted changes of temps in various cities and towns. The refs, all web pages, do not contain the names of the cities concerned in a web page search, but you have to search and guess where to click to find the info, in some clever bit of webmappery.

Discussion can be found here on a user Talk page. Unfortunately, the section has become confusing, but I think the issue is adequately covered in the first few entries of the discussion. Any advice would be welcome, including advice to me along the lines of "wrong as usual Roxy" if that is in fact the case. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 10:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is a WP:FRINGE issue, but it does seem that this is minimally going in the wrong direction. Adding subsections to individual pages might be worth doing if there is a consensus way to source, but relying on one source to do this for all of Wikipedia is obviously problematic when it comes to measuring uncertainties. We know that the world is warming. We don't know how much or how quickly that warming will affect individual cities and only have individual studies to say that with certainty. My advice would be to workshop this kind of subsection through a wikiproject or a summary article and only after everyone has the chance to figure out issues of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, then begin a campaign to add it to individual articles. jps (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a WP:FRINGE issue. Agree with jps that adding it as a subsection isn't optimal, as it puts too much emphasis on a single primary source (from a Plos One, decent journal). The study does not claim certainty and has a good confidence interval quantification for text tweaking. It's verifiable easily (one minute work either clicking on a map, or cntl F in the Supplementary Information of the paper). WP:CITY is probably the best place to have a discussion, as WP:PROCC may be a bit biased in favour of inclusion. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the only issue with WP:CITY is that its talk page appears a little low-traffic, with most discussions seemingly held on other pages? Though, it is probably still the best place regardless.
 * When it comes to the paper itself, I suppose there are three separate issues which can be brought up.
 * Does it describe a plausible scenario globally?: I think the answer is clearly "yes": we all know that the world is warming, and we have discussed the high relevance of its chosen global warming scenario extensively on my talk page.
 * Is it good at estimating the impacts of this scenario locally?: here, the answer is a little less clear, since the paper "only" used three models, and from my understanding, the models they chose generally have a hotter bias. However, while the full set of 30 or so top models is obviously the most reliable in most circumstances, papers which can do this are incredibly expensive and quite rare: excluding any paper not living up to these criteria from the individual pages is unlikely to be a wise policy.
 * Is it good at portraying future effects relative to the present climate?: Unfortunately, this is the most problematic part, since the paper can obviously only compare cities with other cities in its dataset, and while it's very extensive (520 cities), it does not appear to be always up to the task. I say this because there are more than a few instances where, according to its projections, two cities somehow "exchange" their climates even as they both get hotter: i.e. Gaza City gets hotter by about 2 degrees and Alexandria gets hotter by about 3 degrees: yet the "Future Climate" of Gaza is listed as Alexandria and vice versa. Same with Abuja and Teresina, or Leon and Gaborone, and perhaps some other such examples. I suspect that the paper would need an even larger dataset to avoid this, but I'm not sure. Perhaps you can explain what causes these results better, as an academic with published papers to your name. :) (Alternatively, perhaps the authors of the paper would be willing to answer enquiries from you on this subject.)
 * TLDR: I suppose any discussion over this paper, whether held at WP:CITY or elsewhere, ultimately needs to decide whether its methods are sufficiently accurate for the purposes of individual city articles, and also what to do about the cities which somehow "exchange" their climates according to the paper. Technically, simply choosing only the cities not involved in such exchanges will most likely still allow for the section to be added to several hundred pages, but this is still better discussed ahead of time. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The models have a bit of a hot bias, but the CESM ones less so in the mid-term (2050), so I don't think it'll bias the results too much.
 * The results about Gaza and Alexandria seem wrong, from their database_S1. 2050 Gaza is ever-so-slightly closer to current Gaza than to current Alexandria, and visa versa. The database S2 and the website seems to have made a simple mistake their, excluding self-similarity (they don't make this mistake in the main paper, indicating that "The climate conditions of remaining 23% of cities remained most closely associated with their current climate conditions."). This may be worth sending an email over, to get the webpage and possibly also the paper corrected. I don't have time to pursue this, but feel free to name-drop me / cc me in any email if you think that makes it easier. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly going to take a while if nearly a quarter of the entries in the webpage might need to get corrected before we can include the data!
 * Interestingly, I just found out one of the main authors of the paper has both his own page and had received this profile in Nature, which is presumably a pretty strong argument in favour of the study's results being WP:NOTABLE.
 * Either way, I am currently still engaged in a discussion over rewriting/merging the climate crisis page. I am not sure if I want to sort of act on behalf of Wikipedia here as well, though I guess this would have to be done eventually if no-one else steps up. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, I might just try something else.
 * @Twcrowther: This discussion is about the proposed addition of temperature change and city analogue data from the "global analysis of city analogues" paper to relevant city articles on Wikipedia. Right now, a key roadblock is that when using "Cities of the Future" website, some cities appear to "swap" their future climates, in a way which would appear very confusing to Wikipedia readers. We are wondering if this could be clarified/corrected. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Havening
I'm not sure if this is a fringe theory or just an alternative mental health practice. But it seems like kind of advertisement for this method of psychological treatment and the primary support for its claims is an article in a journal that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on which increases my skepticism. There are reliable sources for EMDR, an apparently related treatment method, but I know that EMDR's effectiveness has been studied and it's pretty well accepted among therapists which doesn't seem to be the case with "havening".

I don't have enough knowledge about WP:MEDRS to nominate the page for deletion but I thought I'd bring it over here to see what the regulars at this board thought. The reason I came across this article is I just closed an AFD discussion for a practitioner of this method, an "excutive coach", which was closed as Delete and I hadn't heard about this methodology that she practiced. I'm interested in hearing whether or not you think this this is a valid alternative practice or just a promotional article for an invented form of mental health treatment. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 21:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, the Journal of Pschophysiology is published by Hogrefe Publishing Group. Per its Instructions to Authors, the journal is peer reviewed. (The International Journal of Psychophysiology is another publication.) - Donald Albury 21:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The threshold for MEDRS is higher than just being peer-reviewed. We are typically waiting for secondary studies: literature reviews, meta-analysis, etc. At least, for being able to claim clinical significance (see relevant XKCD) in wikivoice as 'a thing that actually happens' rather than 'a thing someone claims happens'.
 * I'll expand, probably worth checking Type D personality as this treatment's success is based on evaluation on that scale. I know there's a significant concern with personality testing broadly speaking, but I'm not sure if this falls into that category or not. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a dodgy primary source (not even in PUBMED, let alone MEDLINE indexed). A better, but still primary, source is 30321440 which says this therapy doesn't work. There appears to be no more academic sourcing. I don't think this is notable. Bon courage (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I find this was already covered at Psychosensory therapy. So I have WP:BLAR'd to that. Bon courage (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

UFO-Memorial Ängelholm
See Articles for deletion/UFO-Memorial Ängelholm but also has tone problems in any case. Mangoe (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Lost in the mall technique


Is the criticism section undue? See Talk page there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Cryonics again
Editing at this article is hotting up following appearance of a new a/c who has said the article should be altered to view the subject "through lens of cryonics: a person undergoing medical treatment". More wise eyes could help.Bon courage (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Following an ANEW report, I page-blocked the user in question from Cryonics, so maybe it'll cool down again. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC).

BBC article claiming there are pre-Columbian horses in Canada
See Talk:Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon - we may find this impacts other articles. The BBC article is at.

And while on the subject of horses, Horses in the United States has this: " A genetic study published in 2021 indicates that horses, that were directly related to the modern horses, were still present in Yukon at least until 5,700 years ago or mid-Holocene, and this makes some researchers to think horses are biologically native to North America and the modern animals should also be treated as native. " Does anyone remember a discussion of that paper? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Just noticed an IP has raised this at WP:TEAHOUSE.  Doug Weller  talk 13:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Comet Research Group and the June Cosmic Summit to be run by CRG's director
See [https://cosmicsummit2023.com/ } a lot of the usual suspects. And a disclaimer saying it isn't a presentation of the CRG. True, it just has a lot of its members speaking, alongside Hancock, Randall Carlson, etc. For those who don't know Kenneth Tankersley, see Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls and Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 85 (note he has changed his ethnic identity). Not until June - and it will cause problems then I'm sure, but it's relevant to the CRG now. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's a list of the CRG members and directors. Doug Weller  talk 17:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In November, we had a discussion about possibly deleting the Comet Research Group article. Merging was the consensus decision. But trying to do that today, I found that it doesn't really seem to work. Also, I rediscovered the PSMag source on CRG which is kinda exactly what I was looking for as a source. . Maybe we should revisit the consensus and no longer effectthe merge. jps (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll just add that I don't think merging is a good solution. The CRG has been responsible for research on several different topics that go well beyond just the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, including Tell Abu Hureyra, Tell el-Hammam, and Hopewell tradition. I think it would be a mistake to try and account for all of this with sections in those articles. It would be far more helpful to have a single article on the CRG that articles about topics to which it is relevant could reference. Hoopes (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Cryonics is not a fringe theory
Wikipedia WP:FRINGE defines a fringe theory as "a theory that falls far out of the scientific mainstream". No reasonable person could conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that cryonics qualifies as a "fringe theory" or "pseudoscience" based on a literal interpretation of the above rule. While cryonics has its (very vocal) dissidents, many scientists--a significant portion of the scientific community, advocate for cryonics. Notably, there are very few scientific papers that actually criticize cryonics--most criticism comes from news article and anecdotal statements by experts or non-experts. Conversely, there is ample support for cryonics in the scientific literature; for example, check out this link https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4733321/.

Nevertheless, most justifications for cryonics don't fall into the category of scientific literature. However, by the parity of information test, this does not make cryonics a "pseudoscience", as the vast majority--possibly the entirety, of criticism of cryonics, falls under "non-scientific literature". Just like many scientists have expressed disdain for cryonics to media sources, many scientists have expressed support; a percentage similar to the number of opponents. Many scientists have chosen to view cryonics through the "clinical trial" lens; they consider cryonics to be simply the clinical testing of an unproven treatment, which is not pseudoscientific or fringe, much like the COVID-19 vaccines weren't fringe or pseudoscientific before the first trial results were published. Ralph Merkle, the founder of public-key cryptography, has spoken out in favor of cryonics. So have Ray Kurzweil and Eliezer Yudkowsky, two notable AI experts and futurists. One may object that these scientists are not experts in the field of cryogenics or human biology; that's true, but neither are most of the critics of cryonics.

Even the media, the main source, direct or indirect, of anti-cryonics arguments, presents a much more balanced view of cryonics than is commonly presumed on Wikipedia: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/want-to-avoid-death-maybe-cryonics-isnt-crazy/2023/01/08/a59b5ada-8f33-11ed-b86a-2e3a77336b8e_story.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patricklin/2019/07/08/cryonics-medicine-or-the-modern-mummy/?sh=5ef2ab371f2c

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-decapitate-and-chill/

....and many more.

Cryonics does not qualify as a pseudoscience or fringe theory under Wikipedia's fringe theories guideline; it neither falls far out of the scientific mainstream as expressed through direct or anecdotal opinions of scientists, nor is there ample scientific literature against the practice. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In addition, much of the news and media literature stating (or stating that "scientists believe") that cryonics is pseudoscientific appears to be citogenesis. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cryonics proponents also provide thoughtful, scientifically-based, and factual arguments in favor of cryonics. While some may point that self-sourcing is in violation of WP:FRINGE, that is a circular argument; cryonics can't be fringe simply because there's not "enough" evidence, when there's not enough evidence due to the very fact that cryonics is fringe and cryonics proponents are not a reliable source of information. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * By "cryonics proponents" I'm referring specifically to providers. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE also covers topics whose status as fringe is up to debate, as the line between science and pseudoscience is often the most contentious part of fringe-related editing, and thus the most in need for special guidelines (contrasted against unambiguously outlandish theories such as flat-earthism or ancient aliens). Given that even the proponents of cryonics research describe the field in terms such as a speculative practice at the outer edge of science, cryonics is often viewed with suspicion., the application of FRINGE considerations seems apt. signed,Rosguill talk 19:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even viewing the evidence in the most favorable light to anti-cryonicists, and assuming that cryonics is a fringe science, it's still wrong and not accurate to refer to cryonics as impossible, as stated in the intro of the cryonics article. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a distinct argument from what you've raised here for discussion. I don't think you're doing your side of the argument any favors by broadening debate into a question of whether FRINGE applies to cryonics, as opposed to just arguing the individual point regarding the framing of the lead. signed,Rosguill talk 19:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I came here because there is an atmosphere of (in my opinion) excessive "skepticism" at cryonics that is preventing productive discussion of the issue. I've repeatedly pointed out that there's no factual basis for claiming that cryonics is certain to fail, only to be reminded that it's "unfalsifiable". (It's really not; the intro claims that cryonics causes irreversible damage to neural circuits, ergo, it must not work. There's no factual basis for that claim anywhere.) SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No argument that cites Ray Kurzweil, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and a Forbes contributor piece can be considered well-founded. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * FRINGE applies, absolutely. Cryonics is not an accepted or mainstream idea. At this point, there is no scientific basis to believe cryonics will work. See, for example: this Science-Based Medicine article. this Guardian article. or this MIT Technology Review article. All three describe the mainstream scientific viewpoint as, essentially 'cryonics is, at this point, unfounded bunk'. The Guardian piece seems to say, some fringe researchers want it to be taken more seriously. But in order for that to be true, it must not currently be taken seriously. Ergo, pseudoscience! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Citogenesis SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Anti-cryonicists don't have better arguments, so by parity of information, the aforementioned three, along with the other sources provided, are considered reliable. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they're not. Neither Kurzweil nor Yudkowsky have subject-matter experience regarding actual medicine or cellular biology. The former built synthesizers, and the latter wrote Harry Potter fanfiction. See WP:SPS, and also the relevant community consensus for Forbes contributor pieces and the Nieman Lab's coverage of that particular sinkhole. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not accurate or true to say that Kurzweil and Yudkowsky have no subject-matter experience regarding actual medicine or cellular biology. Many respectable experts have cross-disciplinary knowledge, and it's wrong to discount the value of that expertise. Additionally, the vast majority of anti-cryonicists also have no subject-matter experience. See Michio Kaku. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is the Wikipedia method to defer to higher quality sources when there is disagreement, not to establish a WP:FALSEBALANCE of counterposed weak sources. Failure to play by these rules is likely to result in a topic ban. signed,Rosguill talk 20:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are no higher-quality sources that oppose cryonics. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean this with all due respect, but any practice that relies on the hope of an as-yet inexplicable future technology strikes me as squarely within the concept of "fringe." To be fair, of course, that doesn't mean it is wrong.  Time will tell, but I suspect I won't be around to see a definitive answer.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not accurate or true to describe cryonics as "fringe". Nevertheless, thank you for accepting that that doesn't mean cryonics is wrong. That's the way it's described in the intro to the cryonics article, without factual or scientific basis. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Consider this quote from WP:FRINGE: Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. This strikes me as a good description of where we are with cryonics--there is a claim that death (which I think we can agree is heretofore a basic law of nature) can be transcended through...something.  Again, I understand the hope, and I would not personally dream of saying the hypothesis is certainly wrong.  But the future procedure by which people might be revived strikes me as lacking strong scientific evidence at the present time.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not accurate or true to describe cryonics as "pseudoscientific" or "fringe". Cryonics does not attempt to defeat death. Cryonics does not operate on dead bodies or corpses; it involves deanimated patients that require long-term care to be treated at a future hospital. At no point in the process are dead people involved. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I genuinely don't understand this distinction, but would you agree with me that cryonics is practiced upon people who are both clinically and legally dead? Dumuzid (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the definition of "death" has changed over time. In the past, before CPR, anyone who was clinically dead was considered dead, period. Nowadays, cardiac arrest for 10+ minutes is considered death because that's the frontier of medical technology. In the future, advanced medical technology, including molecular nanotechnology, may change the definition of death even further. Therefore, cryonics does not operate on "dead" people, unless patients that can be reanimated with CPR are considered dead ("death" death, not clinical death). SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, this strikes me as a good argument that the practice as it currently stands is fringe. The definition of death has changed over time, and the definition may well change given unforeseen medical advances.  But it strikes me that what you are saying here is that the current medical consensus around the concept of death is incorrect.  And it may be!  But that makes it fringe.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not your claim. You claimed that cryonics is fringe because cryonics patients are dead, not that proposed major changes in the definition of death that go against medical consensus are fringe. Cryonics does not claim that the medical consensus surrounding death is false; it claims that deanimated patients are not dead because the definition may be changed in the future. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, cryonics would agree that the people upon whom it is practiced currently are dead? Dumuzid (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, cryonics patients are not dead, because death is the irreversible cessation of life. Cryonicists agree that patients are clinically and legally dead. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, you say the definition may be changed in the future, with which I agree. Would you agree with me that implicit in that statement is the idea that the definition may not change? Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because the definition may not change doesn't imply that cryonics is impossible, or that patients are dead; it just means that cryonics may fail, something that cryonicists readily admit. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So people declared clinically and legally dead today may be truly dead? Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They may be, but they may not; which is why it's wrong to describe cryonics patients are dead, and to say with certainty that cryonics is impossible, as it is postulated on the cryonics intro. You agree with this, as evidenced by your past comments. Saying that cryonics is certain to fail because patients are dead is a circular argument; it's claiming that cryonics won't work because patients are dead, and that they're dead because cryonics won't work. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * By this rationale, death does not exist, since we can postulate anything in the future. What I am more interested in is the tension between the cryonic conception of death and that generally accepted by science.  I will let this go now.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to skeptics, cryonics may be categorized as "fringe", although that is disputable. Nonetheless, it is not accurate or true to describe cryonics as impossible, as it is exposited in the intro to cryonics. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Spot on. And if cryonics was just musing about a possible future that would be one thing. But in reality it's taking money off people, squirting fluids into brains, chainsawing corpses, and calling the stiffs "patients". So, as practiced, it is pseudoscience and quackery (per the sources, natch). Bon courage (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cryonics organizations are run by passionate cryonicists that do not receive, or receive only modest compensation for their efforts. Alcor is run by an unpaid board of volunteers, all of whom are signed up for cryopreservation. Cryonics organizations are nonprofits and their members do not make money from cryonics. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Executive compensation" is Alcor's biggest expense, it seems. Bon courage (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Executive compensation" is not Alcor's biggest expense--that's "other salaries", a category that refers to the technicians that prepare patients for cryopreservation. Additionally, "executive compensation" includes the CEO and financial officers--who may not be members of the board, and are often recruited from the outside to assist in the management of the company. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a WP:COI to declare? Bon courage (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Expounding on my reply, I am neither paid by, nor an employee of any cryonics or cryonics-affiliated organization. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But you have some other kind of connection presumably? Bon courage (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I have no conflict-of-interest, per WP:COI, to any cryonics organization, broadly construed. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * "Providers" are not good sources for whether or not a subject area is fringe.
 * If that was the case, nothing profitable would be fringe, and we know that's not true. ApLundell (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * There's no scientific consensus or even majority that describe cryonics as "fringe". It is widely accepted among the scientific community that cryonics is an experiment--a work in progress, but nevertheless an experiment. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source that states that "It is widely accepted among the scientific community that cryonics is an experiment". AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * http://www.ralphmerkle.com/merkleDir/cryo.html
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9219731/
 * The existence of pro-cryonics articles in mainstream scientific discourse (i.e prestigious scientific journals and/or research) shows that it is widely accepted that it is at least an "experiment" and deserves to be treated as such. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked for evidence to back up your claim. Not complete bullshit that doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , it is not a personal attack to criticize your exceptionally low quality sources. Cullen328 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that criticism is not a personal attack; it's the profanity and tone. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not fringe to say that one day, reversible cryo-preservation techniques might be developed, and to do works toward that goal.
 * Just like it's not fringe to say that, one day, we might discover alien life.
 * It's fringe to say that those things have already happened, and that you can participate if you give the right person the right amount of money. ApLundell (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Cryonics" has not already happened. No cryonicist claims that any cryonics patient has been reanimated. Cryonics is an experiment. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cryonics is very similar, in fact, to claiming that we might one day discover aliens; it's a claim that one day, we may discover medical technology or molecular nanotechnology that will enable reanimation of cryonics patients. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If injecting the clinically-dead with antifreeze on the basis that maybe one day we might find a way to resurrect them (or passing aliens tell us how to?) isn't pseudoscinece, nothing is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Pseudoscience" in Wikipedian terms, is not defined based on the heuristics of individual users. It is defined based on scientific evidence and consensus. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that it is impossible to obtain scientific evidence about what is going to be discovered in the future, anything presenting itself as 'science' while basing its anifreeze-injecting practices on such claims is pseudoscientific bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're still claiming that cryonics is false because of antifreeze injection. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No I'm stating as a fact that bullshit based around predictions that science will discover technology in the future to resurrect corpses if and only if they have been injected with antifreeze is bullshit of a particular kind: pseudoscientific bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ralph Merkle is on the board of directors of Alcor. Frontiers in Veterinary Science is both a Frontiers journal and a journal of veterinary science. So, no, that doesn't indicate what is "widely accepted" in the "mainstream scientific discourse" either. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless veterinary science is considered to be fringe, discussion of pro-cryonics arguments in a prestigious journal about veterinary science supports the assertion that cryonics is not fringe. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "prestigious"? ApLundell (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If the above scientific literature does not alleviate your concerns:
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4733321/ SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You can find scientific papers in obscure journals supporting more or less any proposition. There existence demonstrates precisely nothing about 'scientific consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Many famous scientists have spoken out in favor of cryonics, using more detailed and valid arguments than anti-cryonicists. It seems that the consensus, scientifically speaking, among reliable, non-anecdotal sources is that cryonics is an experiment and not a fringe pseudoscience. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See Nobel disease. We care about what the balance of mainstream sources say, not the fame of individual endorsers. MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Mainstream sources that are high-quality almost universally avoid postulating that cryonics is a pseudoscience or fringe topic. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No true scotsman again. The sources are only high-quality if they happen to agree with your position. MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. Mainstream sources are sources that describe, in detail, why they object or support cryonics, and don't simply citogenesis "cryonics is pseudoscientific quackery and argle-bargle". SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * sources that describe, in detail, why they object or support cryonics, and don't simply citogenesis "cryonics is pseudoscientific quackery and argle-bargle". Yes, that is exactly when I mean. MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

SurfingOrca2045 - You have made something like 33 comments in this section (that might be an underestimate), you have made your point clearly many times, and there is no reason to think that your favored content will gain consensus. You should really drop the stick now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that SurfingOrca2045 was recently blocked from the Cryonics page for those not aware. Perhaps a formal topic ban may be need to be considered if issues continue. KoA (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was just about to suggest closing this discussion because OP has failed to demonstrate an understanding of how to evaluate scientific sources. I think this essentially confirms it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's too late to change now, but I'm not sure why opened this discussion at all. Did you not notice there was already a cryonics thread above, with a neutral header ("Cryonics again"), as opposed to your own promotional header here? Was there any particular reason you didn't post there instead? It's almost like "forum shopping" within a single forum, which is kind of unusual, and not good practice IMO. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC).


 * It doesn't seem like consensus is going to change around the characterization of cryonics as a fringe topic at this present time and date, and I won't discuss that further. Nevertheless, I think that we all agree that there hasn't been conclusive scientific evidence (like for homeopathy or Lysenkoism) that cryonics is definitely 100% not going to work, even though it is readily falsifiable. So I think that the consensus is that the sentence in the intro to cryonics stating that cryonics will certainly not work due to damage to neural connections should be changed. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as a consensus at all. I think the intro in that article is fine as is, and expresses the appropriate amount of skepticism wrt the current state of the science. If and when that changes in the future, we can change how we write about it. Until then, we should reflect the current state of the science. Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. If our sources are proven wrong in the future, we will adjust to them. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is separate and completely unrelated to the arguments against labeling cryonics as a pseudoscience and fringe topic, but it seems extreme to say that cryonics certainly will fail. The science does not say that, and there has been scientific evidence in the form of experiments conducted where a rabbit kidney was vitrified and put back into the rabbit successfully. Conversely, nobody has published a scientific paper proving that current vitrification techniques cause damage on the order of "no present or conceivable future technology will revert this". Therefore, because higher-quality sources:
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781097/
 * say that cryonics has at least a minimal chance of success, we should take out the sentence. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * but it seems extreme to say that cryonics certainly will fail I don't see that we say this anywhere in the article. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe on the WP:FRINGE labeling, but it seems that most people agree that we should take out the intro sentence postulating cryonics is certain to fail. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to request closure of this discussion. I don't feel like it's going anywhere, and would like to move on to more productive topics. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

LGBT grooming conspiracy theory
Is there a "mainstream debate" over whether teaching children about the existence of LGBT individuals in a value-neutral way is a form of "grooming"? Or is this a conspiracy theory? Sources have been marshaled. Brand-new accounts have staked out provocative positions. Do you have what it takes to wade into this exciting talk page thread?? If so, check out all the zany shenanigans at Talk:LGBT grooming conspiracy theory!!! Generalrelative (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect that most of those who object to the way LGBQ topics are taught believe that it isn’t actually being done in a neutral way… but in an affirming (and even promotional) way. And it is that supposedly promotional way of teaching it that they consider to be “Grooming”. Blueboar (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Mandy Rice-Davies (1964).jpg Generalrelative (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC) ]]
 * This is an instance of a very common motte-and-bailey pattern on the American right, where they adopt hyperemotional terms ("groomer!") to rally the troops, emotionally provoke political opponents, and depict these opponents as extremists or radicals. When you press them on their beliefs, they retreat to the motte, which Blueboar summarizes with excellent accuracy.
 * Is it a "conspiracy theory"? No. (By the way, that term is colossally overused by commentators.) The most neutral way to describe it would be that it is a Conservative pushback against trans awareness in schools (or replace "trans" with "LGBT", or "trans-positive sex education" or something; I'm not the greatest copyeditor).
 * It's not exactly a "theory" (fringe or not), but a movement. And as for whether it's "mainstream", I guess we would need to check opinion polling to see if significant percentages of Democrats (25%+) support this pushback; otherwise, it would be best described as "partisan" rather than "mainstream" (though honestly, the concept of a "mainstream movement" is largely meaningless regardless).
 * However, the term "groomer", and relevant harassment/bigotry, would certainly deserve a full and long section within such a "Pushback" article. DFlhb (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The use of "groomer" as a baseless slur against LGBT people and our allies is a hateful rhetorical trope and has contributed to an upsurge in anti-LGBT violence. It would be sheerest whitewashing to refer to it as Conservative pushback unless, of course "Conservative pushback" actually means the promotion of violence and bigotry. Some reliable sources do refer to the groomer slur as a "conspiracy theory", and it bears marks in common with other conspiracy theories (e.g., QAnon) such as its antisemitic canards. Newimpartial (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If we're going to keep the article focused on the word, rather than the more general backlash, then I strongly support moving to Groomer (slur), which is both neutral, and more accurate (since it focuses more on the slur than on whether a conspiracy is alleged). DFlhb (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit note at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
Hi all, wanted to make you aware of this ongoing discussion. Basically, some editors over there think the aforementioned list should have a consensus requirement that any topic listed must also be explicitly described as "pseudoscience" in the main or parent article.

E.g. we should not list "Earthing therapy" or "grounding" (the idea that periodically "grounding" yourself electrically by walking barefoot on soil or touching electrical "grounds" has immunological benefits) because it has, in the past, been deemed not notable enough to have a parent article.

Or, we should not list "Hair analysis" or "Macrobiotic diets" because the parent article doesn't actually say the practice is "pseudoscience." Even if we have good quality RSes demonstrating that the scientific consensus is that the practice is pseudoscientific.

Your feedback is welcomed! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean, I was curious about Hair analysis so clicked through and saw that there is only a tangential connection to (possible) pseudoscience. I'd argue against including that one, since there's plenty of legitimate science there too, and indeed it looks like that's the majority of what's published on the topic. As a general rule, I'd say that we'd want at least some RS describing a topic as pseudoscience explicitly in order to merit inclusion in the list, regardless of the state of our articles. Generalrelative (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good, common-sense approach.
 * For Shibbolethink's other point, we wouldn't want to exclude topics just because they're not notable enough for a WP article. A lot of pseudoscience is not notable, but people coming here after hearing about it deserve at least a little guidance. I'd say if we have no article, we should have a ref describing it as pseudoscience for those who wish to follow up on it. — kwami (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, I'd say that we'd want at least some RS describing a topic as pseudoscience explicitly in order to merit inclusion in the list, regardless of the state of our articles Yes I agree with this. But I disagree with the idea that it must be A) present in a DUE amount of RSes and B) also present explicitly in the parent article. Sometimes there are local consensus-mongers which remove such things from parent articles, even when it is in fact DUE. I think only A is probably enough for a list like this. I pass no judgment on hair analysis, except that it used to definitely be fringe pseudoscience. Not sure if that has changed. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Though in principle, if the RS describe a topic as pseudoscience, the corresponding article –– if it exists –– should describe it that way too (or at least note that some sources describe it that way, if it's not the dominant view). And if a local consensus arises against inclusion, that should be brought to the attention of this noticeboard. But I get that this not always going to be feasible in practice. Generalrelative (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * agreed. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agreed. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Me too. Doug Weller  talk 15:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Vikramaditya
Article: Vikramaditya

There's an attempt to create present a mythical person as an actual historical figure, without citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingsphagettimonster (talk • contribs) 04:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverted again, and user will be reported to WP:AIV as they have already had a final warning. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 05:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ for 31 hours by . –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 06:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It happens relatively frequently. Doug Weller  talk 15:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Citizens Against UFO Secrecy
Basically promoting a (defunct?) "freedom of information activist group". No third-party analysis of the group. Not sure it is even notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ten years ago, I suggested that it wasn't notable. Articles for deletion/Citizens Against UFO Secrecy Enough disagreed with me with sources from newspapers and the like they claimed made their case. Of course, none of the commentariat bothered to add any of those sources to the article. jps (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Here is a colorful take on Peter Gersen, the apparent honcho of CAUS. The piece, which is obviously from within the UFO bubble, includes a wonderful photo of Gersen wearing an outfit seemingly from the Wizard of Id collection, and accuses Gersen of "turn[ing] the once respectable CAUS into a fringe new age association" and describes him as "UFOlogy's foremost ambulance chaser." Ouch - but it is good to learn that the UFO fringe considers "new age" to be fringe. That article, non-RS though it is and dated to circa 2001, claims that "CAUS is now defunct." So current notability seems lacking, even amongst the pro-woo crowd.


 * CAUS does have a sort-of/kind-of extant webpage here, but it was last updated in 1998. Gersen (who is not to be confused with the same-named, more notable former USAF general who recently had a wee little problem related to an "unprofessional relationship") has popped up a few times in the last 25 years. He made a couple of Coast to Coast AM appearances about ten years ago, and in 2012 he apparently planned to jump off Bell Rock into a portal/vortex thingamajig. The details of that event are sketchy, but the less-than-spectacular outcome was briefly reported here.


 * Now that I've stuck my head into this rabbit hole, my taste for entertainingly unfathomable material leads me to propose the following: give me (and please, others) a few days to edit this mess of a page into something a bit more appropriate. Maybe that's a long shot, but what the heck. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * My edits to the article are done for now. I'm uncertain if the article merits retention, but at least most of the redundancy, puffery and poor sourcing has been removed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for that. You've certainly added to the entertainment value of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Project Veritas and Covid Vaccines
Project Veritas released a new covid-related video recently and as usual it's full of lies and misdirection, so expect an uptick in traffic on the article. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:44BA:33D4:C395:AEEB (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are 167 page watchers, a third active. It will be dealt with. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's already happening on O'Keefe's talk page. The usual "nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah: that proves it!" -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this a fringe theory noticeboard, or just a place for canvassing? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Essentially anything on any noticeboard would count as canvassing by that definition. Partofthemachine (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity.
Draft:Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity.
 * I tried using the instructions here Miscellany for deletion, but fubarred something.
 * Pretty sure this article belongs under this notice board, as it constitutes either some kind of fringe attempt at advanced physics, someone suffering a mental health episode or a hoax. I think it qualifies for MfD under Deletion_policy 6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes.
 * Long story short, can someone step in and help with the MfD process? I thought it'd be a quick process, immmediately screwed something up, and do not have the time right now to randomly type stuff in until I figure out what I did wrong.  He  iro  06:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Orbiting-particle_system_force_that_is_pulled_straight_inwardly_into_infinity. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 06:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated.  He  iro  06:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin Research Project
Was quoted at me recently as evidence that STURP is not fringe, so it probably needs improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that STURP is fringe. It does need a check of Joe Nickell's statement quoted on the page which seems to possibly be inaccurate. Please add any more discussion of this to the talk page itself and not here, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * STURP does not need to be fringe for the article to have major NPOV issues that definitely do fall under the WP:FRINGE umbrella. For one thing, the findings of the group as they are quoted here don't match what is said about them in the main shroud of turin article at all, the crucial fact that the project dated this shroud to medieval times is completely omitted, in favour of a quote stating that there was a real crucified body in there at some point. Seems like a rather fatal omission to me. Licks-rocks (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that STURP is fringe You mean you know of no such indication. Ask User:Wdford or Joe Nickell or anyone else who understands the subject. They do know. Or read the sources given in Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. Then you will know too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Joe Nickell made a statement, without naming names, implying that all four leaders of STURP served on the Executive Council of the Holy Shroud Guild. Since that quote is on the STURP page I see nothing wrong in asking that it be clarified, especially since he, and Wikipedia, are using that as a blanket statement and not particular to names (as I mention on the talk page, where this discussion should be taking place, that the Holy Shroud Guild search box returned nothing for three of the four STURP leaders and a couple article for one of them, but nothing about the Executive Council. Will look into it a bit more. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, should this discussion be taking place on the article talk page or is there no indication that STURP is fringe? Because this is exactly the venue to discuss fringe at. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, a discussion about the fringe status of STURP is also ongoing at the Shroud of Turin Talk page here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The individual members of STURP were all leading scientists in their various fields. Their credentials were impeccable. No problem there at all. However the "fringe" issue comes from their conclusion that the shroud was the actual burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.
 * It should be noted that the STURP analysis took place before the C14 testing revealed the true age of the cloth.
 * It should also be noted that some STURP members disagreed with other STURP members on certain critical issues. For example, Rogers believed that the C14 tests were done on material added in a medieval repair, whereas Jackson proved beyond doubt using actual STURP photographs that there was never any repair done in the sampled area. Jackson in turn espoused a nuclear radiation theory, whereas Rogers (among others) proved that this theory defies the known laws of physics. And so on.
 * The C14 tests prove that the cloth is not old enough to have been touched by Jesus. No C14 expert has ever contradicted that, although various non-experts have offered hypotheses to "explain away" this inconvenient truth. All such hypotheses have been utterly refuted, therefore continuing to push those hypotheses is "fringe" by Wikipedia standards.
 * Wdford (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody is pushing fringe hypotheses counter to the C14 tests. My main interest at the moment is the fact that nobody has yet to create a look-alike shroud which also has the negative/positive effect when photographed. You'd think a group at MIT or somewhere would take it as a challenge and make use of the most sophisticated computers in order to explain the effect, and create something which can be photographed as a positive on the magnitude of detail that is produced when their newly created shroud is photographed. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Randy, your opinion about shroud look-alikes, which you have already expressed several times here, is not relevant to this discussion, which was initiated by Hob to address the status of STURP as a fringe group, and specifically if Shroud of Turin Research Project can be used as evidence that STURP is not fringe. Please do not WP:FORUMSHOP. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point. Certainly that would be very interesting. However such things take time and cost money. After the C14 dates were published, objective scientists lost interest in the shroud, and understandably they are using their limited time and resources on other projects. Only the "believers" continue to roll this boulder up the hill, inventing new "tests" as they go along which, with a large enough "margin for error", invariably "prove" that the C14 dates are somehow wrong. Wdford (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Astrology pages


Astrology pages suffer from regular linkspam infestations. But recent reverts by User:Bishonen put back old, broken spam links instead of the new, working versions of the same spam links. I think they should instead be removed and the stuff which is sourced to them too. What do others think? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at the articles but any fan fiction/enthusiast material should be removed. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed that table for being unreliably sourced. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Marie Steiner-von Sivers
This is being contested: I would be very, very interested (and surprised) to see that Staudenmaier has genuinely turned up incriminating evidence about Marie Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't see how this is a matter for WP:FTN. Steiner-von Sivers may have been fringe, but sadly, if she was pro-Nazi, that wasn't. Lots of otherwise seemingly rational people supported the Nazis.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean, she was one of the leaders of Anthroposophy, which is a new religious movement, essentially a sect of Gnosticism, thus WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know who she was. Being a Nazi wasn't fringe though, so the evidence for it needs to be assessed according to the same criteria as any other biographic article. If we have multiple strong sources, and nothing similarly sourced to the contrary, we say she was a Nazi. If we only have a credible subject-matter expert source, we may cite it as an attributed statement from that individual, or something to that effect. If we don't have a strong source, we don't include it at all. Same as for anyone else, anthroposophist or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The facts are: they are of the opinion that Marie Steiner-von Sivers is getting libeled: dead people can't be libeled. Attributing someone saying what her political beliefs were seems appropriate and avoids most problems entirely, so why not phrase it as "According to Büchenbacher..." —DIYeditor (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Possibly we should wait until we see how Pjmpjm responds. And then discuss it on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Their reply is at. Anyway, the article now uses WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV so it is not even claiming it in the voice of Wikipedia.

Seen what is written at Rudolf Steiner, it is highly probable that she was a Nazi sympathizer, because her husband and mentor had similar ideas to Nazism. She probably did not know that the Nazis were going to perform the Holocaust, so she cannot be blamed about that. The essential difference between Steiner and the Nazis, is that Steiner was basically a humanitarian, while the Nazi regime was bloodthirsty. For the rest, he pontificated about racial purity, esoteric medicine and biodynamic agriculture, which were endorsed by Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler, if not Hitler.

Source:

And disgruntled and elderly and embittered man are arguments pro domo sua, simply because WP:FRINGE cults do not love rational criticism. It is a democratic right to disagree with the mainstream academic view, but it is sheer inanity to completely ignore how the academic mainstream views one's cult.

In fact, what do you expect? Anthroposophists believe Steiner's "historical" reports of the life from Atlantis and Lemuria, which count as rank pseudohistory in the academia. He even advised them that it is bad for their development to learn mainstream history. In the end, there are quite many sources which show that Steiner posited a hierarchy of human races, and was full of craps in respect to empirical science and history. Too many to be all shot down as unreliable. E.g. when talking to a Romanian Anthroposophist, he considered that reading Die Entente-Freimaurerei und der Weltkrieg is solid food in the meaning of 1 Corinthians 3:2, only to be read after one attains good knowledge of Anthroposophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

New book: Academics discussing fringe Egyptology
Not a good title but recommended. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the recommendation! A. Parrot (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you get a chance to take on board the recommendation? What did you think of it? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It won't be published until September, so I haven't seen it yet. A. Parrot (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Spillover infection and SARS-CoV-2
An editor wants to remove SARS-CoV-2 from the list of spillover infections. Your participation would be appreciated at the relevant discussion. Thank you. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Sceptic


About a denialist website with a misleading name, subject of edit-warring by new user at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Trish Leigh
The article Trish Leigh has been started. Hint: "specialized in neurofeedback" means WP:FRINGE, and the diagnosis of porn addiction is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Trish Leigh. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust denial and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
See the centralized discussion here on whether and how to include this topic in the list. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The Philosophy of Freedom
The Philosophy of Freedom relies heavily upon original research based upon Steiner's own works.

While a certain amount of MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR is allowed, this article is nothing else than MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
An editor has launched an RfC proposing Cultural Marxism as a valid construct please discuss. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Marxist cultural analysis
Now the same editor is proposing to move the current article, Marxist cultural analysis, into Cultural studies, while removing the content that distinguishes actual Marxist analysis of culture from the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The discussion is here. Newimpartial (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This may be related: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Starting this section was borderline canvassing, but while the page has this noticeboard's attention, Marxist cultural analysis devotes a quarter of its body text to a coatracked account of conspiracy theories, contrary to the guidance of WP:ONEWAY. Sennalen (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And how much of that quarter of its body text did you write, Sennalen? This seems like an odd thing for you to raise as an objection. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In the talk page discussion, I proposed deletion as the best option and rewriting to stick to sources as the second best option. Consensus went with the second. Sennalen (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Starting a discussion on a noticeboard is not canvassing. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Any attempt to recruit in a way that's expected to skew participants towards a point of view is canvassing. Drawing attention to the conspiracy theory page is an appropriate use of the noticeboard. Bringing participants to Cultural studies on the false pretense that FRINGE issues are a locus of dispute looks less innocent. Sennalen (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, starting a discussion on a noticeboard is not canvassing and is not skewing participants. There is indeed a fringe theory at play here. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you are explicitly arguing - at ANI (!?) - that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis articles are discussing the same referent ("cultural Marxism"), from different perspecives, your claim that the Marxist cultural analysis merge proposal has nothing to do with your view of the conspiracy theory topic seems, ahem, implausible. You even went so far as to propose that I precipitated the Merge discussion when I suggested that the disambiguation was one of your real issues with Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory in its current form, so your new pretense that these topics are unrelated for you seems, well, odd. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Senalen, judging from your editing history you seem to have been engaged with this particular article almost continuously over the two years you've been here. Your first major slew of edits was on this article and I couldn't find single page in your edit history that doesn't contain at least one edit to this page in the quick glance I took. The vast majority of your other edits are similar editing disputes on similar topics to the one here, like cultural Bolshevism for example. I think it's about time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK.  Licks-rocks (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Roy Spencer (meteorologist)


Should our article quote his fringe ideas about evolution in detail, without refutation, or not?

Same old same old. We had this same question so many times, and the answer is always the same ("not"), but the people who were there forget it all the time. I don't know what to do. If we write an essay, people will say it is just an essay. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I briefly reviewed the Talk page discussion, but I'm not clear on what specific text has been proposed for inclusion or deletion. My understanding of WP:FRINGE is that his ideas (or anybody else's, for that matter) can be mentioned in the article only to the extent that they are discussed in reliable third-party sources. -Location (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my point. With "discussed" meaning "measured against the scientific consensus". --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW: I do not qualify "discussed" that way. What I mean is if Roy Spencer is notable and the New York Times quotes him as saying, "I believe angels bowling causes thunder", then our Wikipedia article could state, "Roy Spencer believes thunder is due to angels bowling", with a citation to the NYT. If he takes criticism for that view in another reliable source like the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, then that could be put in there and cited, too. -Location (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE says, Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context. The context is rejection by the mainstream. So, I do not qualify "discussed" that way is not in accordance with WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that is a bit simplistic interpretation. If a biographical article give one or two sentences stating that Roy Spencer believes some fringe theory, then we don't need to insert a long refutation of that in the article... particularly if we have appropriate links. If the fringe theory is unique to Roy Spencer and is not given thorough discussion elsewhere, then we will certainly need to add a bit more to the refutation. None of this runs afoul of WP:WEIGHT, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGELEVEL, etc. Again, it's difficult to make any recommendations without specific text or diffs. -Location (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * one or two sentences It was five well-known false rumors he was repeating. Now thankfully deleted.
 * If the fringe theory is unique to Roy Spencer It is not. He was just regurgitating what all the ID people say. See below.
 * Again, it's difficult to make any recommendations without specific text or diffs It would have been very easy to find, checking the history of the article linked above. But it is history now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I wasn't clear on what specific text had been proposed for inclusion or deletion. I'm glad you've taken care of it. -Location (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely it is not the case that a public figure being quoted inherently constitutes the views they express being "discussed in reliable third-party sources" -- the discussion is what the presumptive other party (the author of the RS) writes about the views. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is right and proper that a biography mention prominent views of the subject. However, Wikipedia biographies are not supposed to be platforms to promote the views of the subject and that boundary has been violated in a big way in this case. It must be reduced very considerably, mostly by restricting it to his more prominent claims while omitting his "arguments" for them. The article should also cite reliable sources that refute his claims, ideally using sources that mention him. Zerotalk 01:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, but there is a claim on the Talk page that this is not consensus.
 * The article repeats Spencer's claims, which are refuted by the Index of Creationist Claims on talk.origins:
 * ID is no more religious and no less scientific than "evolutionism" - see, , ,
 * Macroevolution has never been observed - see
 * Teaching evolution is teaching religion - see
 * Mutation and natural selection cannot build complexity - see
 * The "creation model" is better at explaining complexity than Darwin (vague and generalized versions of the above)
 * So, the ignorant biological layman Spencer just regurgates false rumors invented and repeated ad nauseam by other ignorant biological laymen. The rumors are not remarkable enough to repeat in the article. It would be stacking the deck in favor of pseudoscience to add those (or other) false rumors in articles about the people who repeat them and skip the refutation just because there is no reliable site that refutes them and mentions the person who repeats them. -Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson's ‎meat diet
On the Jordan Peterson ‎article I have removed some very unreliable sources that were making health claims about Jordan Peterson's beef only diet. That section of the article appears to have been a previous battleground. I am confused to why such terrible sources were left on the article for so long, i.e. an opinion piece written by a non-medical person who owns a carnivore diet website called mostly fat. There was also a predatory paper by Frontiers and another off-topic odd paper. Further content might need to be trimmed so any help appreciated. Also see the talk-page discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging, who it appears wrote all of that content you are referencing (it seems to be the same now as it was when they added it, bar the removal of this WebMD article). The discussion was at Talk:Jordan_Peterson. Endwise (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the entire thing is a triviality, and should probably be omitted. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Very surprised that it was Shibbolethink that made those edits considering all the good edits they have done on that article. This user is a great Wikipedia user and very experienced medical user. We all make mistakes but this isn't a good review paper or a reliable source . The author of the paper Amber O'Hearn (describes herself as a "radical carnvivore") and owns a website telling people to not eat fruit or vegetables and eat only meat. I don't think we should be citing opinion papers by self-described carnivores. Also anything published by Frontiers Media is suspect and the paper that was cited did not mention Peterson so we cannot cite the source per original research policy. Due to all the fuss over this I agree it's best to just remove it or keep one line about it. In regard to other sources, in most cases Webmd and Healthline fail WP:MEDRS and are often removed from Wikipedia. I don't think we should be citing any of this low-quality sourcing. A better source would be todaysdietitian  Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll admit I was not happy with the quality of articles I was able to find on that topic. There are just extremely few scholarly sources available, which is true for most "fad" diets. En face, I think WP:PARITY applies. But we do need to balance WP:PARITY against WP:MEDRS requirements which also obviously apply. I didn't know that about O'Hearn, definitely calls into question her reliability. That said, the content we're using her source for doesn't actually help her claims... But she clearly isn't a reliable expert so it shouldn't be used. Also anything published by Frontiers Media is suspect and the paper that was cited did not mention Peterson so we cannot cite the source per original research policy This would actually only be true if we were using it to reference something about Peterson, which we aren't. We're using it to provide the mainstream view of meat diets per WP:FRINGE. The sentence we're using it for is only about the diet, so it's not OR. I understand your hesitance about Frontiers journals, and I do share it. But that source is a systematic review and meta-analysis, one of the best available tools we have to ascertain the medical/scientific consensus per WP:MEDSCI and WP:MEDASSESS. Frontiers journals do have a lower degree of reliability in general, given their substandard editorial policies, but they are not deprecated. We must examine them on a case-by-case basis. I don't see anything about the methodology in that particular paper, or the affiliations of the authors, or the conclusions, that would lead me to throw it out directly. Even better, it's PROSPERO registered, which does give us some reason to believe the authors stand behind their review protocol. I've also corrected an error in the text-- the Frontiers review only shows an increase in triglycerides and actually does not show an increase in total cholesterol. A subtle but important distinction, and was my mistake. Are there specific concerns that you have with the review, @Psychologist Guy, apart from the fact that it's published in a Frontiers journal?I agree the content might be better as a more concise thing providing the mainstream view, from as reliable a source as we can muster (or, better, 2). How about: "There are no available randomized controlled trials which show any beneficial effects from the carnivore diet or which rule out any placebo effect.(todaysdieticianref) Some nutrition experts, including Jack Gilbert of the University of Chicago,(Atlanticref) point out that such a diet can result in "severe dysregulation" including an increase in serum triglycerides and possible cardiac issues.(Frontiersref)"This covers our bases with regards to using more trusted experts (Jack Gilbert and Carrie Dennett) and using a MEDRS (the Frontiers systematic review and meta-analysis) where we are directly making any claims of possible risk. I would also say we should not remove the Jack Gilbert piece no matter what, because it's published in The Atlantic (clearly a RS), and Gilbert is a recognized health expert who is commenting directly on Peterson's diet. He is making a medical claim, so of course I would prefer a MEDRS be added to it. I'm open to one that is in a different journal, but especially per PARITY I don't see why the Frontiers ref would be insufficient. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that the source citing Jack Gilbert should not be removed it is a reliable source. My issue was with the other sources for this text, "Nutrition experts, including Jack Gilbert of the University of Chicago, point out that such a diet can result in "severe dysregulation" including a severe deficit of short-chain fatty acids and calcium, an increase in total cholesterol, and cardiac issues. Jack Gilbert only mentions dysregulation and short-chain fatty acids not calcium, total cholesterol or cardiac issues so the way the text was written might be confusing.
 * The other sourcing was this Frontiers Review on red meat trials, this source does not mention Peterson or the carnivore diet. It is original research from what I can see. We cannot use sources on biographies of living persons that do not mention that person or what that person believes. I have not seen this done elsewhere. You make the claim that it is not being used for that purpose and it is being used not for Peterson but just as a medical reference for the diet but this would also be original research because the review was not on the carnivore diet.
 * The data from the trials was looking at omnivores who are not eating exclusive red meat (like Peterson) but red meat with other foods. There is a big difference to what Peterson is doing (only beef) to standard red meat eaters. As you correctly point out no controlled trials have ever been published on the carnivore diet so I do not believe w should cite a paper on red meat to making health claims about the carnivore diet.
 * In regard to the Frontiers business. A user now blocked on the red meat article tried to add it and you will see that it was removed. There was a huge controversy last month about those sort of papers (check the red meat talk-page), I am not sure if you have seen all of that but it was mentioned on this board. My understanding is that anything published by Frontiers on nutrition should be removed from Wikipedia as they are not reliable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Citation of reliable sources that do not mention the subject of the article is quite common (in my experience), when used to note that the subject's fringe belief is unsupported or contradicted by the mainstream. Right or wrong, I think proscribing this would need a wider discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I'm getting a better handle of your position now. You're saying that we should not use a citation about read meat consumption in general to verify a statement about the carnivore diet (a diet consisting of only red meat consumption and nothing else). Because the meta-analysis about red meat consumption consisted of analyzing studies which also used other foods. I get what you're saying, but this is a lot closer to WP:SKYBLUE or WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY than it is to WP:SYNTH. An analogous situation would be an article about someone who's diet is consuming only tobacco or only sucrose-based sugars. And we have a meta-analysis that shows tobacco consumption is bad for you, or that too much sucrose sugar can cause diabetes. The fact that participants also drank water, or also ate kale, or also ate non-metabolic aspartame would not be a reason to discount those sources in this instance. The study is analyzing only differences in red meat, and shows an association of that consumption with negative outcomes. The carnivore diet is the maximum possible end of the spectrum of red meat consumption. It's not synth to say "red meat consumption is associated with bad things" as a FRINGE-compliance statement about the carnivore diet.Looking at Talk:Red meat, are you referring to this discussion? I don't see any discussions about Frontiers or this paper, and indeed, I don't see the word "Frontiers" has appeared anywhere on that talk page or in the archives. I don't read that discussion as consensus against using this particular article, or any article about red meat in making this claim. I may be mistaken, and if so, please point me there. I think probably we can use some of the sources already on the Red meat page, though, to help bolster ours. Such as: A better statement supported by this Frontiers meta-analysis may be ( emphasis mine ) "There are no available randomized controlled trials which show any beneficial effects from the carnivore diet or which rule out any placebo effect.(todaysdieticianref) Some nutrition experts, including Jack Gilbert of the University of Chicago, point out that such a diet can result in "severe dysregulation".(Atlanticref) . Red meat consumption is associated with increases in serum triglycerides and cardiovascular disease.(Frontiersref)(this ref)"How's that? Avoids any of the processed vs unprocessed issues, sticks directly to what the article says, and doesn't comment on the "carnivore diet" and instead just talks about red meat consumption itself. it also gives us WP:FRINGE compliance. I would add that this is not in disagreement with any of the sources on that talk page or in that article. cardiovascular issues are a possible consequence of excess triglycerides and excess red meat consumption. Indeed, that article says "Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), high blood pressure and stroke. We also do not claim causality here, we only say "associated with". Which is precisely what our best available sources say about red meat consumption. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * An article should give the reader enough context to understand the topic. Sources for that context do not have to mention the article topic. That would create walled gardens and POVFORKs. Sennalen (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a Jordan Peterson article, not a dietary science article. If he says he eats only mice, the article isn't the place for analysis / coverage of whether or not a "mice only"' diet is good or bad.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed… not sure we should even mention his mice diet in the first place… but if we DO mention it, we should not get bogged down with outlining either the benefits or detriments of that diet… just neutrally say that “recently Peterson has stated that he eats mice” (or whatever) and leave it at that. Keep it about Peterson, not the diet. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially since he's never advocated for others to follow the diet, as far as I know; he's only talked about its benefits for him, given his severe food allergies. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If we DO mention it, we have to add mainstream commentary on it which explicitly refers to Peterson. If there is no such thing, we cannot mention it since that would be fringe pushing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you saying that a sentence like "Jordan Peterson eats an all-beef diet" is a fringe belief that does not belong on Wikipedia unless there's something to counteract it? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you're aware, this is not an issue of "counteracting it" as much as undue weight on a fringe claim made by Peterson. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the thing - I don't think he's made many claims about his diet, other than that he does it and it works for him. His daughter is the advocate. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just link to Carnivore diet and let that article do the heavy lifting. MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Enneagram of Personality


Some enneagram fans want some weasel words, and they edit-war to keep them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like some local consensus has prevailed at the article. A major cleanup is likely in order. So much of the detail in the article is sourced entirely to primary sources with little to no attention paid to actual independent notice. jps (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus here. The most recent discussion was one to two. 2600:1702:2AD0:5440:F16D:43EA:19EB:BF2D (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

In related news, I redirected Fourth Way enneagram to the only book that talks about it. jps (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This redirect was reverted without comment by an IP. I reverted back, but if it keeps up, I'll start a discussion. jps (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hypnosis


Talk page, new section "Crime". What do people think? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Jean-Émile Charon


Stumbled over this via the Category:Quantum mysticism advocates. The article has had a template "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories." since 2014, and it certainly does that. How about deleting the whole "Work" section? It is 100% PRIMARY, and 100% bologna. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Charon chooses to call these individual beings of intelligence, "eons." They are otherwise known as electrons... Nothing would be lost from that not being part of Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Neil Oliver
Contains COVID disinformation unchecked by mainstream comments: "Never before in medical history has there been a proposal to vaccinate children against a disease that poses them no measurable harm." See SBM, which of course does not mention every ignorant person repeating the false rumors, as Oliver does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I've cut two of the larger quotes from the Politics section. If it's to be expanded it should be in prose so scientific opinion can be noted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

James Fetzer
Some whitewashing going on at bio of fringe conspiracy theorist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Rookie who whitewashes it (User:Yreuq) refuses to discuss, edit-wars instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Left a Talk page message. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I left a comment stating that his non-controversial achievements need to be supported by better sources, but it looks like you already commented on that in February 2020. -Location (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Where you say a "fringe conspiracy theorist" a lawyer would call libel, because Fetzer is not a fringe writer who all day long (primarily) writes about or promotes conspiracy theories, but an accomplished academic who occasionally voices his opinion under constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. To paint a Wikipedia article on a living academic as though a generally known conspiracy theorist (I've never heard of him before finding this article) not only violates WP:BLP but is just disgusting, plain and simple. And not only is he (and other freely speaking intellectuals like him) being slandered with this article, but editors like me are also subject to WP:WITCHHUNT. I continue this discussion on the article talk page.Yreuq (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theories are a key part of RS coverage of Fetzer. You can't just handwave away reliable source coverage by chanting "BLP" over and over again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously? This man dedicates 99.9% of his time to academic work = bettering all mankind. Yet the article is heavily biased towards portraying him as someone he is not/something he spends 0.1% of his effort on -- and which, by the way, in the US is protected freedom of speech. Yreuq (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no need to add the exact same reasoning to Talk:James Fetzer and here. Above, there is a link to that page, so the discussion should happen there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I said above ("I continue this discussion on the article talk page"), so you should have indented your comment differently (not as a reply to me).Yreuq (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It was indented correctly, since you only claimed to "continue the discussion there" but still duplicated it here in the very same contribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Where you say a "fringe conspiracy theorist" a lawyer would call libel
 * Be very careful of making statements like this, as it could be construed as making a threat to take legal action. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Badge Man


Badge Man is currently a featured article candidate. I think my only remaining concern is the presentation of one particular fringe view by Mark Lane that has no rebuttal. Given that this is something that could appear on the front page, I thought I would mention it here for additional feedback. Please comment in Featured article candidates/Badge Man/archive1. -Location (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's generally bad practice to continue a discussion in an archive page. Start a new discussion on Featured article candidates/Badge Man. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The top of Talk:Badge Man contains the link to Featured article candidates/Badge Man/archive1, and that appears to be the format for all of the articles under current/active discussion on Featured article candidates (e.g. Talk:Angela Lansbury/Featured article candidates/Angela Lansbury/archive1, Battle of Saseno/Featured article candidates/Battle of Saseno/archive2. -Location (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)